What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

[Bubbles]

What are reasonable gun laws in your opinion?

Reasonable restrictions are valid on actions that endanger other people, whether on purpose (e.g. armed robbery) or by accident (e.g. target shooting on your land and a round goes over the backstop).

Otherwise, the whole FFL system can go away. If people want to design, build, buy, and sell guns for fun and profit, have at it. Also, if I as a WV resident wish to purchase a handgun or long gun from someone while I'm vacationing in FL, I should be able to do that without having to do the transfer through and FFL.

Get rid of NICS. Criminals today can get guns on the gray/black market even with all the controls that are in place. The government can leave the system up to give sellers the option to run a potential purchaser through the check for a sale, whether private or from a store.

922(o) needs to go away, as does the National Firearms Act of 1934 and most of the GCA of 1968.

can someone explain to me the logic behind the "one gun a month" rule? if I already have a gun, whats another?

I'll try, though I wasn't yet a Virginia resident when the law was being debated back in the late 1980's.

Cliff notes version: NYC found through trace data that a lot of "crime guns" were originating in Virginia. NY officials complained; VA responded by passing the "one handgun a month" law to try to stop trafficking and straw purchases.

Here's a fun fact about the whole thing: the reason that a disproportionate number of the guns traced by NYC were recognized as being from VA is because they were being stolen by a UPS employee in VA who recognized certain boxes on the truck when they originated from a certain address. The authorities allowed this employee's activities to continue for two years while they traced the chain of gun-runners from VA to NYC.

 

[Cosmoline]

Federal--

--Laws restricting the firing and carrying of weapons on federal property, but a high standard beyond generic public safety to justify outright prohibitions on possession (ie in federal court, congress, visiting the President, etc.)

--Laws regulating import and export of firearms, which would include the power to ban imports outright for foreign policy reasons (Chinese for example) but would not allow back door regulations such as the "sporting purpose" requirement.

--No other laws regarding firearms, period.

State--

--Basic laws regarding when and where firearms may be discharged

--Laws regarding safe transport and brandishing, so long as they do not unduly restrict the RKBA.

--Laws regarding what arms are allowed, within reason. For example a ban on high explosive shells for a howtizer would be reasonable, but not a ban on handguns. The lynch pin in my opinion is whether or not its a shoulder arm, and the amount of dangers the use of the device poses to those not actually targetted. A crew served weapon firing high exposive shells is of limited value to an individual and poses substantial risk to third parties who aren't even directly targetted, for example. Large incendiary devices are likewise of limited value with enormous potential for abuse. The further you get from an individual shoulder-fired weapon, the more restrictions should be allowed.

--Laws regarding what weapons may be carried onto state property, akin to the federal laws.

Local--

--Whatever additional criminal laws the state permits

 

[jeep-2]

be military age to own a gun of their choice.
damned the background checks, if a person is that bad, they shouldn't be on the streets.

 

[yesit'sloaded]

damned the background checks, if a person is that bad, they shouldn't be on the streets.

I agree, the problem is that they ARE on the streets. If we actually punished criminals and dealt with them when crimes actually have victims we would be better off as a society.

 

[Liko81]

There are two categories of gun law I am interested in:

1. The U.S. government has the right to know the guns you have in your possession.
2. Should you commit a crime with those guns or that would be facilitated with those guns, you cannot be trusted with a firearm.

Further to this, you should at least be old enough to drive, so you can present valid picture ID. You should be who you say you are, and you cannot have criminal or psychopathic tendencies known to any governmental body. So I support a minimum age (the legal age of majority in most cases), and a background check that is both comprehensive and complete.

Beyond that, I understand gun control sentiment, but for an owner of a gun to be required to prove he needs that particular weapon is not only bass-ackwards legal thinking, but contrary to the point. Many gun owners hope never to NEED their gun, but one can always come up with a scenario in which they may be required to out-shoot a BG. Most are (unfortunately) everyday occurrences; i.e. mugger tries to rob little old lady. Many are extreme and one would CERTAINLY hope never to see the day they transpire, such as a 10-to-1 assault on your house by a gang. Others are distasteful to those in power, such as our Framers' expressed need for citizens to be able to fight their own government. However, they are valid, and as such the government must demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that a gun's benefits to society are outweighed by its hazards in order to ban it.

The government however does have the ability to do so, and they do make a very cogent argument that guns originally designed for military use, which are only legal because the mechanism is reversibly modified for semi-auto operation, are "penile extensions" owned primarily for bragging rights and have no place in a civilized society. And you have to admit, the argument that an owner of such weapon has neither the need nor desire to brag, but does have the need and desire to outshoot anything he may encounter, sounds very hollow to modern society. They see images on the news of radical groups carrying weapons openly down the street and armed gangs holding citizens hostage, and equate those weapons with criminals. It is hard to argue that an AK-47 is necessary for home defense or hunting when your average hunting rifle or short 12-gauge does the same job without the paramilitary image.

 

[REOIV]

As much as I hate gun control I think Virginia Tech could have been avoided if the background check had worked the way it was supposed to.

How so?

Virginia Tech is a clear cut case where background checks did everything they were supposed to and didn't stop a damn thing. There was nothing about Cho that would have stopped the background check from going through. He was never committed, or judged mentally defective (ie unable to consent and live on his own).

If anything it showed how utterly useless background checks are.

100% of criminals were law abiding citizens at some point in their life and NICS would have stopped absolutely nothing......

 

[MD_Willington]

legal US citizen

hmm... guess my children, legal US citizens under the age of 18, have no right to be defended by their mother or father, legal US residents for almost 8 years...


(no I can't just go and get my citizenship, you have to wait 5 years after your permanent resident status is issued )

 

[nate392]

A reasonable law would be to add a requirement on a federal level to not further the pooping all over the second amendment by our senators

 

[K3]

There are two categories of gun law I am interested in:

1. The U.S. government has the right to know the guns you have in your possession.
2. Should you commit a crime with those guns or that would be facilitated with those guns, you cannot be trusted with a firearm.

Do you believe/support #1?

Lord I hope not.

The government has NO rights. Especially that one. It has powers that have been granted to them. Unfortunately, it has assumed many that have not been granted.

The government however does have the ability to do so, and they do make a very cogent argument that guns originally designed for military use, which are only legal because the mechanism is reversibly modified for semi-auto operation, are "penile extensions" owned primarily for bragging rights and have no place in a civilized society.

In your opinion the argument is cogent. Not in mine. Sheep are easy to convince (I don't know that you are a sheep or that you, personally, have been convinced. I'm talking in general terms here). Joe Biden and his ilk know this. Anybody see the debate where the guy with the AR talks about protecting his child (the AR)? Joe Biden's response was very telling. The nannies in government don't want John Q Citizen to have firepowere anywhere near the level of the alhpabet soup enforcers for obvious reasons.

And you have to admit, the argument that an owner of such weapon has neither the need nor desire to brag, but does have the need and desire to outshoot anything he may encounter, sounds very hollow to modern society.

Do I? Given the sheeplike nature of modern society, I find it very hard to give a poop what soccer moms and products of the socialist indoctrination centers (public schools) think.

They see images on the news of radical groups carrying weapons openly down the street and armed gangs holding citizens hostage, and equate those weapons with criminals. It is hard to argue that an AK-47 is necessary for home defense or hunting when your average hunting rifle or short 12-gauge does the same job without the paramilitary image.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Background checks and other laws that burden the criminal or the mentally incompetent are OK.

Drug addicts and violent felons may be banned from possessing firearms.

Gun bans, "may issue" license to carry laws, gun registration, "X number of guns per month", and other laws that burden law-abiding adults are not OK.

Gun or carry bans on federal or state property are not OK, with certain narrow exceptions.

People with licenses to carry should be able to carry in workplaces and/or public accommodations, again with certain narrowly tailored exceptions.

The purchase and possession of guns is regarded as a fundamental right, fully incorporated under the constitution so as to apply to the states, territories, and political subdivisions thereof. Any limitations on that right should be subject to the strict scrutiny test.

 

[hnk45acp]

My Opinion is
1. 18 years or older you should be allowed to purchase and/or carry
2. All buyers must have a basic handgun safety class
3. No one adjudicated mentally incompetant or violent felons should have guns, although there should be a system for those to re-instate their rights.
4. You should be able to carry anywhere save a few places, ie: Court rooms, seats of government, etc.

While I understand that many believe that there should be no restriction to the 2nd amendment, it's just not realistic. It's almost like the Brady crowd saying if there was no guns there'd be less violence, A utopian daydream

 

[goon]

What's wrong with the AK for home defense?
I'm not a police officer, I'm a civilian.
At least a cop or a gov't agent has the training to take one someone trying to kill him and have half a chance of surviving.
As a civilian I don't have that training (I could get it for enough $$$, but that is beside the point). Tax dollars foot the bill for the training that LEO's recieve and it gives them a better chance of stopping criminals and getting home alive.
I'm all for that.
But like I said, I don't have that training. That means that I need something to give me an edge over the criminal. He may be armed with the same 9mm Glock that I am but he has a lifetime of ruthless behavior ingrained into who he is. Most of us don't. He is a rapist and a murder. We are bankers, doctors, teachers, delivery guys, hairdressers, and bartenders. In terms of sheer meanness, who do you think has the edge?
Now, would you rather face that with an AK or with your grand-daddy's old single barrel H&R?
Personally, I think I'd opt for the AK.


Reasonable IMO is any small arm that could be issued at the squad level or lower. No problems with an M2, 240B, M-60, M-4, AK, Uzi, MG-42, etc in my book.
But along with this extra freedom would come a restructuring of how we are governed.
I think anyone between 18 and 60 should be strongly encouraged (but not required: this is America) to own a rifle of their choice and a minimum of 200 rounds for it. Tax breaks should be given to finance the purchase of ammunition and rifles that would fit criteria set by the gov't. for homeland defense rifles (something semi-auto or select fire, 7.62x51 or 5.56x45, and well suited to paramilitary use).
It would pretty much recognize the role of the unorganized militia and place it under the command of state and local authorities in the event that extra manpower or firepower was needed to contain some type of criminal element until specialized police units could get to the scene. They could also be used to help out in times of natural disasters, with manhunts, to secure borders, you name it.
I think that being able to be called out by either the local chief LEO or State police, mayor, or governor would provide enough flexibility to make it worth the effort.
As I said, it would be voluntary but encouraged and once you were a member you would be under oath and required to attend trainings a few times a year. Stuff like first aid, legal stuff (when it's OK/not OK to shoot someone), and marksmanship. It would create a large pool of men and women who would already basically be trained, "deputized", and able to assist at a moments notice.

If a system like that were in place and promoted, I don't think that any school shooting, DC "sniper" style shooting, or Hollywood shootout with police would ever get off the ground again.
A handful of armed people would almost always be in the immediate area and able to respond immediately, even before police could show up.

How's that for a different kind of gun law?

 

[Beatnik]

The NCIS is good I would say keep that because it does work (they caught a sex offender a few weeks ago trying to buy)

Perhaps NICS does some good. But that doesn't explain why I shouldn't be automatically ID'ed at the grocery store, the sporting goods store, the feed store, and the hardware store - all of which sell deadly weapons.

If we lived in an Orwellian nightmare, I'd be OK with government making businesses do the judicial system's work for it. We don't, so I'm not. Gun stores are singled out simply because the particular weapon they sell has a negative connotation to it, and agreeing to keep socialist agendas in place as a compromise isn't doing anything to change the public's impression of guns.

Should you commit a crime with those guns or that would be facilitated with those guns, you cannot be trusted with a firearm.

No one adjudicated mentally incompetant or violent felons should have guns, although there should be a system for those to re-instate their rights.

I'm with the crowd stuck wondering this: if he can't be trusted with a firearm, what's he doing walking around free?
And what is mentally incompetent? Does that mean that a guy with down syndrome who earns his living driving schoolchildren around in a bus all day can't own a gun?
Is that supposed to make sense?

They all sound like great ideas, but anywhere these ideas do good, that good comes with a price. The price is freedom. I'm going to try to err on the side of freedom every time.

 

[AndyC]

Quote:legal US citizen

hmm... guess my children, legal US citizens under the age of 18, have no right to be defended by their mother or father, legal US residents for almost 8 years...


(no I can't just go and get my citizenship, you have to wait 5 years after your permanent resident status is issued )

I'm in the same boat, although I have 3 years to go (marriage to a US citizen). That said, I've had words with some folk here on THR who are delighted at the prospect of disarming a mere resident - only full citizenship would satisfy them

As for good laws - hmmm, can't think of any right now. Don't hold your breath, either

 

[v35]

1. The U.S. government has the right to know the guns you have in your possession.

It's hard to tell if you're advocating this concept but if you are... not only no but hell no.

Most people, having been educated by TV, are shocked to hear that there is no "registry" of firearms in Pennsylvania (and most other jurisdictions I think). There is simply no good reason for registration. The only reasons for registration are malicious and intrusive.

Provide just one benefit to registration and I'll think about it, but until then, not only no but hell no.

 

[legaleagle_45]

There is simply no good reason for registration.

Agreed. However, 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. Such inventories were done both before and after the 2nd was adopted pursuant to congress's power to organize the militia.

Provide just one benefit to registration and I'll think about it, but until then, not only no but hell no.

How did I do?

 

[v35]

Legal, that's pretty scary. I agree it wouldn't likely violate the 2A.

A bona fide national emergency has the potential to change public opinion in a heartbeat. I can imagine a lot of gun owners accepting such an imposition.

But I'm sticking with hell no.

If we lived in an Orwellian nightmare,

Whaddya mean, if?

 

[TallPine]

A "reasonable gun law" IMO would be something like: thou shalt not fire your guns in the air on Main Street on Saturday night.



Other than stuff like that (recklessness), we should be able to buy machine guns through the mail and carry open or concealed where-ever we wish.

 

[hnk45acp]

I'm with the crowd stuck wondering this: if he can't be trusted with a firearm, what's he doing walking around free?
And what is mentally incompetent? Does that mean that a guy with down syndrome who earns his living driving schoolchildren around in a bus all day can't own a gun?
Is that supposed to make sense?

They all sound like great ideas, but anywhere these ideas do good, that good comes with a price. The price is freedom. I'm going to try to err on the side of freedom every time.

Like it or not our judicial system is not perfect. People who commit violent crimes are often released after short sentences. We don't have life imprisonment for people who commit assault/robbery w/ guns.

As to mentally incompetent, I said "Adjudicated" meaning a judge has decreed so. Also if they can't understand a basic safety course for handling firearms they shouldn't be owning them

 

[the pistolero]

Provide just one benefit to registration

..."that outweighs the fact that it makes the task of the gun-grabbers that much easier if they ever drank a big enough cup of stupid to go for broke."

 

[Nitrogen]

I think keeping civillians from buying RPG's, nuclear weapons, anti aircraft missiles, etc, are perfectly reasonable forms of "gun" control.

 

[General Geoff]

Disagree. I'm all for crew-served weapons and destructive devices being civilian owned.

Think about it, how many people could afford such ordnance anyway? And on top of that, I think anyone with enough money to afford such weapons would have proper safeguards to prevent theft. Nuclear weapons wouldn't really be a feasible civilian-owned property, as they require nuclear engineers just to maintain their functionality over time.

 

[Elza]

v35: The only reasons for registration are malicious and intrusive.

And it sure makes it easier to confiscate them!

 

[alan]

Before one could answer that question, I would think that they would want to see and read the exact text of the proposal, as well as solid data that supposedly supports it. No rubbish about some "greater good", carefully unspecified would do.

 

[Pete409]

What are reasonable gun laws in my opinion?


Well, let's see. I think that every household should be required to own a MINIMUM of one gun. If the adults in a household choose not to own a gun, they should be required to sign a waiver and pay extra taxes to support the additional police officers required to protect those who choose not to protect themself.

In addition, the household should be required to hang a big sign on their door announcing that there are no firearms in the household.

Also, the government should return the taxes that we pay on firearms and ammunition to each individual purchaser so that we may use the money to practice and train and become more proficient in the use of our firearms.

And, after a person has shown they have a certain skill level and competency with firearms, they should be provided (by the government) a military style rifle and 2,000 rounds of ammo per year so that we can be better equipped and trained as Militia in the event of national emergencies. It's sure a hell of a lot cheaper to provide a weapon and some ammo to someone willing to practice and use it than to have to pay for reserve military forces.

I could probably think of a dozen more "reasonable" gun laws, but this should be enough to get the conversation started in the right direction.