Firearm laws you do support....

No one under 18 can purchase w/o parental/guardian approval

proper licensing of Nuc/Bio/Chem weapons

NFA for artillery- though I used to think this was ok for beltfeds too till some on here changed my mind

No guns at polls, courthouses, prisons, private property if they don't want them there, and perhaps military bases w/o bussiness there

ppl in prison, on parole or probation(though once out of jail etc rights are restored)
Further the # of felony offensses should be decreased

No guns at polls, courthouses...

Click to expand...

Why no guns at polls or courthouses? Perfectly legal to carry to the polls (unless your polling place happens to be a K-12 school) here in Pennsylvania. It's not a problem. Courthouses by law must provide secure storage for the firearms of those who choose to go armed. I'm not in love with that one, but it seems to work pretty well. The last time I had to go to court I was called for jury duty. Why should a prospective juror be disarmed?

Well, since I don't have the authority to change the Constitution... None.

I'll repeat it.....

Yes, I support one gun law.

The second amendment to the constitution of these great United States of America.

That's the one and only LEGAL gun law ever written.

Every other gun law ever written is unconstitutional and as such is null and void.

But I won't argue the point on the side of the road at 2 am with a duly appointed officer of the law.

I obey the laws. I also eat leafy green vegetables. I don't have to like either one.

unloved,
A lot of the laws were passed regarding polls to keep people(mainly black who were denied firearms) from influencing voter turnout.
I don't think it's a bad rule since you can just keep it in the car.
As for court I didn't say prohibited to bring with you- just that in court I don't think weapons are neccessary- The courts job(ideally anyway) is to apply the law equally and fairly. If jurors may be threatned they can be sequestered by law. That would be defeated if intimidation was allowed in the courtroom. just my opinion. So for court I think they should be checked at the door. Now schools? I see no reason why they should be prohibited.

I totally agree with you Tinman. Since the Constitution states that it's the supreme law of the land except for treaty law, ALL existing gun laws are illegal. If the 2nd Amendment only applies to people over 18 who aren't convicted felons (like many here on this forum think is ok), then why should the 1st Amendment be treated any differently? According to the logic that says that only adults 18 and up can own a gun, you MUST also come to the conclusion that only people 18 years old and up are protected by the 1st Amendment.

i agree with kingpin008

i cant support a city banning a certain business at all. even if it brings money to suburbs. it probably put some gun shop owners out of business too that were with in city limits.

as far as gun laws off the top of my head there isn't to meny that has kept anyone safe. keeping guns from "violent felons law" maybe but if they want to commit violent crime they will find a weapon. Not all felons are lifetime career criminals. some made a bad desicion at a young age. A nd not all are the murdering thief'n type.

I'm pretty much on board with restricting tactical thermonuclear devices. All the other laws, not so much.

Why do some of you not support my right to own Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons? Where does it make an exception for that in the Bill of Rights?

Gun laws I'd support.

People who advocate against private ownership of guns shouldn't be allowed to own any themselves. They also shouldn't be allowed to hire security that employs guns to protect them.

Government gun laws should also apply to government agencies as well.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree with laws restricting private ownership of weapons that are capable of destroying entire city blocks, or entire cities for that matter. I also agree with keeping guns out of prisons, courtrooms, and psych wards. Beyond that, free citizens should be allowed to be armed with their weapon of choice at all times.

Why do some of you not support my right to own Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons? Where does it make an exception for that in the Bill of Rights?

Click to expand...

Because those items have no value in regards to personal liberty. If you fire off a nuke to stop some robbers from taking your wallet, you will be dead along with everyone else in town as well. How does that protect your freedom?
Even if you consider the 2A in the sense of a militia defending a free state, a chemical/bio/nuke weapon serves no purpose if you are using it to defend your own land. I mean, what's the point of toxifying your own country and killing your own people? How does that protect your freedom or the freedom of others?

I do not think convicted violent felons (what was originally a felony were crimes of violence) should be able to own firearms. They should not be able to vote either. Illegal aliens should not be able to own/possess firearms.

Other than that, I think other firearms laws are pretty much garbage. If you can own a gun, you should be able to carry it wherever you want. Violent crimes are already against the law. The tax stamp crap to own machine guns, suppressors, sbr, sbs, and aow's I do not agree with either. People should be able to do what they want with their money. Punish the criminal severely not the people who want to buy objects with additional hassles and costs.

After reading a good many of the responses and how they differ, I propose a law that creates a "Supreme Court Of Gun Loving Citizens". All Congress approved gun related laws would require a 2/3's majority before becoming law.

The collectivist sees the individual as a link in a chain that must not be subjected to more strain than the weakest link can bear. Therefore everyone is treated like the weakest link and subjected to restrictions based on what they might do. In other words, if some people can not be trusted with weapons then NOBODY should have access to weapons (except the government of course). The individualist is under no such delusion. He believes that crime is an action rather than a thing. Simply possessing something is not the same as using it to harm or threaten others. Most of us would be perfectly safe if we owned a warehouse full of machine guns where as someone that is criminally insane might be dangerous if he can get his hands on a rock. Preemptive laws presuppose guilt based solely on the potential to commit crime. This is diametrically opposed to the Constitutional system of justice that presumes innocence until a person is proven guilty.

cyclopsshooter said:

i liked having policy back me up when i turned down a sale to a crazy guy last week-

"im sorry sir, i do not believe you have the capacity to safely own this firearm"

customer response N/A due to THR decency rules...

Click to expand...

I have been there before! Its hard to do because you don't know what the customers reaction will be but some people just don't show the mental capacity to wield a deadly weapon. Thats one thing i like about the laws in Tennessee, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation gives me the choice of a optional proceed if i don't feel comfortable selling the gun to somebody....but thats why people shouldn't act stupid in a store your trying to buy a gun from.

* I support the taxing/restricting of machine guns and explosive ammunition under the 1934 National firearms Act. I support the ability of civilians to economically purchase and practice/legally-employ such weapons, but let's be honest, these are weapons with far more destructive potential than a standard semi-auto.

* I support a required background check to purchase a firearm, regardless of whether it is a private FTF sale or a dealer sale. Allow normal citizenry access to the NICS database on a reasonably quick basis (less than 10 mins, cell-phone access). Modify the method of checking at the governmental level to check by SSN and not merely by name so as to remove the possibility of a 'delay'.

* I support the denial of a convicted violent felon or someone who has been diagnosed with a significant mental illness [schizophrenia, suicidally-severe depression, ect] from buying or possessing a firearm. There is a fine line and a wide gray area that must be tread carefully here. I think that post-treatment, if an individual does not require medication to be 'safe', then he/she has his/her right reinstated.

* I think that in order to carry a firearm on one's person one must prove to the government that one can adequately aim and control a firearm and is responsible enough to react/discern scenarios and appropriately employ force. IE, a carry license. However, my idea of a carry licence is federal, 50-state accepted, has no restrictions of location excepting private property, and requires no renewal.

Now, alot of the forum members here might disagree with me to varying degrees of vehemency. Fundamentally, I do not buy the 'price of freedom' argument, and do place a limit on the 'slippery slope' argument (though as said, a limit. It is valid to an extent).
What can I say? I'm a moderate. Everyone hates me.

I support the second amendment. I support gun ownership being restricted to citizens and non-criminals. I also support stiff penalties for anyone committing a crime with a gun. Most everything else is static.

Some on here may disagree with the following statement, but I respectfully disagree. There are many law-abiding DOCUMENTED permanent resident aliens that are hardworking individuals in this country who contribute greatly to society. Some permanent resident aliens do own guns in the US, I think it should be restricted to citizens. We do the same thing with voting and serving on juries, why not firearms? Firearms ownership is an inalienable right for US Citizens due to being promised in the US Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

US Citizens have to do the following:
1. Uphold the Constitution
2. Renounce all other national allegiances.
3. Swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
4. Bear arms in defense of the Constitution when called upon to do so.
5. Perform service of national importance under civilian direction.
6. Freely make the commitments listed above.

US Citizenship oath
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God

Click to expand...

What are your thoughts?

I used to support certain restrictions such as barring felons and minors from purchasing and possessing firearms, but after speaking with many who I would call "smarter and more learned in the ways of the world" than I, and doing my own research, the only firearm law I support is the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Who are we to decide who should have the ability to defend themselves from those that would do him/her harm? Violent felons, illegal immigrants, and minors have the same right to life that I do. Why should they not be allowed to defend it with the most effective means available? People abusing their freedoms is but a small price to pay for living in a free society. I will gladly take such a risk to maintain my freedoms.

I really believe that anyone unable to own a gun over 18 should be locked up

Click to expand...

Tell that to the 18 year old senior who got his 17 year old girl friend pregnant and got convicted of "statutory felony rape".......

I support a rule saying you must pass a proficiency test by firearm type (rifle, handgun, shotgun) before you are able to buy one. Once you have passed, there would be no need for anything else.

No carry allowed inside any prison or jail - just too dangerous; as to courthouses or airplanes, folks did for many years without problems

No rights of ANY kind for illegals, not just guns

Then again, I think prisoners shouldn't be as coddled as they are now either........

In the town of Love Valley NC, it is illegal to carry a firearm that isn't loaded. I support that gun law.

Click to expand...

That makes me feel better about my state.

I support parts of the FOPA, namely saying non-NFA firearms do not need registry. (I do not support Hughes).

Other than that, the second amendment (although more a right than a law)

I think we need some regulation, like the laws preventing wackos and criminals from getting guns, and a background check I am OK with, as long as I don't pay any fees. I do think however, one right we lack due to the import ban on non-sporting guns is, there are guns that would be deemed non-sporting under the law, but because made in USA is on them they are magically immune. The law (I don't know which) is clearly unconstitutional as a SVD copy made in USA for example is just as deadly as a real SVD, its a law that is wishful thinking in our manufacturing can replace foreign completely, proven in other areas such as clothing.

My two cents, and hopefully I did not go too in depth...

No sales to minors
No sales to felons
Continued NON registration of gun purchases

I WOULD, however put an extra "step" in the FTF sale of all semi-auto weapons (pistols and rifles)

Currently there is an on-line check that occurs when buying a firearm
from a retail store. I believe that this background check is not a hinderence to a law-abiding citizen.

I would propose a standard fee for this service to the retail store for a FTF service. (sort of like an FFL fee, that would go to the store, $25ish) This check WILL NOT catch everything, BUT would weed out
a criminals/terrorist/illegal that could be purchasing a weapon for a planned deed.

Joe Seller meets Jane Buyer at the store and has the on-line check completed. The weapon can then be transfered.

The seller can now feel good that the weapon that they just sold, is not going to a criminal.

I have to say that I am worried that the FTF sales may put a rifle in the hand of someone turned down by every other method.

The anti gun folks are growing and are ready to pounce on ANYTHING.

Voting, non-gun owning, "joe public" will NOT tolerate many more gun incedences

According to my Brit friends, the "last straw" of gun ownership came when a nutbag opened up at a school

I know I am going to get flamed, but this IS a loophole that COULD impact legal gun ownership in the US.

Just my 2 cents

bear71 said:

Please state some firearm laws that you agree with and believe to be just, though the typical NRA member might not.

Click to expand...

If the actions of the NRA are any indication, the typical NRA member likes far too much regulation on their guns.


I am OK with the current form 4473 and NICS check. Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing. Nonviolent felonies should not be a reason to deny a purchase though.

The interstate part of the GCA is utterly ridiculous. I am a citizen of the USA, not one particular state or another. A dealer in any given state can run the check just as well as any other.

The mess of regulations and weird rulings that the ATF has spawned needs to go, especially where it makes it hard to tell if something is legal or not and all the messing around with imported firearms (no AK barrels with parts kits, 922r, etc).

The NFA needs to go, period.

My comment may not answer the question directly, but I think it's valid to the topic anyway.

ALL firearm laws are meant to preempt an act already illegal - that is murder or attempted murder. Anyone willing to commit murder will never be stopped by a law punishable by a lesser sentence.

I'll give two simple examples, though hundreds are possible:

Guns in school zones. Murder is already illegal.
Hi-cap mags. Murder is already illegal.

I don't think any law can fairly discriminate between a person using a gun for defense or offense. It's just not possible with the one exception of keeping the the most violent criminals from possessing guns. Check forging, pot smoking and conspiracy do not qualify as violent - just to name a few.