What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[MakAttak]

People who are requiring safety classes before purchase are using the wrong tool of government.

K3 is quite right: Shall not be infringed is very clear.

Reasonable gun laws should be: Any person who negligently harms another with a firearms shall be civilly responsible for any and all medical bills and care for said victim and family so long as the victim and/or family is ill affected by the shooter.

You don't restrict a right- people BEGIN with it. You place consequences for the misuse of a right. Do we make people pass a test before we license them to speak in public or do we punish them for yelling fire in a crowded theater?

 

[littlegator]

registration probably would not violate the 2nd, espescially if registration was done pursuant to a purpose to inventory available weapons in the case of an emergency.

LegalEagle has it right. S.Ct. has held the fed gov't has almost unlimited power during times of emergency. Thomas Jefferson foresaw this (the case law on the "emergency" doctrine came out later) and believed the gov't of the people and by the people would be the best way to deter or limit an abuse of power. Additionally, James Madison and others believed that federalism (stronger states' rights) with recognition of a central government for the protection of the aggregate, might also provide the best defense against tyranny. Unfortunately, the central government has evolved into a stronger unit than (I believe) many aniticipated.

Regarding the OP, I think mandatory firearms class but no ccw permit necessary. If you can have a gun, you should be able to conceal it.

 

[littlegator]

do we punish them for yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Actually, yes, this is not protected speech under the 1st amendment. Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919), in dicta, Justice Holmes stated, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." The belief that speech is a "trigger to action" is the premise behind the limitation on the 1st Amendment "right".

 

[MakAttak]

Actually, yes, this is not protected speech under the 1st amendment

Read the rest of the passage. You will notice I expect a yes answer to this part of the question.

 

[Fletchette]

Quote:
do we punish them for yelling fire in a crowded theater?

Actually, yes, this is not protected speech under the 1st amendment.

Not true. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is legal if there is indeed a fire. If there is not, it is not a crime of speech, but a crime of endangerment.

The analogy would be that you cannot fire a gun in a crowded theater if it is not in self defense. Prohibiting the discharge of a gun without self defense is not restricting "keeping" or "bearing".

 

[littlegator]

Obviously. I added the actual language to the case above in my previous post. You guys...

 

[hnk45acp]

There needs to be a bit of clarification here. A gun is an object/tool, ownership of such is a right. Proper use is a different story. to use Makattaks analogy, Owning said gun is a right.

If you want to use it you need to know how to use it.

If you punish people for misuse or negligent use then you end up much dire situation than if you had taught said person how to use said tool in the first place.

What if the person who shot you was poor and can't afford your medical bills, who ends up paying for it?

BTW if there was a mandatory class then you should be able to carry as well. Many here don't seem to have problems with CCW classes. This would be the same thing

 

[Beatnik]

I'm not trying to compare the two in terms of their importance in the constitution, merely the knowledge required to safely operate tools in this case a car and a gun.

That's good, because there is no comparison. Driving has no importance in the constitution and is therefore an altogether different issue.

I respect that, I'm just not that willing to take on that much risk.

Then by your own admission, you're ok with government meddling if it reduces your perceived risk in life.

Take that to its logical conclusion. Mandatory sex ed for kindergarteners comes from that line of thinking.

You don't restrict a right- people BEGIN with it. You place consequences for the misuse of a right.

Amen brother.

 

[Beatnik]

What if the person who shot you was poor and can't afford your medical bills, who ends up paying for it?

There used to be charities for this, who would sometimes even hold the individual accountable for something. But because some people wanted the government to reduce everyone's risk in life, you and I pay for it now.

Our view is pretty consistent, when you go back to the root of the problem.

 

[littlegator]

The analogy between the 1st amend freedom of speech and the 2nd amend right to keep and bear arms is interesting, since one has a right to speak, but there is a limitation on what one may say. For example, inflammatory speach causing a riot, defamatory speech, etc., are not protected under the 1st amend. Re: the 2nd amendment, the right is to keep and bear arms, but there appears to be no right on how, when and where they can be be used. Murder, of course being the prime example. But even less obvious, limitations on where a gun can be discharged. Unless, however, the interpretation of "bear" is that of "use", in which case, "keep and bear" arms takes on a different meaning. I doubt the Heller Court will be making this fine of a point on their decision, but it would be interesting to see if they define the terms more acutely.

 

[jackmead]

the problem with gun laws is- Who is going to wait 2 weeks before he can buy a gun?

Hunters
Target shooters
collecters
I don't need no damn reason
crooks

check one

 

[MakAttak]

If you punish people for misuse or negligent use then you end up much dire situation than if you had taught said person how to use said tool in the first place.

What if the person who shot you was poor and can't afford your medical bills, who ends up paying for it?

We have the same situation with automobiles. What if the person who causes the accident cannot pay for the repair and/or medical bills of the person who suffered wrongly in the accident?

 

[hnk45acp]

Then by your own admission, you're ok with government meddling if it reduces your perceived risk in life.

Take that to its logical conclusion. Mandatory sex ed for kindergarteners comes from that line of thinking.

That's a bit ridiculous as kindergarteners don't have the mental ability to grasp sex-ed
The gov't IS in the risk reduction business. The food that you eat is tested, the drugs you take are tested, the gasoline you put in your tank is tested, the water that goes into you tap is tested.

Those are the things that make modern society possible. Your arguement taken to it's logical conclusion would lead to us eating ecoli tainted beef, having sewage in our tap water, drugs that were harmful/ineffectual and gas that underperforms.

 

[ForeignDude]

How About This?

It's perfectly obvious that there is a wide array of opinion on this board regarding what constitutes "reasonable" restriction of the right to keep and bear arms. Mark this well because if a small sample of supposed "gun nuts" can't come to agreement on this issue, then those nine old Foggies in Black Robes are hardly likely to do better.

With that said, here is my "reasonable" solution:
(1) No Federal laws whatsoever pertaining to the 2A.

Let the People of the various States decide, for themselves, that which they consider "reasonable". It seems clear to me that majorities in certain States, such as those in Maryland or Massachusetts, seem to prefer the way things are done now. In other States, gun rights are cherished and people would rather slit their wrists than live in any one of the aforementioned gun-restricting States (people like me, for example).

So, let the States decide! And if you don't like it, move to a State more in tune with your philosophy. (Man, I love America! )

(Yeah, yeah, I know: under such a plan, Alabama would still be living in the Jim Crow era.)

 

[K3]

having sewage in our tap water

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/27/u...WAY&adxnnlx=1196190042-dlpsgXDtqIxiCiztEcOOOA

 

[littlegator]

We have the same situation with automobiles. What if the person who causes the accident cannot pay for the repair and/or medical bills of the person who suffered wrongly in the accident?

Underinsured motorist coverage is a necessity in Nevada where I'm at (not legally mandatory though).

Underinsured gun victim's coverage?

 

[littlegator]

Let the states decide - nice, a federalist. Scalia would be proud.

 

[MakAttak]

The gov't IS in the risk reduction business. The food that you eat is tested, the drugs you take are tested, the gasoline you put in your tank is tested, the water that goes into you tap is tested.

You know, my neighbor is a moron. I don't think he should have a chainsaw because I am sure he would cut down that tree and land it in my bedroom. The government should require training before selling it to him.
My other neighbor is even worse. I just know he's pouring volatile chemicals down his sink that's going to make my sewer blow up. He should be required to pass a test before he is sold any chemicals.
Across the street there's a punk kid who I just know will be driving his dad's riding lawn mower over golf balls that are going to break my windows and possibly bean me in the head. He and his parents should have to get licensed before they can buy that lawnmower.
Oh, and that idiot down the street who just bought a welding torch? I just know he's gonna blow up his garage and send debris into my house and catch it on fire. Anyone should have to pass a test before they are allowed to own any welding equipment.



Get the idea? Not a single one of these are enumerated by the constitution as a right. Yet we let people have these dangerous implements why?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie_the_yankee wrote:

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.

Poor Richard asks:

Any law? You mean they aren’t bound by the Constitution that is the law of the land, and that they swore an oath to uphold and defend?

Yes. Any law at all. They have authority directly from Article 1 to pass any law they please. If people think a law is unconstitutional, there are ways working within and through the system to challenge such a law. If the courts agree that it is unconstitutional, the law can be rendered null and void. But the lawmakers and their agents cannot be prosecuted under the constitution for passing such a law in the first place.

Poor Richard goes on to say:

All I’m proposing is a means of enforcement. A minimum sentencing for the violation of oath and law.

Too bad it violates Article 1.

Actually, I was thinking that charges of treason be brought up after impeachment.

I guess you are willing to throw Article 3, Section 3 overboard as well.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Like I said, the 2nd Amendment seems to be the only part of the Constitution that you respect or are remotely familiar with.

Then Woody writes:

In the realm of arms, no one need decide. It's already been determined in the Constitution. Any law that infringes the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is unconstitutional.

Until you have been recognized as a purveyor of revealed truth, the above statement is meaningless.

If you wanted to say that in your opinion, any law that infringes the 2A is unconstitutional, your statement would make sense though it would be little more than a truism.

But you seem incapable of understanding that it is not up to you to declare this or that to be an "infringement", and that determining whether or not a law or policy is an infringement can require a complex analysis of competing rights. Again, this is the job of the courts.

When you say that "the Constitution determines...", what you really mean is that you have determined that it means such and such.

The Constitution itself doesn't "determine" anything. It is simply a document that contains various statements. It is up to people to determine what these statements mean and how they apply in particular cases. In our system, those people are called "judges".

You would make a much better argument if you could simply appreciate these things.

 

[MakAttak]

Nota Bene: There is a difference between the government testing and certifying a good before it can be sold (I think this should be done with consequences for defective products, but that is beside the point) and requiring an individual to get permission before purchasing a product.

 

[MD_Willington]

AK Isn't a hunting rifle... Hmmm, then what the H3LL is a Saiga... Valmet hunter or Norinco hunter?

They are BOTH... Everywhere else except the USA can you get a Saiga that is in AK configuration... only because of a silly "sporting clause"...


What's a Camino? a truck, a car... looks like both to me....

 

[izban]

On a related issue, I think gun use and safety should be mandatory by high school. There is no reason that kids should come out believing what Hollywood has shown them about guns.

How many gun fights have you seen where the participants don't use hearing protection but don't complain about ear pain or ringing? or deafness? (i.e. Lethal Weapon)

Plus, look at the asinine legislation that results from gun ignorance: California's new "microstamping" law for guns sold there. How dumb can you be? Remove the barrel, extractor, pin, and file the slide face: No stamp!

 

[Fletchette]

izban: welcome to The High Road!

 

[Pete409]

Gun safety classes should be highly encouraged and should be made available in the public schools, but they should NOT be a requirement for purchasing or owning a gun.

Once the government makes safety classes a requirement, then they could keep making the requirements for passing the class more and more strict, thereby effectively denying the right of gun ownership to many people because they can't pass the required safety class.

This same tactic (about safety) has been tried with some success by the gun control crowd to limit the availability and usefullness of guns. Before long, guns will have so many required safety procedures that must be complied with, that they will be impractical for their intended purpose.

If I have to keep my guns unloaded, disassembled, locked up, and have the ammo under separate lock and key, then what good does it do me to own the gun? A burglar would have to give me 3 days written notice of his planned breakin in order for me to get ready for him. Life just doesn't work this way.

Safety classes and safety procedures should be encouraged but not mandated. Otherwise, the safety requirements themselves are a way of disarming people.

Example: A young, single female lives alone and has never expressed any interest in firearms. Suddenly, an ex-boyfriend begins making serious death threats to her. She decides that she needs a gun to protect herself from his crazy threats. BUT, if she has not taken a safety class and the next class won't be offered until the fourth Wednesday of next month, she could very well be dead before she could purchase a gun to defend herself with.

 

[hnk45acp]

Get the idea? Not a single one of these are enumerated by the constitution as a right. Yet we let people have these dangerous implements why?

I think it is because it IS a right we should have a healthy respect for it. A gun especially one used for self defense is a great responsibility. None of those "dangerous" tools you mentioned are meant to be used specifically to defend your life.

Are you against CCW classes?

How would you feel if there were people out there that felt that it was ok to shoot you because you: insulted them, cut them off on the road, gave them a dirty look, etc.
There are plenty of people that think it would be ok to do so, that is until they've been taught otherwise.

how about the 4 rules? How many gunowners have neglected them to their own regret?

I believe it's "reasonable" to have to learn about firearms. I'm not advocating a semester of "The workings of the 1911" I'm talking about a few hours out of your life that may be beneficial to you and others around you. Nothing more. The OP asked what was reasonable and if you are an absolutist then obviously you see no "reasonable" restriction but do not try to expand my answer into the realm of absurdity.