Musings on the concept of Reasonable Restriction

[jselvy]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Forum,

It appears to me that a majority of the membership of this site supports or at least has no real objection to reasonable restriction on the ownership of firearms.

The analysis that I'm looking for is "What defines Reasonable?" It seems that reasonable calls for a value judgment. That means that there is probably a different definition for every person. I don't see how laws can be applied equally and fairly when it requires an individual assessment by those that create and enforce the law. For example I'm sure that Lautenberg thought his amendment was well within the idea of reasonable, but many others don't see it that way. How can "We the People" create a common definition of "Reasonable?" Is that even possible?

Thank you for your responses
Jefferson

 

[poor_richard]

An individual's rights extend up to, and until they infringe upon the rights of another/other person/s. It is reasonable to prevent that from happening. If the exercise of your rights do not infringe upon the rights of another/other, then it is not reasonable to infringe upon them.

 

[Meathook]

I think the problem with "reasonable restriction" is that they are put in place with the hope of restricting the unreasonable. If we have learned anything in this society it should be that can not legislate morality.

 

[Gene Beasley]

I have a great problem with restrictions, reasonable or otherwise. As pointed out above, one man's reasonable is another man's confiscation. My view of current gun laws, outside of the second amendment, is that that they are clearly unconstitutional and therefore null and void.

This thread pretty well address my thoughts on the subject.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I think you may be misinterpreting an acceptance of reasonable restrictions on the use of firearms and confusing that with restrictions on ownership (as you state in your premise).

 

[pcosmar]

Reasonable to who?
Reasonable to the Bradys or Lautenbergs ,or reasonable to the supporters of the Constitution.
Shall NOT be infringed. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[TallPine]

"Reasonable restrictions" to me are things like not shooting your guns in the air on Main Street, and not riding your horse into saloons

 

[HiroProX]

99% of what's presented as "reasonable restrictions", aren't reasonable, they're reactionary knee-jerking out of fear.

 

[jselvy]

I think you may be misinterpreting an acceptance of reasonable restrictions on the use of firearms and confusing that with restrictions on ownership (as you state in your premise).

I don't think so. A majority of the posts I have read seem to support the following:

H.R. 2640 - Restricting Firearms ownership to the Mentally Ill
GCA of 1968- Restricting Ownership of firearms to Felons as well as ownership of certain types of Firearms
NICS-Restricting Firearms ownership to prohibited individuals
NFA 1934- Restricting ownership of certain classes of firearms by means of a high tax (then)

At least this is how it appears to me

Jefferson

 

[Riktoven]

There are already laws on the books for reasonable "use" of a firearm.

Murder is illegal, armed robbery is illegal, etc.

We don't need new laws on the use of a firearm.

Laws regarding ownership? What for? NO ONE on this Earth has the right to tell me what I can and cannot own. That is the point of a "free and capitalist" society is it not? If I use somthing in a manner that infringes on the rights of those around me, punish me for such use, not all of society for owning what I abused.

VT shooter kills 30+ people, so we should outlaw guns. By that same logic, booze and cars should be banned thanks to Ted Kenedy and a disturbing number of other senators and congresscritters.

As another poster stated, morality and sanity cannot be regulated. Dealing with the evil and insane after they rear their ugly heads is the only way to deal with them in a free society.

 

[ozwyn]

The problem with support ANY kind of "reasonable restriction" is how it turns into a slippery slope and we spend years fighting to get back to a truly reasonable level...

And we are still fighting to return to reasonable restriction by the standard of most gun owners, but we may never reach it, because the next "reasonable restriction" may turn out to be very unreasonable in the march from individual rights to the tyranny of the Media branwashed masses.

being reasonable is the fundamental failure in the gun rights movement. Reasonable means increasing compromise. Reasonable means maybe not voting or pushing hard enough to get politicians to do what's right.

Reasonable means 4 million NRA members aren't marching on DC in mass protests to get their 2nd amendment back. And that's why reasonable is a real problem for individual rights.

 

[jselvy]

Laws regarding ownership? What for?

But we have them and many seem to support them. The ones I listed in an earlier (#9) post are just a few. Whenever anyone brings up a strict constructionist argument they get bashed for their "cold dead hands" philosophy and the moderators shut the thread down.
I can accept the weight of public opinion, I just want to define Reasonable.

Jefferson

 

[jpk1md]

jselvy, not sure where you're getting you info from that 'Most People" believe in "Reasonable" restrictions but I have to disagree 110%.

I for one believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.....there's an itty bitty Amendment that references "Shall Not Be Infringed".

"Reasonable" is not quantifiable...ie its subject to personal interpretation which is the fundamental issue/problem with that House of Cards.

If the Libs REALLY believed in Rehabilitation wrt our Judicial System then peoples Civil Rights SHOULD be returned to them after some reasonable probationary period after serving their time.

The notion that some Felony White Collar Crime will cause a person to lose their right to own a firearm is absurd.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is where I stand on the issue.....NO COMPRIMISE.

 

[jselvy]

jselvy, not sure where you're getting you info from that 'Most People" believe in "Reasonable" restrictions

Mostly I am drawing this inference from the discussions on HR 2640 and other similar discussion both on this board and TFL.

Jefferson

 

[Gene Beasley]

H.R. 2640 - Restricting Firearms ownership to the Mentally Ill
GCA of 1968- Restricting Ownership of firearms to Felons as well as ownership of certain types of Firearms
NICS-Restricting Firearms ownership to prohibited individuals
NFA 1934- Restricting ownership of certain classes of firearms by means of a high tax (then)

H.R. 2640, I offer this item to mull over. Did you know that prior to 1974, DSM-II classified homosexuality as a mental illness. What intrusions would 2640 bring into your personal medical history to determine your fitness to exercise your rights? Do you really want the government to be that involved in your life?

GCA '68 - lose it. Remove the 'F' from ATF and any FFL classifications. Want a gun, order it from the Sears catalog, get it in the mail.

NICS - again, since when do I need government authorization (permission) to freely exercise my God given rights.

NFA '34 - Unconstitutional infringement on the 2A. Miller should have struck it down. Bad law, bad call by the Hughes court.

 

[REOIV]

H.R. 2640, I offer this item to mull over. Did you know that prior to 1974, DSM-II classified homosexuality as a mental illness. What intrusions would 2640 bring into your personal medical history to determine your fitness to exercise your rights? Do you really want the government to be that involved in your life?

GCA '68 - lose it. Remove the 'F' from ATF and any FFL classifications. Want a gun, order it from the Sears catalog, get it in the mail.

NICS - again, since when do I need government authorization (permission) to freely exercise my God given rights.

NFA '34 - Unconstitutional infringement on the 2A. Miller should have struck it down. Bad law, bad call by the Hughes court.

Seconded.

There are already laws saying what you can't do with a gun. Why do we need laws saying what guns we can/can't own?

 

[obxned]

This might be possible sometime after we teach all the sharks to only take a reasonable bite out of swimmers.

 

[Correia]

and the moderators shut the thread down.

Yes, we're a bunch of gun grabbing, statist, jackboot wearing, puppy stompers. And we just lay in wait to crush freedom whenever possible.



Or maybe we just shut down those threads when they turn into chest-beating, poo-flinging contests, where some members of L&P can't wait to see if they can come up with the best Patrick Henry impression.

When that doesn't happen, we leave the thread alone.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Mostly I am drawing this inference from the discussions on HR 2640 and other similar discussion both on this board and TFL.

Just because we have intellectually honest and open debate on such issues does not mean that it is resolved one way or the other. The whole concept of the Brady Act was a huge score for the anti-gun crowd. It has been accepted more widely than they (oe we) ever imagined, has become accepted by many as the standard of a "reasonable" restriction, and established wide acceptance that our rights are not absolute and once compromised could always be further negotiated.

You're right that many people, including gun owners*, including many gun rights advocates have swallowed this concept hook, line, and sinker. That doesn't make it right. Nor is it a reason to give up pointing out its intellectual dishonesty and trying to convince those who are willing to endure the pain of actually thinking.



*IMHO, "gun owners" is useless as a group designation of people having something in common. It's about as useful as "pants owners." Sure, it exclude a few who do not own any pants at all, but tells you nothing about the included group.

 

[only1asterisk]

There are no reasonable restrictions.

David

 

[Steve499]

Theoretically, the only way my other rights can be taken from me by the state, life, liberty, etc., is after something the framers called due process has happened. Personally, the only reasonable restriction I believe is constitutionally permissible on firearms ownership is on those who have had their day in court and been found guilty. The whole discussion of which crimes should disqualify one from owning firearms is a totally different matter, but, without due process, any restriction of the rights of a citizen who has reached the age of majority would seem to be unconstitutional.

But they'll never look at it like that, will they?

Steve

 

[pacodelahoya]

I'm gonna have to go with shall not be infringed. Of course, usage of said tools is a different matter, ie; murder, endangerment etc.

 

[gego]

What part of "shall not infringe" do people not understand?

There can not be any reasonable or unreasonable infringement.

Once you introduce the idea of reasonable or unreasonable, you have already started to infringe, which is prohibited.

All these reasonable minds that can accept reasonable infringement, have lost their minds.

If you are not in jail, or not in a mental institution, then you have the right to keep and bear arms. Of course some will misuse arms, but then they need to be executed or segregated from society. That is a separate problem which could, but will not likely be dealt with by the generally incompetent idea of government.

 

[Juna]

With regard to restrictions on use, despite intent to prevent violence (by some), there is no logic or 'reason' to this argument--i.e. it is not 'reasonable'.

Even if you disregard the fact that all use restrictions short of violence and murder infringe our IIA RKBA, you'd be ignoring one HUGE point--murder and violence are already illegal. So why do we need new restrictions that do nothing to prevent murder and violence yet infringe our Constitutional rights. This is not 'reasonable'.

With regard to restrictions on ownership, again, there is no logic or reason involved here. I don't care if every man, woman, and child is keeping and bearing arms 24/7, that has nothing to do with using a firearm. The vast majority of people would not shoot you if you put a gun in his/her hand.

The supposed or proclaimed intent of restricting ownership or use of firearms is to prevent violence. I refer to my point above that violence and murder are already illegal. People who would kill you or harm you will kill you or harm you no matter what. Restricting ownership merely acknowledges the illusion that the mere possession of a gun turns a person into a violent criminal.

Therefore, in my opinion, regardless of the fact that restriction of firearm ownership and/or use is unconstitutional, it is totally illogical and not at all 'reasonable' for the reasons I mentioned above. The things it is supposedly supposed to prevent are already illegal.

It's sort of analogous to making hit & run with a motor vehicle illegal, and then restricting/banning the use and ownership of cars. They'd say it's 'reasonable' for us to all drive those little SmartCars, but nothing with a V6 or higher and nothing holding more than one passenger. These high-speed, high-capacity cars would be more deadly, fast, and massive, and they would be designed solely to kill as many people as possible with one hit & run accident. Then the politicians could argue that 'commonsense' car laws would get the dangerous cars off the streets that are killing our children.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

What's Reasonable Restrictions?

Those that are granted by the Constitution to Congress to implement. I haven't found any yet that relate to the keeping and bearing of arms. I hate to disappoint those here that think there are. If there were such grants of power, they'd all be spelled out, like the power granted to Congress to arm the militia, or constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court, or establish Post Offices and post roads...

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859