Though it isn't exactly a law, I support the part of the Declaration of Independence which states:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it [...]"
Along with making a great case for the right of revolution, which is the prime rationale for the right to bear arms, this passage also explains why I disagree with all gun control laws, and most laws in general. Essentially, a law is nothing but a threat of force. If governments truly derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, as this passage states, then the government has no right to the use of force that an individual does not have. An individual's right to use force is limited by his rightful liberty... by that I mean the maximum amount of liberty that can be shared equally by all people. Or, as Thomas Jefferson (the author of the above-quoted document) put it, unrestricted action according to our own will within the limits drawn around it by the equal rights of others. The only way force is justified is in defense against a threat to our rightful liberty. Therefore, government's only just role is the protection of this liberty.
I do not believe in any laws that place a "prior restraint" on the exercise of any rightful liberty, including the right to own/buy/trade weapons. This would invalidate all licensing, training, or mental health prerequisites. Prior restraint laws are overly broad... they apply force to everybody in order to prevent a small subset of individuals, who are deemed threatening, from engaging in an activity. The only way I believe that anyone should have any liberty denied them is after being convicted in a judicial proceeding of violating the rightful liberty of another person, after the accused has had the opportunity to defend himself. This provides a remedy that is narrowly tailored, and eliminates the threat without using force against those who pose no threat. Therefore, if it is believed that an individual, because of some specific charactaristic, poses a threat to the liberty of others by his mere possession of a certain weapon, then let the matter be determined in a fair trial before a neutral forum wherein the accused has a chance to defend against the accusation.
And obviously I am against any government action that is calculated to "incentivize" (a euphamism for "force") people to engage or refrain from engaging in any activity that does not threaten the liberty of other people, like where to open a gun store, or what kind of car to buy, whether to get married or have kids, etc.
