A reasonable regulation? What could one be?

[lysander]

Oftentimes I discuss the notion of a legally armed citizenry and the idea of the RKBA with those who support gun control. I do this largely because I am a "liberal" on most issues and I am interested in helping other "liberals" understand my position. When I put forward the idea that the Democratic Party should abandon the issue of gun control, in order to recover votes from working class gun owners, I usually get a response that goes something like this:

"Gun owners, who would otherwise vote for a Democratic ticket but for the party's stance on gun control, don't even want to accept common sense, reasonable regulations. As a result, they are a lost cause."

I know what the gun control crowd thinks a reasonable regulation is. What I want to know is this: what do proponents of the RKBA and a lawfully armed citizenry think a "reasonable regulation" might be? Most of us understand that there must be some limits. We see limits on speech (yelling fire in a crowded theater) and we accept those. We see limits on firearms ownership (a convicted murder debarred the use of arms) and many of us understand and accept those. But to what extent?

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?

Please understand that this is a mental exercise...and I'd ask that you stay within the bounds of the question. We are talking about a hypothetical country and state. I don't need to hear about lib-***** or retard-licans. I don't need to hear about any specific politicians. Keep the discussion LEGAL. If you want to talk about existing laws and regulations as a model of what you would or would not do that is fine.

 

[Gator]

If you abuse the right, you loose the right. I really see no need for more limitations than that.

 

[VPLthrneck]

If you're not eligibe to vote, you're not eligble to own a gun. The only requirement to buy a gun is to show your voter registartion card to who ever is selling the gun you want. Active, reserve, and retired military and verterns, would be exempt from this as long as they show a military ID card or Honorable Discharge papers. And getting a FFL would be just as easy.

 

[ctdonath]

If you're not eligibe to vote, you're not eligble to own a gun.

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

Voting is an administrative "right" subject to the nature of our chosen style of government.
RKBA is inalienable.

 

[ctdonath]

The only "reasonable regulation" (to wit: prohibited action, not to be confused with what the Founding Fathers meant by "regulation") are those acts which, if exercised against another person, would give that other person justification in exercising their 2nd Amendment rights against the first with extreme prejudice.
Rephrased: if an action is reasonably expected to cause harm (as in overwhelming likelyhood, not to be confused with extremely unlikely but still scary) then it may be prohibited.
The basic principle is that the gov't acts to de-escalate a situation where a common citizen would be justified in harming another.

 

[macadore]

There should be restrictions on some types of military weapons. I don’t think vehicle mounted belt fed machineguns should be legal. I’m not sure about RPGs or hand grenades either. A near miss could be hard on the neighborhood.

I wouldn’t mind national licensing if it meant mentally stable non-felons could buy and carry anything they could lift. However, the licensing procedure should be long on the legal and responsible use of a firearm. There are some people with firearms that should not have them. Firearms are not toys for people to show off at parties or play with when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. They should not be left casually laying around. People who misuse firearms or handle them irresponsibility should have their access to firearms suspended until they can demonstrate better judgment. Of course, the devil is in the details. Who draws the line?

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”.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Let's give the Second Amendment a try before we start shoveling on so-called "regulations." If freedom fails, it may be time to think of something else. Curiously, freedom is the one thing we've never tried in the United States when it comes to firearms.

 

[silentpoet]

none because criminals wouldn't obey them anyway.

 

[lysander]

Let's give the Second Amendment a try before we start shoveling on so-called "regulations."

I'll chalk that up as: none.

 

[whosyrdaddy]

No guns for prisoners while incarcerated.

No guns for Politicians (24/7 while in office). Vulnerability here is a good thing.

No guns for Judges, LEOs, Secretary of State or DMV employees, or any other Civil Servant while on duty or at work. These people should know their place at the feet of the Citizenry. If the cause is just, the armed public will support them in their enforcement efforts.

No guns for minors without parental consent.

more to come...............( maybe ).

 

[ctdonath]

There should be restrictions on some types of military weapons.

Historically, the view has been rather different:

 

[Mike128]

Macadore,

What do you think "well regulated" means?

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”.
Today 02:28 AM

 

[fletcher]

A reasonable regulation, to me, would be requiring a firearms class in public school


Seriously, though, I don't think there should be any limitations on your typical individual or crew-served weapons.

 

[bcp]

Regulate:

To put in good order

To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired condition

 

[sanglant]

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

 

[Diamondback6]

Reasonable regulation to me:

1. Mandatory weapons-safety instruction in high-school. (Four Rules type stuff.)

2. Anything non-nuke/bio/chem is fair-game, if you can afford it. BUT, you wanna load up that B-52, you're gonna need approval from the commander of your state's Air Guard. However, you may fly it with only defensive weapons--the tail turret and maybe a few Sidewinders--as much as you like... If you wanna buy your own battleship, cool. But you're gonna need a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to sail outside US national waters with it... You wanna park a 155mm self-propelled howitzer on the lawn, okay, but you're gonna need to bring in the Dragon Wagon to move it on the street except in national emergency. Oh, BTW, you own a combat vehicle, you're automatically enrolled in your state's relevant Guard organization and subject to call-up.

I think this would be in the spirit of what the Founders intended, since they allowed private men-o'-war (fully armed warships, the most powerful weapons of the day) but required Congressional approval to unleash them.

 

[evan price]

"Reasonable" restrictions?

1. You can't carry your gun in a prison, or anyplace such as a courthouse detention area, etc.

2. You can't walk down the street shooting wildly into the air. You are responsible for every bullet and piece of shrapnel from whatever ordinance you deploy.

3. Nothing more than individually-operated arms without some minimal oversight- meaning, no crew-served weapons, battleships, main-battle tanks, fighter aircraft, etc. without registration.

The reason for this is because, in case of war, you could be subject to callup as a civilian privateer for the reserves- just like 200 years ago.

Items that are at least two generations removed from current military use are exempt. (For example, a WWII tank is OK because it is not combat effective against modern tanks and would be useless to call up as reserves.)

Notice this means stuff like Ma Deuce, GE Minigun, Vulcan cannon, Bofors, etc are all perfectly OK as long as you can afford them.

If you want to put coaxial .50 M2's in a turret on your Chevy Suburban, that's fine, it is not military-grade machinery.

4. No explosive/incendiary projectiles and NO grenades & explosives, no RPGs, no land mines, no missiles, etc. (NOT including tracers- they are fine.) However these items are available for use by persons who have undergone a training and certification program such as military Basic weapons training, for use on suitable ranges- and, of course, as long as you can afford them.

*Note: This training program would be somewhat analogous to the current restriction of high explosives to only certified/licensed blasters.

Certified ranges means ranges that have been determined to be suitable for use with such items. Typically these would be privately owned & located in large expanses of unsettled, empty desert.

Why? How many morons would you trust with a grenade? (Leave Darwinian evolution out of it- I don't want my house burnt down because neighbor Cletus thinks it's perfectly OK to store sweaty dynamite in his attic next to his bazooka shells!)

5. Weapons of mass destruction are reserved for nation/states only. No nukes, chemical weapons, biological warfare agents, poison gasses, etc. at all, punishment to be extremely swift, brutal, bloody and public. This could also be applied logically to theatre or strategic type weapons classes, versus tactical weapons. An individual has little use or need for strategic type weapons since individuals should not have the ability to start or continue wars- this is reserved for nation/states only. Tactical weaponry is however individual usage items.

 

[Cuda]

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

C

 

[OldCowHand]

John Adams had it right when he wrote in 1765 that "British liberties are not the grants of princes and parliaments." Rights do not originate with governments, and should be infringed by them only under specific circumstances, after the exercise of due process. You have a right to keep and bear arms; I do; the sex offender down the street does. The First and Second Amendments, between them, secure our rights to armed insurrection against a government that ceases to secure our liberties.

What we do not have is the right to murder our fellow citizens, or otherwise harm or coerce them by the exercise or threat of deadly force. If you are attempting to murder me, I have the right to defend myself, and the police have the right (but not the obligation) to intervene, in each case by force of arms if necessary. There being no reasonable restriction that society can place upon your access to firearms that would not first disarm me, your law-abiding intended victim, it seems that we come back to rights. Infringing on the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms is forbidden, period, until they start using them to infringe upon the rights of the rest of us. It also happens to be useless as a form of crime control, but that argument is insignificant compared to the previous one.

 

[Gator]

The Second Amendment begins with “A well regulated militia being necessary”.

The Second Amendment begins with a subordinate clause.

1790's definition of "well regulated" = well equipped or well armed.

 

[mudsplasher]

In my mythical country all heads of households would be required to maintain weaponry and ammunition, and with semi-annual or quarterly training, know how to use them. This head of household would also be expected be a member of a militia and to respond to national defense matters.

If anyone in the United States of Mudsplasher is convicted of a violent crime with a firearm, or a club for that matter, they would be put to death, period. This sentence would also go for sex offenders.

All illegal invaders would be given 30 days to leave the USM. After 30 days, there would be a bounty on their heads.

 

[Zundfolge]

none because criminals wouldn't obey them anyway.

ditto

 

[Prince Yamato]

Here's how I see it.

NICS or background check is fine.
Restrictions on things like explosive projectile weapons are fine (RPGs, Landmines, Missles, etc.)
Restrictions on WMDs are totally reasonable (no nukes, bio bombs or other crap)

But if it shoots lead chunks, I say, sure, why not. Provided you aren't a criminal or drug abuser.

 

[belus]

NICS or background check is fine.

For what purpose?

I'm not comfortable with violent felons having access to guns through standard means of sale. To that effect I'm okay with background checks to ensure you aren't one and a system of FFL dealers. I think the NFA registry is important for destructive devices, but not really for full automatic firearms.

 

[ZeSpectre]

I guess I just don't understand. There is no illegal action you can legally take with a gun. There are already other laws covering those actions making them illegal. So why pile more duplication on top?