Larry, I think in order for us to have a legitimate proof house in the United States some legislation would obviously have to be passed to get the job done. I am a proponent of a legitimate proof house for several reasons but I want a proof house that proofs guns and that's it...that's all they do. If there is ANY sort of gun control earmarked in any sort of legislation with regards to a proof house, I would be strongly opposed and I would be extremely disappointed in myself for being a proponent in the first place. A proof house should proof guns and reproof guns with altered barrels and that is all they should do IMO. Guns that don't pass either are remedied or end up in a junk pile where unsafe guns belong and that is the only control a proof house should have IMO. BTW, I'm growing weary of this thread, aren't you??
Buzz, I'm pretty much with you on all of the above. Gun control . . . Everyone knows about the Iowa Caucuses. What they probably don't know is that, in addition to voting for your party nominee for president, you also get to propose planks for the state party platform. At my 2008 caucus, I proposed that the Iowa CC law be changed from "may issue" to "shall issue". (Another attendee proposed the friendly amendment of "with reciprocity with other states", which I was happy to accept.) Iowa now has shall issue, with reciprocity. I'm guessing I wasn't the only person, in all the caucuses statewide, to make that proposal--but I'm proud to say that I'm the one who made it at my caucus. So that's where I stand on gun control.
As I understand the way the British proofhouse works, if a gun fails proof, it goes back to its owner--who can keep it, hang it on the wall, whatever, but cannot sell it. (Of course if it's a catastrophic failure, that pretty much settles the issue.) I wouldn't want whatever American proofing system we came up with to go beyond that, and like you I would not want to see any "gun control" aspects come from it.
