What, exactly, are these ‘common sense’ gun ‘reforms’ antis want?

There was much news over the weekend, the most recent being a piece in yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor, quoting would-be president Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said Saturday that the nation needs “common-sense gun control reforms.”

She was speaking to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, many of whom have belonged to anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns. That’s the group with the public relations problem of explaining how so many of its former members have been convicted of various crimes that landed at least some of them in prison.

A Wall Street Journal blog indicated that among Clinton’s “reforms” would be the so-called “universal background check.” Background checks have worked so well in recent years that they didn’t stop Santa Barbara spree killer Elliot Rodger, Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis, both Fort Hood gunmen Nidal Hasan (2009) and Ivan Lopez (2014), accused movie massacre gunman James Holmes, Arapahoe High School gunman Karl Pierson, Tucson gunman Jared Lee Loughner, and apparently accused Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof.

According to the Charlotte Observer, “Investigators have not publicly discussed how Roof is believed to have acquired a gun.” Roof may have purchased a .45-caliber Glock pistol with money he got from his parents on his birthday in April. This was weeks after he had been arrested on drug charges, but the newspaper went to great length to explain how the purchase might have happened.

The question remains. What exactly, are the “common sense reforms” that have been called for by the gun prohibition lobby, and proponents of tougher gun laws including Clinton and President Barack Obama? Would they include:

• Handgun licensing and registration?
• Background checks on every “transfer” (not just sales, but temporary loans and gifts)?
• One gun a month?
• “Smart gun” mandates?
• Permit required for purchase of a firearm?
• Discretionary (arbitrary) concealed carry permits/licenses?
• Limits on the number of firearms one may own?
• Gun confiscation?
• “Safe” storage requirements, to be inspected by police?
• A ban on semi-auto rifles and shotguns?
• Magazine capacity limits?
• Licensing and registration of gun owners?
• Prohibit suspected terrorists on a watch list from buying?
• Ban guns for domestic abusers?
• Prohibit anyone taking psychotropic drugs from possession?

The argument against any or all of these is that they reduce the right to keep and bear arms to a heavily-regulated government-granted privilege. But before dismissing these suggestions as non-starters, proponents of “common sense reforms” – whatever they happen to be – need to get specific. At least Clinton has pointed to the background check as one possible measure, and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers or people with mental illness. But would any of these measure have prevented a determined killer from getting his hands on a gun and committing a crime?

Clinton and other anti-gunners should also agree that if, after a certain time has passed, these gun laws don’t work – which they won’t – they all be immediately scrapped. Destroy gun registries. Dismiss licensing requirements. Restore open or concealed carry without a license or permit. Would the gun control crowd go along with any of this?

As the nation continues to reel from the Charleston church attack, those who now seek to exploit it to push their agenda need to define in great detail what, exactly, that agenda includes. They need to explain what it is about their proposals – whatever they are – that will, as Clinton insisted the other day, still respect the Second Amendment and “responsible gun owners” while keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazy people.

So far, there has not been much success with gun laws to prevent mass shootings, armed robberies, planned or random homicides, assault or accidental and negligent shootings. Which “new” proposal will be the magic measure? It’s time for gun control proponents to tell the country precisely what they want, so that the nation’s gun owners can politely tell them once again to take a hike.