Discussion in 'Legal' started by yesit'sloaded, Nov 26, 2007.
The only REAL reason for registration is to facilitate future confiscation.
"All buyers must have a basic handgun safety class"
How would this work? I would possibly agree with a 3 question test on a 4473 but to waste 3 hours of my day learning stuff I already know no thanks.
If you want an RPG feel free But the warheads have to be kept at the LEO HQ for your area, Howitzers I see no problem the 1776 argument comes in here.
Sounds good to me, no reason to treat them differently than a hammer for the most part.
I sure don't see that anywhere in my Constitution.
Two "reasonable restrictions".
1. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. (If you can be arrested, thrown in jail, and your property confiscated for keeping and bearing arms, then your RKBA has been infringed.)
2. Minimum sentencing requirements for any officials who attempt to or do infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms, be it either directly or indirectly. That means any lawmakers who pass such unConstitutional laws, any agents who enforce such unConstitutional laws, and any judges who uphold such unConstitutional laws.
To those of you who think there is such a thing as a "reasonable restriction" on the RKBA, I suggest you write your congressman and urge him/her to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I guess it's easier to cheer along while they shred the Constitution.
The idea that any of those laws is/are/will make anyone safer, or prevent any crime, is just another "anti" argument, and is just as silly and "knee-jerk". Such laws don't effect crime because criminals (being criminals) break laws. I'm still waiting to hear of a single case where a crime was committed by someone who broke no law.
Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!Patrick Henry
Given that Florida State University Criminologist Gary Kleck's research (and everyone else's) has demonstrated that NO gun control law has a significant negative effect on crime rates (that is, reduces the incidence of crime), NONE of them are reasonable. We need to focus the wasted resources that go into enacting and enforcing gun laws on enforcing the substantive criminal laws against murder, robbery, assault, rape, and other violent crimes.
Enacting a new gun law reminds me of the Abe Lincoln anecdote about the man who complained that the board was still too short after he'd cut it three times.
Your average law abiding citizens over the age of 18 should be able to own the average infantryman's weapon that is standard in our armed forces or weapons with similar features. Today that would be an M16A3 or a M4 carbine.
Loaded (heavy) question.
Be legal age. Varies, but in general 18 for long gun/21 for HG.
Pass NICS BG check or have CCW/equivalent.
In general, I am not opposed to background checks where the records are not retained and the prevention of violent felons from owning firearms. I realize that can be a slippery slope but the idea that "they'll get them anyway" is weak. If they have to get them on the black market so be it ... but do not make it as easy as walking into any sporting goods store.
I don't object to a must issue style of CCW permit that requires some evidence of training and responsibility.
There should be enhanced penalties for crimes of violence. Stop filling prisons with the non-violent, or those who commit "victimless" crimes. Figure out something else for them, but imprison for lengthy periods those who are willing to commit crimes of assault, murder, armed robbery, rape and so forth.
Anything up to crew served weapons should be available for purchase.
Beyond that, Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
"The U.S. government has the right to know the guns you have in your possession."
No. Governments do not have rights; governments have power. Citizens have rights.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights says that the ten amendments are intended to serve as a restraint on governmental abuse of power. To have a potential enemy know how you are armed is not just unwise, it's absolutely foolish--a recipe for loss of all rights to government power.
But that didn't apply to a person's entire collection. Only to the weapon(s) they would use when called for militia duty.
I think NCIS is terrible. It may 'work' (if that's what you want to call it), but it has too much potential for abuse and causes undue burden on firearms dealers. Who cares if a sex offender was caught a week ago. That has nothing to do with the right to buy firearms. I'm for even violent felons to buy firearms. They already do anyways. If they are out on the streets instead of in prison that's a problem, not the guns.
Having licenses for dealers is another crazy thing. Nobody goes into selling firearms for money, you simply can't make money selling firearms with all the regulations and such. I should be able to order an M4 from the Army and have it sent to my doorstep via USPS.
not being allowed to buy guns until your 18 sucks.... i gotta have my dad buy everything for me and register it under his name , actually, ive yet to buy a gun, i almost did but i chose to use my dad's Remington 1100 instead of buying a new 12 gauge.
10-20-Life type laws are the only good laws
Gun control should be about controlling yourself when you are in possession of a gun
Who gets to decide which laws are unconstitutional?
Not only that, but your proposed "law" would be unconstitutional itself. Lawmakers have authority under the constitution to pass any laws they please. They cannot be prosecuted for anything they say in debate, nor for any legislative act that they are a party to.
"All legislative powers". That means they can pass any law they like.
And no matter what they say in debate, no matter what they advocate for, you can't touch them.
Judges have the power and responsibility to interpret the laws - the "judicial power". (See Marbury v Madison)
Note that Article 1 sets forth impeachment procedures, so you can't just pull them out of your hat.
So it seems like the legislators who voted to pass your proposed law could be tossed in jail themselves if it ever passed, as it itself is in dirrect contradiction to Articles 1 and 3. (Ironic, isn't it?)
That is of course if you could point out just who would be the ones determining if something was unconstitutional if the courts were not up to it (as in the case of judges upholding "unconstitutional laws").
In order for your proposal to work, there would have to be people who were possessed of "revealed truth". Who might they be? Where would we find them? And where in the Constitution would their authority come from?
It seems to me that while putting the 2A on some kind of altar, you are perfectly willing to shred the rest of the Constitution (or are unaware of it).
1. Firearms may not be possessed by minors unless under adult supervision.
2. Firearms may not be possessed by convicted felons, unless their rights have been restored by a court of competent jurisdiction.
3. Firearms may not be possessed by persons adjudicated unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality or between right and wrong by reason of mental disease or defect.
4. Firearms may not be possessed in any prison, law enforcement or judicial detention center, or courtroom, except by law enforcement officers in conjunction with their official duties.
5. Persons convicted of knowingly transferring possession of firearms to persons ineligible to possess them will lose their rights to possess firearms until their rights have been restored by a court of competent jurisdiction.
6. Persons convicted of carrying firearms while legally intoxicated (same standard as DUI) will lose their rights to possess firearms until their rights have been restored by a court of competent jurisdiction.
7. Any private business open to the public which restricts or prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons on its premises must provide weapons lockers with removable keys at each entrance to every facility, and will be civilly liable for any harm that comes to any person disarmed on the premises who might conceivably have been able to prevent the harm by use of the weapon.
8. All convicted felons and persons adjudicated mentally incompetent must be issued a drivers license or state picture ID card with "INELIGIBLE" or similar wording on it. Persons seeking to acquire a firearm from a dealer or any private person must show a valid drivers license or state picture ID card in order to purchase a firearm.
There should be no additional restrictions on the possession or carrying, concealed or openly, of any firearm by any person anywhere.
Reasonable gun laws?
1. Don't shoot other people unless in self defense.
2. Don't fire your gun if there's a good chance it might hit other people, except in self defense.
There, I'm done.
Nice work Hypnogator. I mostly agree.
I smell me a TROLL!
I think we should have near-unrestricted access to all small arms (yes, that includes machineguns). Since some states (cough Massachusetts) parole violent criminals, we will have to have some sort of NICS check to make sure these goobers don't get ahold of guns. I don't care if tax-dodgers, embezzlers, or people like Martha Stewart own machineguns. All small arms should be available without that stupid NFA tax.
Destructive ordinance (like hand grenades) needs to be stored in a blast-proof safe until said time when it is to be transported or used. (This comes from me living in an apartment and not wanting Bubba to stock up Kasam rockets on the opposite side of my bedroom wall.)
Firearms should be available to anyone who wants one. (or many)
I would say purchase of firearms at age of majority (18) without parental consent.
Mandatory basic firearm training in Schools.
No restrictions on type, caliber, function etc. The deed is the crime, not the tool.
That being said violent criminals stay in jail until either no longer a threat to society, and when released are restored of their rights.
As long as we are talking about reasonable. The above jail would = making big rocks into little rocks, or some such other exhausting manual labor.
No Cable TV, no hanging out in the gym. Big rocks = little rocks, littered highway = clean highway for however long you are sentenced.
As for the letter of the Constitution: No restrictions should be allowed.
As for the purpose of the Constitution: No restrictions should be allowed.
Guns and Alcohol: No consuming alcohol(or drug of choice) while bearing arms. ( Banning the carry of arms while drinking does violate the Second Amendment. Banning drinking while carrying arms does not.)
Guns and Kids: Parents or guardians are 100% responsible for the safety, instruction, and liability of kids vis-a-vis arms up to the age of majority, or when they are emancipated.
Violent Felons: No violent felon shall be released from prison until it is proven in the court of law that sent said criminal to prison that said violent felon is no longer violent and can be trusted with arms.
Mentally Unstable: No mentally unstable(dangerous or self-destructive) person shall be released from an institution or guardianship until it can be proven in the court of law that sent said unstable(dangerous or self-destructive) person to the institution or assigned guardianship that said unstable(dangerous or self-destructive) person is no longer unstable(dangerous or self-destructive) and can be trusted with arms.
Prohibited Carry: Anyone constitutionally debarred access to their arms in any place(a private home, a business building) shall be considered to be in the custody of the owner or proprietor, and shall enjoy the protection of their person and effects by the owner or proprietor wherein the access to arms is prohibited as if the prohibited person was not prohibited, and that owner or proprietor shall be held liable for any loss due to such prohibitions, up to and including the loss of the life of a prohibited person as a result of the failure of said owner or proprietor to provide protection. Prior to the admission of a prohibited person into such a facility, it shall be the owner's or proprietor's duty to inform such prohibited person whether said owner or proprietor intends to provide such protection or not. Admission of a prohibited person into such a place where the owner or proprietor shall refuse to provide protection does not release the owner or proprietor from his duty or liability.
Court, Police stations, Prisons: All shall be designed to provide barriers wherein any visitor, witness, or concerned person shall be isolated from any potential harm.
Good point. Although I don't even think these are necessary, as it should be covered under existing self defense law.
But I like the way you think.
What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?
Admittedly, I am extreme on this issue, but not without much thought. I believe the Second Amendment is an absolute, fundamental and intrinsic right that defines Freedom.
That said, there should be no restrictions on any free people to Keep and Bear Arms. If you are not in prison, a minor or adjudicated mentally insane you have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as much as the right to speak your mind (Freedom of Speech), write down your thoughts (Freedom of the Press), demand a trial when accused of a crime (Due Process) or any other of the rights stipulated in the Bill of Rights.
A minor can have their Right to Keep and Bear Arms restricted just like they can have their Freedom of Speech and Religion restricted: a parent can punish their child for swearing or force them to go to church, etc. As a result, minors are not truly Free. That is ok as they will grow up and become truly free once they are old enough to accept the responsibility of being free.
Also note that since minors are not completely free they are not completely responsible for some of their actions- juvenile convictions of certain crimes are automatically expunged.
As for convicted felons, I believe that if someone has done their time they should be fully-functioning citizens again. If we can't trust that person with a gun, we cannot trust that person in a free society, period. Repressing a released-felon's Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or any other rights for that matter, simply creates a caste society where some people have more rights than others. As a result, the entire society is degraded.
With regards to those adjudicated mentally insane (not just eccentrics who choose to live their life differently, but people formally adjudicated insane) these people are analogous to children. They lack the judgment to exercise their rights, but in exchange they are absolved of responsibility of their actions. Someone can be "not guilty by reason of insanity". These people are truly innocent, in the strictest moral sense: they cannot be held accountable for their actions as they do not have the wisdom to be independent and free. We, as a society, have the duty and obligation to protect these people from outside harm and from themselves.
One last comment: those people that can have their Constitutional rights lawfully repressed through Due Process still have their rights technically. Their rights still exist, but are lawfully repressed. The Founders chose their wording very, very carefully.
Theft of a firearm should carry a minimum 10 year sentence per firearm, if used in another crime or sold to anyone for use in a crime then 20 years minimum. No plea bargains, no pleading to a lesser crime no choice for the DA not to prosecute.
It is my understanding some cities with the most restrictive gun crime laws (Baltimore) prosecute lesser charges trading long jail sentences for quick trials and less jail overcrowding. Why not require full prosecution of crimes involving use of firearms?
And I agree with Hypnogator's laws.
It is not just that, the city of Baltimore has a very sympathetic to dendents jury pool and prosecutors know they would have trouble taking a case all the way with success.
Baltimore wants a gun offendor registry now. That way if there is a gun crime like a murder, they can go to all the registered offendor's houses that still live in the city and question them.......but what is the point even if they catch them again because they are just going to release them soon again anyway.
By the way, MD has state preemptions on most gun laws. Baltimore cannot generally have more strict gun laws than the state's.
Separate names with a comma.