What gun laws do you feel ARE appropriate?

[ronnyreagan]

Anyone who cannot be trusted with a gun, should not be free to roam the streets at all.

I've seen this sentiment quite often, but I simply don't see how this could work in the real world. The US already has the highest prison population in the world. If a person is convicted of something like armed robbery they don't deserve life in prison for that, but I'm not too keen on them owning guns after that either.

I'm fine with some felons being released from prison but still denied legal ownership of firearms, especially those who committed crimes with them.

 

[mike101]

I agree that if someone can't be trusted out in society, with the same rights as the rest of us, then they shouldn't be out in society. I am against ALL gun laws. So is the 2nd Amendment.

The only law I can see as reasonable, would be a background check limited strictly to determining if a person has been ajudicated with a serious mental disorder; not depression, or anything minor. Only those disorders that could render a person prone to violence would be included.

If I had my 'druthers.

 

[Matt King]

I agree that if someone can't be trusted out in society, with the same rights as the rest of us, then they shouldn't be out in society. I am against ALL gun laws. So is the 2nd Amendment.

The only law I can see as reasonable, would be a background check limited strictly to determining if a person has been ajudicated with a serious mental disorder; not depression, or anything minor. Only those disorders that could render a person prone to violence would be included, if I had my 'druthers.

So you're for gun-control.
Just to a different extent then say, VPC.

 

[Daemon688]

If you're too dangerous to own a gun, why are you among free population?

That's a funny thing. Because our prison system can't possibly handle everyone. You ever look at your PDs list of level III sex offenders? Those people have done some terrible, terrible, things. They're also the ones most likely to commit another crime. Yet they could be your next door neighbor, living as free as can be. You want to send your kid over there for milk and cookies?

The only gun law I find appropriate is the background check. It's done in a few seconds and if it makes it more difficult for a felon from owning, then all the better. I'd much rather have them go through illegal channels to acquire than legally through a gun store. I don't agree with the permanent record keeping of 4473s though.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

What gun laws do you feel ARE appropriate?

It should be illegal to shoot something that does not deserve to be shot.

Extremely illegal.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

That's it.

If you're too dangerous to own a gun, why are you among free population? If you're "too young" (whatever THAT means) to own a gun, you probably don't have the money in the first place. If you do, you can own one.

Laws regulating the discharge of firearms are appropriate.

To me, this should be only laws regulating damage to other's property. If I can safely shoot on my land, NO law should be able to stop me, even if I'm in city limits.

Laws regulating ownerships and possession are laws I can't get warm and fuzzy about.

Very true.

Well said. Especially the part about felons. If I can't trust a person to own a gun, why would I want him out walking the same streets my wife and kids might be walking on?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I've seen this sentiment quite often, but I simply don't see how this could work in the real world. The US already has the highest prison population in the world. If a person is convicted of something like armed robbery they don't deserve life in prison for that, but I'm not too keen on them owning guns after that either.

The problem is that we incarcerate people for "felonies" that don't hurt people, and to make room for those "felons" in the prisons we release serial offenders and habitual rescidivists. What we need to do is keep the serious threats off the streets, and stop piling on for minor offenses.

 

[ArmedBear]

It should be illegal to shoot someone except in self-defense.

Pointing a firearm at someone who is not attacking or genuinely threatening you or another innocent person should be illegal either as assault or as reckless endangerment, depending on the situation.

With appropriate and significant checks and balances, of course, those who are dangerously insane could be legally barred from carrying or using guns (among other things like chainsaws, vehicles, etc.).

That's about all we need.

The rest of the laws exist in order to provide tax-funded jobs for people, to give government more power over individuals by turning acts that hurt nobody into crimes, and so that politicians can claim to be "doing something."

 

[JesseL]

I've seen this sentiment quite often, but I simply don't see how this could work in the real world.

It did work in this country, in the real world, for 192 years. The 1968 GCA didn't actually improve much as far as I can tell.

Conversely, how well is it working in the real world for us to disallow felons from obtaining firearms? It seems I hear about some prior felon doing something illegal with a gun on a regular basis anyway. The only people affected seem to be the honest folks who want to do things legally but are burdened with an expensive and onerous system that doesn't work.

The US already has the highest prison population in the world.

This wouldn't be such a problem if we could admit that prohibition is stupid and doesn't work for drugs any better than it did for alcohol.

If a person is convicted of something like armed robbery they don't deserve life in prison for that, but I'm not too keen on them owning guns after that either.

A person who commits armed robbery deserves to be killed on the spot by their intended victim. Unfortunately this doesn't always happen.

How can you say that you do trust them to be let out of prison, but you don't trust that they could use a gun responsibly, but you do trust that they won't get a gun illegally?

I'll strain something if I try too hard to wrap my head around that logic.

 

[kingpin008]

I feel illeagal aliens should have the same rights as citizens.

You've gotta be kidding me...

Oh, and the word is "illegal".

 

[TAB]

Well said. Especially the part about felons. If I can't trust a person to own a gun, why would I want him out walking the same streets my wife and kids might be walking on?

I have a client that does open heart surgerys, one of the best in the country, If I was to go under the knife I would trust him with my life, but I would not trust him with a skrew driver to tighten a lose skrew.

Since he can not be trusted to use a simple tool( guns are complex tools), he should therfore not be on the streets.

 

[ArmedBear]

I would not trust him with a skrew driver

Why? Is he very impressionable? Would some bad punk songs turn him into a skinhead?

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Well said. Especially the part about felons. If I can't trust a person to own a gun, why would I want him out walking the same streets my wife and kids might be walking on?

Or DRIVING on the same streets your wife and kids might be walking on.

Or walking...but hoping to find a ride to steal...on the streets your wife and kids are driving on.

 

[TAB]

no, its I've seen what he calls home improvement... I also saw him put a wheel on backwards trying to change a tire.

As I said the guy is a great surgen, but I would not trust him to do anything else.

 

[Robert Hairless]

A fundamental issue is whether felons should be allowed to defend their own lives or the lives of their families.

It's possible to argue that a felon is fair game when released from prison because he remains a danger to the public even after he has completed his sentence.

In that case the prohibition against allowing released felons access to guns for the rest of their lives makes darned good sense. If they are denied the right to defend their lives they must be denied the means to do so. The idea, of course, is to make their lives as short as possible after they do their time.

But then isn't it absurd to penalize anyone who ends the life of a felon? If the principle is that a felon is a danger to society even after release from prison, that he should not be able to defend his life, and that he therefore should be denied the means to defend it, it should not be against the law for anyone to execute a felon on the street.

If, on the other hand, felons are forever denied the right to have guns because society fears what a felon might do with one, then perhaps the appropriate approach is to judge a felon for what he does instead of what he might do. Maybe that's the way everyone should be judged.

 

[brighamr]

"The problem is that we incarcerate people for "felonies" that don't hurt people, and to make room for those "felons" in the prisons we release serial offenders and habitual rescidivists. What we need to do is keep the serious threats off the streets, and stop piling on for minor offenses."

"This wouldn't be such a problem if we could admit that prohibition is stupid and doesn't work for drugs any better than it did for alcohol."


Agree to both statements 150%

 

[ArmedBear]

But then isn't it absurd to penalize anyone who ends the life of a felon?

Depends entirely on how you define "felon".

Being caught with a Ziploc full of pot when you're 20 years old does not by any stretch indicate that you are a threat to anyone 10 years later.

Shooting a couple people for the money in their wallets, does.

 

[csmkersh]

Denying a felon a firearm is a relatively new thing brought to you by the weenies of the world. Up until the 1930s those released from prison were not striped of this right. Many here have already asked why someone is on the street if you can't trust them with a firearm. You punish people for what they do, not what they might do.
​

 

[Geno]

Inasmuch as "possession" implies an ability to engage in some form of conscience activity, those determined to be brain dead, or physically dead shall be prohibited from possessing firearms.

 

[JesseL]

Inasmuch as "possession" implies an ability to engage in some form of conscience activity, those determined to be brain dead, or physically dead shall be prohibited from possessing firearms.

The dead will be prohibited from something that they are, by definition, incapable of?

Okay, I'd be alright with legislators working on laws of that nature. It sounds like a nice activity for them between snacks and nap time, and it should keep them out of the grownups hair.

 

[JerryM]

I believe some gun control is wise.
No guns in bars
No drinking of alcohol while carrying
No CCW under 21 years of age
Current laws governing fully auto
Current laws governing silencers
No loaded guns on aircraft
Convicted felons who have committed violent crimes prohibited from owning or possessing
No guns for illegal aliens

I do not intend to argue those points, as they have been pretty well discussed on this and other forums. But that is my view.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[Firethorn]

Hmmm... I have to say that preventing felons from owning a firearm for say, 10 years after their release, might not be that horrible. On the other hand, we also make a lot of stupid stuff felonies today, to the point that being a felon has lost a fair amount of it's meaning. By the same token, I don't think that keeping guns out of the hands of those judged incompetent is necessarily unreasonable. Not a problem very often even without a law though, so why have it?

Other reasonable laws - assault, battery, negligent discharge, etc... On shooting inside city limits - sure, it might be safe, but I'll add one more stipend in that your home firing range is still subject to noise ordinances. Better have a well soundproofed range, or be prepared to have to limit your range time to the daytime.

Negligent discharge- same laws apply as any other activity that, due to your being a dumbass, is a clear and present danger to others.

Carrying a weapon, especially a gun, during a criminal act would be considered an aggreviating factor, even if it's not used.

Drunk carrying of a loaded weapon would be treated a bit like DUI before the stupidity of finding people guilty of DUI because they were found asleep in the back seat of the car in the bar's parking lot with the car keys in their pocket.

edit: JerryM, you go a ways further than I do.

No guns in bars - Not a concern to me, I'm more concerned about the alcohol or other inhibiting drugs in your bloodstream. I shouldn't have to disarm if I enter a bar simply to pick up a friend, for example.
No CCW under 21 years of age - I'd kick this down to 18
Current laws governing fully auto - I'd reopen the NFA
Current laws governing silencers - I'd legalize them as a safety device(lowers hearing damage)
No loaded guns on aircraft - Why not? Air Marshals and Military carry loaded all the time.
Convicted felons who have committed violent crimes prohibited from owning or possessing - I'd have a review processes in place for restoration after, say, 10 years.
No guns for illegal aliens - covered under my 'committing a crime' section. Every step they take inside the USA is illegal.

 

[tomr123]

If, on the other hand, felons are forever denied the right to have guns because society fears what a felon might do with one, then perhaps the appropriate approach is to judge a felon for what he does instead of what he might do. Maybe that's the way everyone should be judged.

To completely disregard someones past behavior is stupidity so criminal records should be taken into account. "Felons" is too broad a term. I'm fairly sure Florida takes violent and non violent felonies into consideration when considering issuance of CCW permits. I think this is the right approach. When you take everyone that is a felon regardless of the circumstance, you get people ranging from maniacs, to business men. Does it make sense to lump these people together considering some may have a legitimate right to defend themselves?

 

[csmkersh]

Jerry, I have no interest in discussing this with you. My only intent is to say I disagree with every point in your list with the exception of the one regarding illegal aliens.
​

 

[romma]

Hmmm... I have to say that preventing felons from owning a firearm for say, 10 years after their release, might not be that horrible.

Not bad, add to this, if you screw up and commit felonies once you get out, off you go for good!

You gotta wonder how bad is it in prison for alot of people to not care if they go back or not. So, yea, make prison what it should be, tough.