Musings on the concept of Reasonable Restriction

[wjustinen]

I have no problem with "reasonable" restrictions

I just don't believe there is any such animal.

 

[kcmarine]

Yep. Basically. They don't exist.

 

[TallPine]

Okay, I did come up with one reasonable gun "restriction":

the choke on a shotgun

 

[TCB in TN]

The problem with your reasonable restrictions are that they only affects those who obey the law! It is a prime example of the law of unintended consequences, it is meant to disarm the criminals to make it safer for the law abiding, but in reality it disarms the law abiding and makes it safer for the criminal to ply their trade!


I HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THEM!

 

[dfaugh]

As a fairly long time member of both THR and TFL, I disagree with the statement:

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.

In watching years worth of discussions on some of the items you mentioned, in post #9, I think supporters are heavily in the minority. The numbers may appear significant, in that they participate in these discussions more/as often than those opposing.

 

[Steve499]

My wife is the only one who may impose 'reasonable' restrictions on my firearm ownership!

Steve

 

[jselvy]

Please keep in mind that I did not say that I supported reasonable restriction. I merely proposed a thesis for discussion. I, personally, think that any law which requires a value judgment from the bench is inherently subject to abuse based of the judge's personal bias.
As far as the most statement goes I am disappointed that those who are currently arguing for lifetime bans on ex-cons who have served their time are not weighing in on this subject.
I would invite to view this thread at TFL: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252073
As it amply demonstrates an opposing viewpoint.

Thank you again for your responses
Jefferson

 

[Chad]

The divisiveness caused by H.R.2640 goes far beyond THR.
News sites, blogs, forums, at the range and gunshop...nobody can agree on it. And it has been as bitter and irrespectful in other places as it has here.

Now I really don't think the antis are that clever.
But what does this say about us...the gun community.

At the least it shows that we have nothing remotely resembling a united front.

I would guess that's why you'll get no reasonable answer as to reasonable restrictions, or an excuse for accepting them.

 

[wjustinen]

While there are no "reasonable restrictions"

I would suggest that there are acceptable restrictions. If legislation results in less restriction than previously in effect, the result could be considered "acceptable." Not "reasonable," not legitimate, not lawful; simply "acceptable" as a move in the right direction.

"shall not be infringed" is still the standard.

Some of the lack of cohesion among gun-owners is a result of failure to understand the above, while the rest appears to be the result of a very human tendency to be concerned mainly about "my backyard." I suspect the framers of the constitution understood this dynamic very well. Why else would they say hands off so clearly?

 

[gezzer]

There is NO reasonable restriction. There is no allowance for it. When you are not in jail or a mental institution there is no reason for your rights to be restricted period.

 

[eric_t12]

murder and violence are already illegal

the answer to the post in one line.

EDITED TO ADD: as far as ex cons?

They have served their prison sentence, all rights should inherently be restored, otherwise what is the point of letting them out of the prison? so they can be half-human? (remember the bill of rights grants noone rights, because everyone is born with the inalienable rights guaranteed by it from intrusion by the federal government.

 

[brickeyee]

SCOTUS, TERMINIELLO v. CITY OF CHICAGO. No. 272.
Argued Feb. 1, 1949.
Decided May 16, 1949.
Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting.
“The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

The fact that there are limits on the rights expressed in the Constitution has been clear for a long time.

 

[General Geoff]

The right to keep and bear arms holds nobody victimized; therefore, no restriction is reasonable.

 

[yokel]

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.

Indeed, at present a sufficient number of that potential pro-liberty juggernaut are seemingly prepared(for whatever reason) to accept, comply, or submit tacitly or passively.


Perhaps the critical mass of usurpation needed for a sea change in the body of laws, regulations, decisions and actions of govt has not been reached yet.

 

[G36-UK]

My definition of Reasonable Restriction: Any restriction that keeps a weapon out of the hands of criminals, without preventing the law-abiding from owning the exact same weapon.

 

[Kentak]

jselvy--

You are right--reasonableness, in this context, is subjective, and will vary according to individual perceptions of the multitude of factors that go into the RKBA, or lack of it.

Here's the conundrum. Most people believe that there should be "reasonable" restrictions on driving speeds on roads and highways. What's a reasonable speed limit for an interstate highway, a 2 lane rural road, a residential street? Again, it's a subjective judgement. Are we, therefore, to say that since it is subjective, we are to have *no* speed limits?

K

 

[Kentak]

Gezzer said
There is NO reasonable restriction. There is no allowance for it. When you are not in jail or a mental institution there is no reason for your rights to be restricted period.

That goes for kids, too, right? So, it should be perfectly legal for a six year old to walk into a gun store, buy, and own a gun. Right?

K

 

[General Geoff]

If society worked as it should, the parents would be there to accompany the child. It's not a shopkeeper's responsibility to raise your kid.

 

[jselvy]

unaccompanied children will be towed?

Jefferson

 

[Kentak]

gen geoff--

If society worked as it should, the parents would be there to accompany the child. It's not a shopkeeper's responsibility to raise your kid.

Nice sidestepping the question. So, I'll play the game. Let's assume the parent did accompany the kid. So, now he has a gun. He should be able to carry it around, just like any adult. Is that right?

K

 

[scurtis_34471]

I think reasonable restrictions on what we can DO with firearms are possible. Examples include not shooting guns inside city limits or within X feet of a building. As far as ownership restrictions, I think that any firearm that would be reasonable for an infantry soldier to carry should be permissible. This clearly does not include crew-operated weapons. I'm also not against regulating explosive devices. There is a fundamental difference between guns and hand grenades, rocket launchers and mines.

 

[Kentak]

This clearly does not include crew-operated weapons. I'm also not against regulating explosive devices. There is a fundamental difference between guns and hand grenades, rocket launchers and mines.

Not according to the absolutists on this board. Anything should be allowed, F-16s, tanks, heavy artillery, rockets, tactical nukes, etc. How else can you have a proper revolution?

K

 

[jselvy]

Good point Kentak.

Is there any real difference between a M-16 rifle and a M-1 Abrams?
Is there any point to banning access to crew served, or engines of war?
How many crimes have been committed with a fighter?
Not to be flippant, I really want to know.

Jefferson

 

[Sage of Seattle]

That goes for kids, too, right? So, it should be perfectly legal for a six year old to walk into a gun store, buy, and own a gun. Right?

Since all rights come with responsibilities and children are held to differing levels of being responsible, I would then say that a curtailing of their rights is perfectly justifiable until they are ready to be responsible. For firearms, a six year old child would not fall under the umbrella of a responsible citizen.

That's why we hold parents (or guardians) responsible for their children's actions -- because society says that the child is not responsible enough to exercise a certain right.

 

[Kentak]

Is there any real difference between a M-16 rifle and a M-1 Abrams?
Is there any point to banning access to crew served, or engines of war?
How many crimes have been committed with a fighter?
Not to be flippant, I really want to know.

Yes
Possibly, what are we talking about?
None

You forgot tactical nukes. Should you be able to own a nuke?

K