The phrase “common sense gun laws” is something a lot of politicians enjoy throwing around. It’s also popular to make statements to the media claiming gun owners themselves support XYZ law or practice, whether or not it’s accurate. Politicians on both sides of the aisle are constantly looking for ways to assert that the bill they wrote or are backing is either gun-owner approved or would be, if only firearms fans would use common sense.
So, are there any legit “common sense” gun laws on the books? We’re going to take a look at this from two perspectives: That of a gun owner who believes certain restrictions are necessary, and that of one who doesn’t. Let’s get to it.
Perspective One: All Gun Laws Are an Infringement
Some gun owners have the opinion that each and every gun law in existence is an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. While this might sound extreme on the surface, there’s some logic to it. After all, the Second Amendment was written not to grant the right to bear arms but to re-affirm an existing right (so say many constitutional lawyers and scholars). That could be interpreted to mean that it’s a major overstep for the government to attempt to control any aspect of firearms ownership and use.
Jordan Stein, the president of Students at Liberty for Gun Rights, once wrote:
Taking the context of the Second Amendment is critical. In the eighteenth century, the term “regulated” did not mean what it means today. In Webster’s An American Dictionary of the English Language, the dictionary of the time of America’s founding, “regulated” is defined as “adjusted by rule, method or forms.” So, “regulated” meant well-rehearsed and uniform – without oversight from the government….
…This means that all restrictions on the private ownership of firearms are an infringement.
That would mean every gun law on the books infringes on Second Amendment rights from filling out a 4473 to acquire a new gun to magazine capacity restrictions. Of course, there are other schools of thought.
Perspective Two: There’s Nothing Wrong With More Gun Control Laws
There are also gun owners that fall on the other end of the spectrum. These are people who might own a gun or two, but they see no issue with the increasing number of gun control laws. Oftentimes this is a hunter who feels the only necessary firearm is a bolt-action rifle, so they’re all for restricting the AR platform. Other times it’s a person who owns a handgun for self-defense use at home and feels anyone carrying a gun out in public for protection is being paranoid and/or asking for trouble.
We’ve seen interesting patterns in gun owners who claim neutrality or support of gun laws. For example, the pistol brace regulation announced by the ATF was decried by some as a major infringement while others felt it didn’t matter because “it’s just a pistol brace, and who really needs those anyway?” This group of gun owners rarely includes people who spend extended lengths of time training and carrying.
In “Many gun owners support gun control. So why don’t they speak out?” which was written for NPR by Allison Aubrey, gun owner and NRA member Richard Small was the focus of the story:
The loudest voices get the most attention, Small says. And in the wake of Uvalde, he has become more vocal about his support for stricter gun control. He made headlines when he handed over an assault-style rifle he owns to local police just after the school shooting, realizing he didn’t want to own such a lethal weapon, and he didn’t want it to end up in the wrong hands, which he says could happen if he sold it at a gun show.
It’s clear there are two extreme sides in the gun world when it comes to gun laws, but is there also a middle ground? As it so happens, there is.
Perspective Three: Meeting in the Middle
Where the middle lies depends on who you ask, but for the purposes of this article, let’s say meeting in the middle means you don’t support further restrictions but aren’t arguing against the current basic laws. You also might find some of the more restrictive laws, like magazine capacity limits and pistol brace regulation, to be a violation. But when it comes to the bare bones of gun law, maybe you’re okay with it. What does that mean? Are there really common-sense gun laws?
The term “common sense gun laws” really came from the mainstream media and is typically used as a blanket term that applies to every gun law in existence (and any to come). It might be a more accurate description to refer to certain gun laws as understandable or even logical, in some ways.
One such example is the background check to buy firearms from an FFL. This process involves filling out a Form 4473, handing over your state-issued, current ID, and waiting for the background check to be completed. Sometimes it takes minutes, sometimes it takes hours, and still others it takes days.
Many, if not most, gun owners have voiced their support for keeping the existing purchase laws in place. It’s common for politicians on both sides of the aisle to talk about a need for universal background checks or tighter restrictions on sales, but in reality, the laws are already in place, they just aren’t adhered to by the very people who signed them into being.
Part of the firearms purchase process involving a Form 4473 involves a background check that should catch any problems that legally stop a person from buying or possessing a firearm. That might include a felony record, involuntary mental health commitment, or certain domestic violence charges and/or convictions.
The thing is, the authorities responsible for entering those charges and records into the database don’t always do it. That’s allowed restricted people to buy guns in the past. It isn’t a failure of the existing background checks, it’s a failure of the person who didn’t bother putting information into the system. To some, the current background check laws are just fine, if only they were used consistently and correctly.
What about training requirements?
Many gun owners believe the training requirements some states have in effect in order to get a carry permit are a good idea. After all, a lot of people buy a gun, toss the box in the closet, and never touch it again. Even people who carry guns for self-defense use don’t necessarily have any training.
The government-mandated training is seen by some as a common sense gun law because it ensures people spend at least one day in a classroom and on the range doing some live fire. In fact, there are those who would like to see it taken a step further with mandatory training on a national level not just to obtain a carry permit but to buy a gun at all.
There’s some logic behind this belief. Proper training is a good thing and it would be fantastic if everyone who owned a gun was taught to use it not only safely but with some degree of skill. Where do we set the standard, though? What is considered enough?
The National Firearms Act of 1934
Something else seen as a common sense gun law by some gun owners is the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Certain firearms fall under the control of the NFA, meaning they must be registered and have extra taxes paid for them. Guns controlled and regulated by the NFA include those capable of full-auto fire. Other factors come into play as well such as the year the full-auto firearm was made and the length of the barrel. Owning one takes a significant financial investment and an application process, among other things. That is an oversimplification and there are other items that fall under the NFA, but you get the general idea.
It makes sense to certain gun owners that a suppressor or a full-auto firearm would be regulated and taxed. To them, that is a common sense gun law, because why does anyone really need those things?
Here’s where we come to the crux of the matter. What is and is not seen as common sense depends on personal opinion. Everyone has a different opinion on the matter. Just remember that simply because you yourself do not currently own a device or gun that’s being regulated or banned by the government doesn’t mean yours won’t be next.
Do you think there are any common-sense gun laws? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
