Reading through it, here's the sort of 'gun' laws I'd find constitutional:
1. You are not to discharge a firearm within city limits, unless:
A: You have a legitimate need for the purpose of defending self or other, or during the course of lawfull practice of police or military duties.
B: Said discharge takes place within qualified range area, with sufficient backstop to prevent shots from leaving the facility and with sufficient noise dampening such that noise leaving said facility is less than (??)Db for the hours of 0800-2000, and (??-X)Db for other hours.
C: You have license or directive to take game or eliminate pest animals, and can show training or competence to take such safely.
Agreed. I'll also note that they've found that the first doesn't extend to lying, such areas as libel and slander.
Well, I was taught that I shouldn't yell 'fire' in a theater without one, and the meaning of slander and libel, but those are mostly civil matters, not criminal.
Agreed. There is a need for 'transition' living, however. I believe that they can impose more restrictions on you, as long as they're either part of your sentence, or agreed to by you as part of leaving prison early. But what's the point of forbidding a non-violent 'felon' who's crime was writing some bad checks the right to the means for self-defense? I can see it a bit more if they're violent, but our whole point is that you don't let them out while they're still violent.
My grandmother is an advocate for the mentally disabled. Some are such that they can't figure out a gate latch. There's a reason why they say 'mentally equivalent to a X year old'. If you have one in the house, you take the very same precautions as you would with a child. Also, the odds of them being able to fill out the paperwork for a firearm, or of even having the money for a cheap gun, is low. Their wanting one is almost non-existant.
It's not being mentally disabled that's the problem, it's the mentally unstable. The bi-polars, etc.
I'll disagree with this, especially as I mostly agree with him. Well, I'd substitute 'clinically insane, needs to be in an institution' for mentally disabled, and push the class/training area up above HMG's. Of course, anybody who can afford artillery can afford training for it. There's plenty of former artillery people out there willing to provide hand's on training for it.
The main point is that firing off an artillery piece without knowing what you're doing is far more dangerous than a firearm. After all, normally speaking you're shooting at something you can see with a gun. With artillery, you're shooting at things not within sight, and that requires more care.
Then there's the whole what constitutes 'arms' arguement. Me, the cutoff point is what somebody can carry, operate, and target individually. Knives, swords, and guns come into this definition. I'd have to look into military matters more, but I believe that even grenades and RPG's might come into this.
1. You are not to discharge a firearm within city limits, unless:
A: You have a legitimate need for the purpose of defending self or other, or during the course of lawfull practice of police or military duties.
B: Said discharge takes place within qualified range area, with sufficient backstop to prevent shots from leaving the facility and with sufficient noise dampening such that noise leaving said facility is less than (??)Db for the hours of 0800-2000, and (??-X)Db for other hours.
C: You have license or directive to take game or eliminate pest animals, and can show training or competence to take such safely.
HonorsDaddy said:
Agreed. I'll also note that they've found that the first doesn't extend to lying, such areas as libel and slander.
Well, I was taught that I shouldn't yell 'fire' in a theater without one, and the meaning of slander and libel, but those are mostly civil matters, not criminal.
Agreed. There is a need for 'transition' living, however. I believe that they can impose more restrictions on you, as long as they're either part of your sentence, or agreed to by you as part of leaving prison early. But what's the point of forbidding a non-violent 'felon' who's crime was writing some bad checks the right to the means for self-defense? I can see it a bit more if they're violent, but our whole point is that you don't let them out while they're still violent.
My grandmother is an advocate for the mentally disabled. Some are such that they can't figure out a gate latch. There's a reason why they say 'mentally equivalent to a X year old'. If you have one in the house, you take the very same precautions as you would with a child. Also, the odds of them being able to fill out the paperwork for a firearm, or of even having the money for a cheap gun, is low. Their wanting one is almost non-existant.
It's not being mentally disabled that's the problem, it's the mentally unstable. The bi-polars, etc.
I'll disagree with this, especially as I mostly agree with him. Well, I'd substitute 'clinically insane, needs to be in an institution' for mentally disabled, and push the class/training area up above HMG's. Of course, anybody who can afford artillery can afford training for it. There's plenty of former artillery people out there willing to provide hand's on training for it.
The main point is that firing off an artillery piece without knowing what you're doing is far more dangerous than a firearm. After all, normally speaking you're shooting at something you can see with a gun. With artillery, you're shooting at things not within sight, and that requires more care.
Then there's the whole what constitutes 'arms' arguement. Me, the cutoff point is what somebody can carry, operate, and target individually. Knives, swords, and guns come into this definition. I'd have to look into military matters more, but I believe that even grenades and RPG's might come into this.