geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
If is my position that some VERY SLIGHT restrictions are reasonable for the protection of society at large.
They are:
-Demonstrated irresponsibility/sociopathy as proven by convictions for violent felonies. This disability must NOT be permanent, and a fair method for restoration of rights must exist. If you haven't crimed in 20 years, I think you're a safe chance to take.
-Mental illness, of the order of magnitude that the person presents a direct and immediate danger to themselves or other. For this, I use the EXACT SAME YARDSTICK that the law and medical professionals use to INVOLUNTARILY COMMIT someone to an asylum. Anything less than that is BS.
-Age: Parental discretion and accountability, after 18, anything goes.
-Weapon Type Restrictions: Any personal, aimed, non area effect weapons is allowed. (Bombs, gas and so forth are acceptable in a militia, rather than personal context, as they are not amenable to personal defense. )
-Carriage: If you can own a weapon, you can carry it as you see fit, because your right of self defense exists whereever you stand.
I think most of us would agree that this is the outer limit of what can be termed "Reasonable Gun Control", and there is a little bit of precedent in the Founder's writings, phrases such as "the right of citizens who are peaceable..." and the like.
There is, however, a hidden LAND MINE that hasn't been discussed yet, which is the mechanism of implementation.
If you have a system where you weapons ownership is divided into a prohibited/allowed class, there are 2 basic flavors of implementation, and these make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.
Flavor A) People are PRESUMED TO BE PROHIBITED unless proven otherwise, and
Flavor B) People are PRESUMED TO BE ALLOWED unless proven otherwise.
Naturally, flavor B is the one that promotes maximum freedom for maximum people, and is also consistent with maxims of law and justics, such as "innocent until proven guilty".
Most of the problems we have around gun rights are largely about Flavor A, as practiced in NJ, CA, MA, MD, IL, CHI, NY, NYC, where a citizen must prove their eligibility before even being allowed to purchase. As much as I love my politically incorrect weaponry, (and they all are as unPC as legally possible) issues of flash hiders and boyonett mounts have to take a back seat to the fundamental issue of access to firearms of any sort.
States where flavor B is practiced, such as PA, NH, etc are much less problematic.
Philosophically, I don't like carry permits, per se, because they seriously threaten to convert a right into a privilege, as is the defacto case with mere ownership in this dark and blasted heath of a state, but that is a rant for another day.
They are:
-Demonstrated irresponsibility/sociopathy as proven by convictions for violent felonies. This disability must NOT be permanent, and a fair method for restoration of rights must exist. If you haven't crimed in 20 years, I think you're a safe chance to take.
-Mental illness, of the order of magnitude that the person presents a direct and immediate danger to themselves or other. For this, I use the EXACT SAME YARDSTICK that the law and medical professionals use to INVOLUNTARILY COMMIT someone to an asylum. Anything less than that is BS.
-Age: Parental discretion and accountability, after 18, anything goes.
-Weapon Type Restrictions: Any personal, aimed, non area effect weapons is allowed. (Bombs, gas and so forth are acceptable in a militia, rather than personal context, as they are not amenable to personal defense. )
-Carriage: If you can own a weapon, you can carry it as you see fit, because your right of self defense exists whereever you stand.
I think most of us would agree that this is the outer limit of what can be termed "Reasonable Gun Control", and there is a little bit of precedent in the Founder's writings, phrases such as "the right of citizens who are peaceable..." and the like.
There is, however, a hidden LAND MINE that hasn't been discussed yet, which is the mechanism of implementation.
If you have a system where you weapons ownership is divided into a prohibited/allowed class, there are 2 basic flavors of implementation, and these make ALL THE DIFFERENCE IN THE WORLD.
Flavor A) People are PRESUMED TO BE PROHIBITED unless proven otherwise, and
Flavor B) People are PRESUMED TO BE ALLOWED unless proven otherwise.
Naturally, flavor B is the one that promotes maximum freedom for maximum people, and is also consistent with maxims of law and justics, such as "innocent until proven guilty".
Most of the problems we have around gun rights are largely about Flavor A, as practiced in NJ, CA, MA, MD, IL, CHI, NY, NYC, where a citizen must prove their eligibility before even being allowed to purchase. As much as I love my politically incorrect weaponry, (and they all are as unPC as legally possible) issues of flash hiders and boyonett mounts have to take a back seat to the fundamental issue of access to firearms of any sort.
States where flavor B is practiced, such as PA, NH, etc are much less problematic.
Philosophically, I don't like carry permits, per se, because they seriously threaten to convert a right into a privilege, as is the defacto case with mere ownership in this dark and blasted heath of a state, but that is a rant for another day.