Samuel Kuznetsky and Larry Suprun Proposal on Gun Control


Reference to a current Michigan bill or law that relates in some way to your proposal:

Why this proposal will make a difference in the lives of students of all ages across Michigan, or a significant subgroup (by age, background, economic status, and/or region, etc.) of students in Michigan:

How and where did you learn about the issues underlying your proposal?

How has your service activity influenced your thinking about this proposal?

Link to your media artifact(s) giving background on the issue:

Our infographic: Gun Control


Talk directly with at least 3 real live people who have special knowledge about this topic or the impact your proposal would have, and summarize their comments. These may include people appearing in your media artifact (video, podcast, etc.).






Describe the specific issue or problem, being sure to provide sufficient context so that someone less familiar with the issue has a sense of the bigger picture, but know that your focus here is on a more detailed spelling out of the specific problem or issue that you’ve identified. (250 words minimum)


Potential Solutions:

Describe three reasonable, feasible potential solutions or approaches that would help address this problem.

SOLUTION 1: If a person tries to buy a gun, that individual is either granted the right to purchase the firearm, denied, or delayed following a background check. If a person is delayed, in the state of Michigan there is a three day period where there is a further review of the buyer's record. Even if not enough information is found after 3 days, the person is granted the right to purchase the gun. In other states, the delay period is 10 days. We do not think it is feasible to eliminate the delay process entirely, but we think it would be effective to extend the delay period in Michigan from 3 to 10 days to allow the state more time to find information on potential buyers.

SOLUTION 2:The state of Michigan does not force potential gun purchasers to meet with their local municipalities. After speaking with the head of pistol registration at the Ann Arbor Police Department, we found out this used to be a requirement and something that officer Briney found to be an effective tool keep dangerous individuals from purchasing guns. Other states require individuals to meet with their local police department. Local police have more information on residents than the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Forcing individuals to meet with local municipalities will allow for a more effective background check.

SOLUTION 3: Only guns over 26 inches require a background check in the state of Michigan. That means that individuals that would be denied the right to buy a gun under 26 inches would be granted the right to purchase a gun over 26 inches. This is a hole in the system. Forcing all guns to require a background check would keep dangerous individuals from owning guns. Size should not determine a background check, but instead all purchasers should be background checked.


Reaction or advice from a Topic Coordinator:

You must solicit a critique from a topic coordinator, and explain the impact that advice has had on the final draft of this proposal.


Research process:

Describe your research process — indicate who you talked to (including but not limited to consultants), what you read, what your thinking was, how it changed over time, and how your consultants changed your thinking. This description of your research process definitely could include “dead ends,” or ideas you had that didn’t ultimately bear fruit.  In short, we want to know what you did and how it led to your legislation, and we also want you to give us a window into your thought process.


Author contributions:

Please delineate--in detail--who made what contributions to the process and to the finished proposal? Who took on which responsibilities in researching ideas, drafting language, etc.?



The sections below should comprise your final proposal language, submitted for consideration by your peers and potential inclusion in the MSC Platform.

Preambulatory clauses

These set up the PROBLEM, but not the solution.




(Add more "Whereas" clauses if necessary.)

Operative clauses

These describe in detail, the solution you are proposing (not the problem itself; those should go in the "Whereas" clauses above).





(Add more "Resolved" clauses if necessary.)


What are three reasonable arguments against this proposal?




Costs and funding:

What will your proposal cost (in direct expenses, lost tax revenue, lost economic opportunity, and/or non-monetary costs)? How will you pay for your proposed legislation? Where will/could the funding for your proposal come from?  Who might object to dedicating resources to your proposal (competing interests)?  



These can include websites or other information you have found about the issue.


  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Total votes: 0