A reasonable regulation? What could one be?

Actually, I think Scalia laid out the basis for "reasonable regulation" nicely in his Heller opinion.

A reasonable regulation would be one that survived the type of strict scrutiny given other fundamental rights expressly written into the Bill of Rights.

There are likely a lot of grey areas here that could be explored endlessly; but I think one thing that would be straight out the window as not meeting that type of scrutiny is broad, preemptive bans on entire classes of firearms currently in common use.

Shall we declare you not eligible to speak, practice the religion of your choice, resist unreasonable search, be tried by jury, etc. then?

Click to expand...

We already do some of that - have you tried operating a transmitter without an FCC license? Until the advent of the Internet, a lot of what got said and heard in this country was controlled by people who had the capital to own and operate radio and television stations. Ever tried using a bullhorn from your front porch without a local permit in an urban area?

For that matter, practicing the religion of your choice doesn't mean we let you sacrifice virgins, marry 20 wives, or numerous other restrictions.

People should take a real good look at those types of restrictions found reasonable in the past for other Bill of Rights; because I guarantee that these arguments will surface again in the future with regard to the Second.

As for the absolutist view in favor here - it isn't realistic and it won't win. You would be lucky to get Thomas to adopt that view and no other Justice would even come close. There will need to be a GIANT change in the underlying culture of this country before that is ever accepted. Not to mention that the best way to get tto that underlying culture change is to first show that gradually removing other more ridiculous restrictions doesn't result in the sky falling.

i still like the "every house has to have at least one long arm and 100rds of ammo"

Click to expand...

That's basically what the Founding Fathers had in mind (at least in part) with the Militia Act of 1792: every able man was required to be minimally equipped, and inform the state that he was equipped and available.

None.
I don't like to be at a disadvantage..

Click to expand...

Which is exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment: that we the people should never be, by prohibition, at a disadvantage to our enemies. Those who would limit what we can own are facilitating our enemies, and thus should not be trusted.

Macadore,

What do you think "well regulated" means?

Quote:
Before someone flames me, I understand what “shall not be infringed” means. I also understand that phrase is often taken out of context. The Second Amendment begins with “A well regulated militia being necessary”.

Click to expand...

Today 02:28 AM

Click to expand...

I covered that in my original post. According to H.L Mencken, “For every human problem, there is a neat, simple solution; and it is always wrong”. I don’t have a simple answer.

There is no reasonable regulation to prohibit the right of self defense.

If a schoolkid wants to buy a machine gun from the hardware store, he or she should have a note from his or her parents.

A reasionable regulation is that all households must have at least 1 rifle in the current miltary caliber in use.

I strongly agree with a requirement for firearms safety training for all kids in school, but I'd do it in 6th or 7th grade. It would include live firing, and target practice, plus instruciton in cleaning and maintenance. The firearms class would also cover laws regarding the use of force in that state and all applicable laws regarding carrying/transporting (almost none in my society). That way, kids would learn what the law really is, instead of forming their opinions from the drivel that a TV producer decides to feed them.

I agree with what others have posted regarding the types of weapons that would be regulated. The big destructive stuff needs to be kept from the general public, but anything that propels a non-explosive bullet would be OK. Just like a gas guzzler...if you want to pay to feed it, knock yourself out!

Violent felons would be banished to a huge reservation somewhere out in the badlands, surrounded by landmines and whatever other technology was needed to keep them there. They'd be tattooed and sterilized on the way in, and their food/supplies would be drop-shipped with parachutes. My society would have a one strike policy, and kids would be educated about it from an early age. Just like almost nobody thinks to use a car as a weapon, nobody would think about using a firearm in a crime in my society, either.

In my society, a firearm would be roughly the equivalent of a toaster.

Some people may find this a bit critical but just to give you my background; I sit pretty far right as a conservative. I loathe the Clinton's, Brady's, Pelosi’s Reid’s Kennedy’s and any other morons that try to push us into marxist socialism/communism/totalitarianism and remove or restrict what guns we can own. Here is where some of you will get a bit angry I'm guessing.

I have time and time again gone to my local rod and gun club (shooting range) and have had to tell newbies to keep their weapons (loaded) pointed down range. I've seen these idiots mistakenly fire a shot down through the shooting benches and just giggle it off and now if I see folks at the range that I don't know are safety conscience I sit in my truck and watch to see if they practice decent safety practices. I‘ve gone so far as to even wearing my vest to the range for fear of accidental discharge hitting me.

I don't see any problem with someone taking a one-time class such as one like the hunters safety course but focusing more on operation and safety of different types of firearms and without this class they can't buy a firearm.
I grew up in the time when my father taught me safety and I knew guns inside and out before I was able to purchase my first. It doesn't seem like as many folks are doing that these days. Let me know what you think.

This is a little off topic but I have seen so many deer injured and left for dead in the woods because hunters won't take a second to take good aim on a deer and kill it humanly that I wish hunters would have to hunt for the first two years with a single shot.

Many of you probably can kill a deer on a dead run but I don't believe it should be a common practice of new hunters. I've seen hunters new and old emptying their 7400's or BAR’s at a deer bolting across a cut hitting it in the a$$ and losing the blood trail only for the deer to either be in severe pain, die a waste in the woods or to be eaten alive by coyotes. I don't call this responsible hunting.

This is just my opinion.

fff

macadore not to pick on you but is sad how little Americans understand the bill of rights.

Let's compared the 2nd & 4th.

2nd:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

4th:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Click to expand...

Why the 2nd amendment is absolute
None of the words are an accident or a mistake. Every word has meaning. The founders were very smart people and the final bill of rights was the result of a large amount of debate on the exact language. Nothing is in there by chance.

The fourth is uses "weaker language". it doesn't even say we are protected from ALL search & seizures just "unreasonable" ones.

They could have use the same level of "restraint on governmental powers" in both amendments but they didn't. Why? Was it an accident? Was it an oversight? Hardly. It was absolutely intentional.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED > UNREASONABLE

The Bill Of Rights was the peoples way of reminding the government:

We put our trust in you. We understand governments are necessary evils. But understand this if you try to take our right we will destroy you. Everyday when you go think about passing a law remember this, these are OUR RIGHT that you can never take away. If you try you will be killed. We defeated a tyrant king and we will take you down if you ever ever try to make us your subjects

Click to expand...

Not exactly the sunshine, and rainbows lies we tell our kids in school the BoR means. Make no mistake the BoR was a thinly veiled threat against the government (current and future). Mess with one of these and you will find yourself facing a rebellion again.

The wording of the 2nd conveys an absolute right. They government has no ability no right to take arms from the people, PERIOD. The 2nd amendment was a warning to the government.

The wording of fourth on the other hand does give the government a clear right to search and seize the citizens property. The only restriction is that it be "reasonable".

The founders could have said this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the states to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

or this

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in defense of the constitution shall not be infringed.

Click to expand...

Which is what the antis wish it had said, an even now try to delude themselves into think it was what the 2nd says.

They founder could have said this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be subject to unreasonable restriction.

Click to expand...

This would give the 2nd equal protection compared to the 4th. This is what most liberals seem to think the 2nd means. The government can regulate, control, restrict, infringe just as long as it is not "unreasonable". This is not what the 2nd says though. It says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The founder's didn't. They could have used "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in the 4th, or they could have used "UNREASONABLE RESTRICTION" in the 2nd. Why didn't they?

An absolute right is necessary. The 2nd is a final check against a tyrannical government. If the tyrannical government can control the guns it doesn't even make much sense to have a 2nd amendment. Since that would mean the very body who is supposed to be controlled by the people w/ guns is controlling the peoples ability to have guns.

It would be like giving the keys for all the banks to convicted bank robbers for safe keeping so bank robbers won't rob the banks. Doesn't make much sense does it?

What does "well regulated" militia mean?
Here is a shocker it has absolutely nothing to do with regulation. Remember the English language has changed over the years. A contemporary version would read something like this

An effective Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well Regulated simply means the militia is capable. Remember the milita was called up VERY RARELY. The founders also did not believe in a standing army. Put the two together what do you get. THE PEOPLE MUST BE FAMILIAR, SAFE, AND PROFICIENT WITH FIREARMS IN ORDER FOR THE MILITA TO BE EFFECTIVE.

Imagine for a second that the state controlled all the weapons (locked away in armories for national defense). The people (and thus the milita) had no access to firearms most of their lives. Weapons were only issued (like arming serfs) in an emergency. An emergency happens (Mexico is invading) and the militia assembles at the armory. Can you imagine the chaos?

"How do I put the bullets in? ... My gun is jammed. I think I broke my sight ... I pulled the trigger and nothing happened ... What do you mean it is on safe? ... Oh crap I shot my brother. ... I swear the gun just went off".

Click to expand...

A disaster right? In order for the militia to be effective THE PEOPLE MUST HAVE GUNS. Not just in an emergency, not just when needed, but always. A population with familiarity and day to day experience with firearms is the only population who can form an effective militia.

Now I know these ideas are "radical". Our founding father WERE very "radical". Some people may believe that the government DOES have a right to restrict, regulate, infringe, and control who has weapons, when, where, and how. That is fine. The BoR can be ammended. The founding fathers were humble enough to know the needs of the country can change.

Propose a new Ammedment. Something like:

The 28th Ammendment of US Constittion.
1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. The right of the people to own and carry arms, shall not be subject to unreasonable restriction.
3. Unreasonable restriction in this amendment shall not be construed as a limit on the ability of the government to abolish private ownership of classes of weapon, to regulate the sale of firearms, to tax firearms, to limit ownership by classes of citizens, to limit ownership by number of firearms, or to require licenses for ownership, transport, or carrying of firearms.

Click to expand...

Macadore,
I read your original post and I believe you have the wrong definition of "well regulated". In the context it is used in the BoR it means to be well equipped, not control or limits. Therefore, crew served and automatic weapons would have been included in a "well regulated" militia of the time (if they had automatic weapons).

See some of the previous post, especially the above, for more clarification.

I'm not picking on you but, IF you are a gun owner, you should really read some of the founding fathers writings on the 2nd amendment. They were very good about putting down on paper why they did things. Unfortantely the 2nd Amendment has been so twisted and perverted most people don't understand the true meaning of it anymore.

I agree wholeheartedly with having gun/hunter safety courses in grade school. I think that would go a long way in reducing the number of accidental shootings (low as they are already). I don't agree with requiring households to have a firearm in their residence, seems socialistic to me. We need to keep our freedom to choose (even if it is not one of our enumerated rights) Plus, who will pay for that battle arm and its ammo?

I agree with the poster that we should be allowed to own any battle platform up to and including aircraft carriers if we could afford them, and that they should be registered and able to be called forth in times of strife. Also agree that weapons of mass destruction (real ones, not some of these stretched uses of the term) are for National possession only.

Firearms, if your a freeman you should be able to possess and carry them.

Thank you for your essay, Happiness

You won't get a lot of unanimity on reasonable regulation or restriction from the members of any gun forum.

I'm suspicious of registration schemes, or permits to own. I'm okay with a prohibition for *violent* criminal offenders. I don't think a felony conviction for a truly non-violent crime should disqualify one for a lifetime. I'd even be okay with a non-gun violent offender being restored after a successful and lengthy probation period of upstanding behavior.

I think the domestic violence disqualifications are easily abused and generally too extreme.

I'll get flak for saying so, but I'm not a fan of open carry in urban areas. I'm okay with permit to CC with a background check.

Other than what I've indicated above, there's no need for any restrictions on possession or carry in one's home or on one's person.

K

Keep in mind this was in Section 8 of our constitution as well.

Gotcha ;]

lysander,
That's the problem. See Happiness with a Gun post. The 2nd says what it is supposed to say but anti-gun groups have twisted the meaning.

We could drop the militia portion but how does "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" be any more clear." The militia portion is giving a reason, but not the only reason, for the second to exist. "Right of the People" in all other parts of the BoR stands for citizens, how come it changes to the States rights only in the Second. It doesn't but that's how the anti groups want to do.

Second, cars are not covered in the BoR. We should treat the Second amendment with as much reverence as the First. See Justice Scalia writing on Heller.

Let's face it, wars start with words and opposing ideas. Wars are fought WITH weapons but fought OVER ideaology. Words, knowledge, and ideas are infinitly more powerful and dangerous than guns. Think of radical Islam and Nazi. So should we license computers, ink, and printers as well?

At one time guns were as common and non-threatening as computers are today. Look at the damage a computer hacker can do. Guns could be mailed order and carried everywhere. There was no more violence than today, in fact there was less. The wild west was not all that wild and there was not a lot of shootouts as Hollywood would like you to believe.

There are already penalties for for improper gun use, like improper use of speech. We do not need to curb the materials of free speech so we do not need to curb ownership of guns. Just the improper/dangerous use of such. If you pass a simple background check you should be free to purchase whatever because you are not the person to worry about.

There isn't a U.S. Constitution in this hypothetical, just as there isn't a Second Amendment. You have a chance to start from scratch. Think the current 2A is open to misinterpretation? Re-write it. How would your RBKA amendment define "arms" and "bear"?

Click to expand...

The founders were some really smart guys. I wouldn't presume to do a better job then they did. The more I read about them and their views the more convinced I am.

Are you going to establish a gun-ownership equivalent of the DMV? Should cars and guns be treated the same or differently and why?

Click to expand...

No. The DMV is good example of how complicated, burdensome, and inefficient most government programs are.

Let me flip it around.
Would you be for or against a DMV style system for
* regulation & licensing of religion
* regulation & licensing of speech

If not why?

Please don't say it is because guns are more dangerous.
Far more (million upon millions) people have been killed due to conflicts over religion or ideas (expressed via speech and writing).

Background checks seem fine when done at FFLs, gunshoews are just too hard to define without making it unreasonable, and of course prohibit possession by violent, drug related, and sex-related felons and those with certain types of mental illness.(Claustrophobia and copyright infringement don't seem too dangerous to society to me.)

It seems like in most states you need to take a class and pass an exam to exercise your right to drive.

As to religion and word, your right that they are dangerous, but wars are not fought with words but with firearms.and the 19 hijackers didn't fly Islam into WTC they used jumbo jets.

It seems like in most states you need to take a class and pass an exam to exercise your right to drive.

Click to expand...

You have NO right to drive. In all states you must pass test and be licensed for the privilege to drive. Your driver's license is that state giving you (limited) permission to drive.

As to religion and word, your right that they are dangerous, but wars are not fought with words but with firearms.and the 19 hijackers didn't fly Islam into WTC they used jumbo jets.

Click to expand...

So we need better "jet control"? What are sword control? People have been killing each other for thousands of years before firearms were invented.

More important is why people have killed each other on massive scale. The availability of guns didn't make 20 million soldiers kill each other in WWII, ideology (words & speech) did.

The availability of swords didn't cause the christian and muslin to commit atrocities for 200 years (by both sides) during crusades, religious intolerance, rhetoric, national ideology, and material greed did.

I don't think either should be regulated but I am not joking when I say words, speech, press, religion are far more dangerous than guns.

Very rarely does a gun inspire someone to violence but history has shown words, ideology, and religion have inspired people to commit the most unspeakable horrors against fellow man.

Play pretend with me...you live in a fictional country, in a fictional state, and you have been given law-making powers over the issue of private firearms ownership. What legal limitations, if any, do you put in place and why?

Click to expand...

That depends, if my constitution had the same text as the 2A, then there could be no restrictions... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". There is nothing that says anything about "reasonable restrictions"... so if you wrote a bad check 10 years ago and are now a convicted felon, it technically should not matter. IMO, there is not a single gun possession restriction that is constitutional.

As long as the weapon is not so powerful that you might accidentally blow up your neighbors house, or a city block, I have no problem with the private ownership of infantry-type weapons... selective fire, small grenades, suppressors, etc

Well I wouldn't argue with anything you said, but when your Gunnery Sgt tell you to stand your post, you have an option of picking up your M4, a sword, bayonet and standing your post or you can test the Gunny's resolve and be court martialed. Now you can say the words, greed, ideology or religion caused it but the framers said the tools of war or our firearms shall not be infringed upon.Thankfully Heller was actually the first time it was ever individualized.

I think we pretty much agree with almost everything. Although I do believe that there should be some kind of education [mandatory] to purchase a firearm. We probably differ here.

Kevin