"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's of course a tired refrain on both sides of the aisle, with gun controllers screaming "Militia! It's not individuals!" with gun rights proponents saying "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!". Your proposal I feel is a good step in the right direction for a conversation about managing civilian firearms in the 21st century. However, you admitted it would not pass constitutional muster in it's first iteration. I liked your idea about changing the proposal to apply to FFL holders, but am not completely sold. Specifically, this proposal needs to not limit keeping or bearing, and on the contrary, EXPAND keeping and bearing arms, for it to gain any significant traction in the pro-gun community. You're right to start this conversation. I love what you've come up with so far. Gun owners and gun rights supporters need to bring a solution to the table, instead of merely trying to rebuff the heinous proposals of congressional gun controllers. That may work for a time, but as the perception of mass shootings (I say perception because, as I'm sure you already know owning an AR-15, gun violence has been tracking downward) going up continues, gun rights supports will get eventually voted out by controllers simply because they will "do something". How can we modify this proposal to expand gun freedoms while at the same time providing accountability to gun owners and attempting to prevent bad actors from obtaining weapons?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
That's of course a tired refrain on both sides of the aisle, with gun controllers screaming "Militia! It's not individuals!" with gun rights proponents saying "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!". Your proposal I feel is a good step in the right direction for a conversation about managing civilian firearms in the 21st century. However, you admitted it would not pass constitutional muster in it's first iteration. I liked your idea about changing the proposal to apply to FFL holders, but am not completely sold. Specifically, this proposal needs to not limit keeping or bearing, and on the contrary, EXPAND keeping and bearing arms, for it to gain any significant traction in the pro-gun community. You're right to start this conversation. I love what you've come up with so far. Gun owners and gun rights supporters need to bring a solution to the table, instead of merely trying to rebuff the heinous proposals of congressional gun controllers. That may work for a time, but as the perception of mass shootings (I say perception because, as I'm sure you already know owning an AR-15, gun violence has been tracking downward) going up continues, gun rights supports will get eventually voted out by controllers simply because they will "do something". How can we modify this proposal to expand gun freedoms while at the same time providing accountability to gun owners and attempting to prevent bad actors from obtaining weapons?