My Short list of gun laws.
There are some problems with it, which I'll address individually.
1) You can not use a gun to murder people
Why is this necessary? Why should it matter what weapon or tool a person uses to commit murder? The point is, you outlaw murder, regardless of the tool used.
2) You may not brandish your weapon unless a reasonable man would feel threatened.
Unnecessary; self-defense laws should already cover this.
3) You can not knowingly sell a gun to a felon. Make background checks available to the seller? or transaction through a dealer?
4) You can not sell a gun to an insane person Make background checks available to the seller? or transaction through a dealer?
Both of these are okay.
5) Reasonable restrictions should be placed on children's access to guns. (this is a really loaded one.)
You need to define what you consider reasonable.
6) Basic Safety training is required to purchase your first gun.
Not just your first gun, but every gun. You should also need to get re-certification periodically.
7) Use of a gun in the commission of a crime is a crime.
I think it is already the case that the use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime is itself a crime. This doesn't need to be gun-specific.
Background check is required to purchase your first gun. Although I am amenable to each purchase.
I have a better alternative. Make it so that a person has to have a license in order to be able to purchase guns, and make it so that the process of renewing said license includes an automatic background check. Then you don't need to have the seller do a background check, they just call the relevant office and confirm that the data on the card is correct.
9) GWI is illegal. Gunning while intoxicated is a crime.
If you mean carrying a gun while intoxicated, I agree.
1) You can carry a federally licensed gun in any state.
I would agree with this. Federal law supersedes state law, after all.
2) Castle Doctrine, anyone who enters your house with out permission with ill intent may be considered an armed threat and brandish and or use of force is authorized.
I disagree with this and cannot support it. This is nothing less than a license to kill without recourse to the courts or actual legal proceedings.
3) Stand Your Ground any situation where a "reasonable" man would determine a threat to life and limb may brandish and or use deadly force.
Again, this is nothing less than a license to kill, and thus I cannot support it. Furthermore, it is a very poorly formulated doctrine. All we have to do is look at the Zimmerman/Martin incident to see just why it's a bad idea. Zimmerman had no reason to run around the complex he was in when he knew there was a possible intruder who, for all he knew, could have been armed. In fact, he was told as much when he contacted the police. Instead, he stupidly pursued Martin, ended up getting seriously beaten, and as a direct result of being armed, ended up in a "kill or be killed" situation. This is the sort of inane stupidity that will inevitably come about as a result of something like this.
Both the castle doctrine and stand your ground authorize what are essentially vigilante actions by citizens, which go against the whole point of a law-abiding society. This isn't something I'm willing to compromise over when it comes to an overall federal law, I'm afraid. I don't even approve of them when it comes to a state law, but that's less egregious.
4) The number of bullets used to eliminate a threat in 2 and 3 is irrelevant.
Sorry, but this is very relevant. In both situations, it's entirely possible to accidentally hit a bystander or damage someone else's property; bullets don't necessarily stop when they hit a house wall, either. At the very least, they need to be civilly liable for any damage they do with their gun, which necessitates something like gun insurance.