First off, full disclosure. I am a military vertren and a firearms owner. I am also very conservative in my interpretation of the US Constitution. I am also conservative in my Catholic beliefs.
Having said that, I am open to debate/discussion about controling/reducing firearms violence but I insist on having terms defined.
As I understand it, the USCCB supports renewal of the 1994 federal ban on assault weapons. My problem with this is the definition of “assult weapon”. I got this from Wikipedia…“Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions, but usually includes semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a flash suppressor or barrel shroud.”
Now I carry a Colt 1911A1 knockoff, a colt .45 for those not used to military weapons nomenclature. This is a pistol that I am licensed to carry concealed by my state. It is fairly large as pistols go and I am not a big man (5’9", 165 lbs) yet I can conceal it. Even so, this pistol fits the general definition of “assult weapon”. It is semi-automatic (fires one round with every trigger pull). It has a detachable magazine. (Magazines for .45s can hold between 7 and 50 rounds.) Finally, being a pistol, it has a pistol grip.
Now everyone knows what an assult weapon is but when you try to pin it down precisely, (as you must in the law) the definiition becomes so vauge as to be rediculous or so prcise that minor changes to a wapon move it out of the catagory. The term was originally coined in the military after WWII to deferntiate between full size battle rifles (M-1 Garande, '98 Mauser, Lee-Enfield, etc) and newer, lighter rifles like the German SG44, and Soviet AK47 (both of wich are capable of full automatic fire; ie pull the triggar and fire continues until it is relased or the magazine is empty).
On to background checks. We have those in place and they work when the data is entered into the data base. The Sutherland Springs shooter wuold not have een able to legally buy a firearm if the Air Force and civil authoriaties had done their job.
The USCCB want limitations on high powered weapons. Again we run into a definition problem. My .45 pistol has a maximum (not effective) range of over a mile and is deadly, if it hits a person for much of that distance. A .22 LR (target rifle) has a maximum range of over 1.5 miles. The average deer rifle uses the same ammunition as a combat rifle. What is high power?
As for more firearms laws, according to Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy at the Brookings Institution (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/01/four-gun-claims-that-are-just-plain-wrong)There are over 300 Federal and state laws concerning firearms. These are laws and do not include regulations. If what is aleady on the books is properly enforced, I believe that we do not need more.
I had to cut the part on safeties for length of reply.
Now they come to a part that I do not have any problem with; improved access to mental health care. That is not unreasonable.