What law(s) would gun owners like to see in place?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Suppose the question instead was something along the lines of what gun laws would we propose that might be expected to be accepted by a majority of the country. If both sides compromise, is there something in the middle that everyone can accept.
Click to expand...

Ah, the problem is in the premise.

Our side believes in the rights of the individual; further, that we already have too many regulations (and contradictory as well as useless ones, at that).

The other side believes that nothing short of full restriction will work.

So, their definition of compromise is that we have to give up more rights.

Our definition is that we have given up too many rights as is.

Another way to look at it; they think we3 have a dollar, and ought give up 50¢ (what harm in that?). We see it as having already given up 50¢ and have less to show for it (more actual harm). We've had tough times in the last thirty years or so--where we had to be happy with only giving up 25¢ and not 50¢. But, we are the ones who have given and given.

The whole "shall issue" movement has been an "end around" the entrenched establishment. And creates another set of problems, too. We won a great victory in '86 with FOPA. This allowed us to be armed at either end of a trip, as long as we were (are) utterly disarmed in-between. (Oh, and FOPA was a "loss" for us in that's when the dread Hughes Amendment was enacted.)

We have around 20,000 gun laws alone in this nation--no one can much demonstrate that any of them have ever reduced crime (other than making previously innocent activity a crime). The gun laws are a great confusion, no one much knows them all; how a reasonable citizen is to know how to obey them all is problematic. Which is also why there is actually almost no prosecution of any of the gun laws out there. For one, getting a jury to all agree on what the laws are is hard enough.
 
The "general population" has as much a right to feel safe, as we do, even though we each see a different way to achieve "safe".
Click to expand...
There is no right to feel safe. Everyone has a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In other words, you have a right to pursue the feeling of safety, if that's what makes you happy. One person's ideal "safe" environment is another's perceived death trap. You cannot guarantee the right to an emotion; it's impossible.
 
Gun control is all about fear. It has no hope of ever succeeding in its stated goals and anyone who thinks a ban on guns would lead to universal disarmament is in dire need of psychiatric assistance because they are delusional.

The old slogan "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is quite true; it just doesn't mention that there would be a whole new batch of outlaws, quite possibly numbering in the millions.

We already have all the "gun control" we need. It's against the law to misuse a firearm, to commit a criminal act with a firearm, to make a firearm accessible to small children, and so on. Those are the behaviors we really want and need to control. The possession of a weapon, be it a club or a bazooka, is not prima facie evidence of evil intent therefore there's no need to make it a crime.

Do we want violent criminals or psychopaths to have guns? No. But, science-ficton films notwithstanding, there's really no way we can tell in advance that a given person is going to commit a crime or have a psychotic outburst and, as been demonstrated repeatedly, there's no way we can absolutely prevent them from getting a gun if they are determined to get one. There are millions of guns in the United States; Pandora's Box can't be closed again. Despite some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation, dozens of young students in Chicago were shot and killed by other young students. Gun control, as envisioned by the anti-gun crowd doesn't work.

However, some of the suggestions I have seen are no better than gun control. Mandatory training and the issuance of firearms is just as bad as banning guns altogether. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, but there is no Constitutional requirement that they do. There's no requirement that everyone have a printing press or attend (or not attend) church, either. The Founding Fathers expected most of us would be armed, but did not want to infringe on the freedom granted by the Second Amendment.

Being an American citizen carries responsibilities that aren't required (or aren't allowed) of people in other nations. Among these is the requirement to defend our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We can't shift that burden to the government because we are the government. Therefore, we must have the ability to defend ourselves individually or as a militia or as armed forces united against a common enemy. This is why the Second Amendment has to stand as the only gun control law of the land.
 
Once again though, nobody here seems to want to say what should or should not be legal - what I hear, is "everything" should be legalized.
Click to expand...

The 2nd ammendment is not invulnerable. A constitutional convention can be called and the 2nd can be watered down or removed. If we keep pressing the issue that any arm is covered by the 2nd (because every arm is), we will leave no alternative to a constituional convention.

I don't know what the answer is. I just hope that the Supreme court is successful defining what an arm is. Personally, I like the definition of arm in the Tennessee firearm freedom act.

SECTION 6. Section 5 of this act shall not apply to:

(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one (1) person;

(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one half (1 ½) inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
 
husbandofaromanian said:
The 2nd ammendment is not invulnerable. A constitutional convention can be called and the 2nd can be watered down or removed. If we keep pressing the issue that any arm is covered by the 2nd (because every arm is), we will leave no alternative to a constitutional convention....
Click to expand...

A change to one of the original Bill of Rights? Not only does one either have to get two-thirds of both houses of Congress to agree, or two-thirds of the states to request, one must then get three-quarters of the states to ratify. If just 13 states refuse to ratify, the new Amendment doesn't pass.

And it's not like this happens overnight. At least one Amendment took 200 years to be ratified and there's one proposed in 1789 that is still waiting on enough states to ratify it.
 
Yes, but with the prices of select-fire weapons (full automatics), even assuming the repeal of the Hughes Amendment or even of the NFA itself, what you are proposing is a militia skewed toward the wealthy. This is antidemocratic. For the poor to be able to defend themselves, even from a tyrannical government, the government (before it becomes a tyranny) should issue the weapons on a free and nondiscriminatory basis.

Remember, "gun control" started out as a way of disarming the poor, the blacks, and the underclass in general.
Click to expand...

Correct, comrade. throughout history, men have been always to acquire arms. However, it was only the upper classes who were the warriors who could have purpose made weapons save in times of war. We also cannot afford more tax incentives to do things. We need more money entering the government, not less.

How about this -- "Every adult U.S. citizen (other than a convicted felon) will, upon application, be issued, free of charge, a standard select-fire military rifle or equivalent weapon and a basic supply of ammunition, state or local laws to the contrary notwithstanding. Those accepting such an issuance undertake to maintain such weapon in good repair, and to become proficient in its use."
Click to expand...

So long as the issued arm isn't a piece of blam I'm fine with this.

There is no right to feel safe. Everyone has a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In other words, you have a right to pursue the feeling of safety, if that's what makes you happy. One person's ideal "safe" environment is another's perceived death trap. You cannot guarantee the right to an emotion; it's impossible.
Click to expand...

You don't have the right to feel safe, but you have the right to pursue the means to make yourself feel safe. And as you said, what feels like a paradise to one man is anathema to another. For example, the Brits and Aussies I know would have heart attacks at the thought of having multiple guns in the house and call it a death trap. I would call it a bastion of safety. The Brits and Aussies I know would call a home without anything that could be used as even an improvised weapon to be the perfectly safe home. I would call it a massacre just waiting to happen.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I like the definition of arm in the Tennessee firearm freedom act.

SECTION 6. Section 5 of this act shall not apply to:

(1) A firearm that cannot be carried and used by one (1) person;

(2) A firearm that has a bore diameter greater than one and one half (1 ½) inches and that uses smokeless powder, not black powder, as a propellant;

(3) Ammunition with a projectile that explodes using an explosion of chemical energy after the projectile leaves the firearm; or

(4) A firearm that discharges two or more projectiles with one activation of the trigger or other firing device.
Click to expand...

First of all, the "Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act," like similar legislation in other states, is a nullity, because it's in direct conflict with federal firearms legislation and is therefore unconstitutional under the federal constitution's Supremacy Clause.

That said, it's also evidently poorly drafted, judging from (4) above, which would exclude ordinary shotguns from the operation of the Act! Also, what's the rationale for excluding crew-served weapons and artillery? Such things are allowed, with registration, under the NFA. Such tinkering represents a step backward, if you ask me.
 
Also, what's the rationale for excluding crew-served weapons and artillery?
Click to expand...

The 2nd is an individual right. Therefor, it makes common sense that weapons owned and operated by an individual would be covered.

As for the "Tennessee Firearm Freedom act", future court battles will determine if ATF was violating the 10th ammendment.

Many states have similar acts but Tennessees was the first to be passed.
 
If we went back to un-infringed gun rights, we would NOT have people strolling around town with bazookas.

Consider: If I want to be mobile, I currently have the right to buy a bicycle or a Ferrari or, for that matter, a 10-ton dump truck. But I don't own a dump truck because:

1) I cannot afford to buy one
2) I could not afford to fuel one
3) I have no place to put one
4) A dump truck doesn't suit my transportation needs
5) My local dealer doesn't have one in stock
6) Shipping one from a dealer who does have one is expensive
7) My family doesn't support having a dump truck parked in the front yard
8) Even though driving one for a few minutes might be fun, I don't really want a 10-ton dump truck

Similar issues would serve to limit ownership of all the artillery pieces that anti-gunners fear. And, like any other illegal thing, criminals who really want one will find a way to get one notwithstanding laws to the contrary.
Click to expand...

That is one FANTASTIC analogy!
 
Let's say we were to find the gray area of compromise. Do you think the anti gunners would stop there? No, they would keep pushing for more laws. They won't be happy until everything is banned, period.
 
The Supreme Court has:

Established that the 2nd is an individual right (Heller)

Incorporated the 2nd against the states (McDonald)



Future rulings the Court must make:

What arms are protected under the 2nd?

What persons are not protected (convicts, under 18, etc)?

In what manner and conditions can an arm be beared (ccw, open carry, etc)?
 
Somewhere I read that when armor piercing ammunition was up and coming and congress was trying ban it, the bill was worded so poorly as to make almost all ammo illegal, so the NRA stepped in to make sure the law did what it intended to do. At least that is a step in the right direction, because the problem with most of these laws is that they make absolutely no sense. we need sensible people writing the laws, if we want any.
 
I believe that I, as a responsible, law abiding citizen should not be restricted in owning any kind of firearm, or weapon. I don't believe this should extend to just small arms. A big reason behind the second amendment is as a means for the people to keep power. If we are limited in what we can "legally" possess, then we are limited in ability to resist an oppressive government..... and I really want a MK 19
 
There is no reasonable place. When you concede that there needs to be further gun laws you are on the losing side of the argument. You have given in to their premise. To gun controllers any law is in their own words always "a good first step". I once had a discussion with some fellow employees about criminals acquiring guns and I said "I don't care if criminals have guns or not as long as I can have them too." One of the people looked at me and said "You know I never thought of it that way but I agree with you".

What does bomb making have to do with firearms. That is the kind of nonsensical argument that the antis make. They are two completely different subjects. We are talking about hand held firearms.

I lived in Ft. Worth, Texas back in the early 90s and there was a talk show host named Alex Burton at that time on the radio regularly and when the subject of concealed carry in Texas came up (it wasn't legal at that time yet)
he sputtered on the radio "why if we have concealed carry, people will be shot just for knocking on someone's front door." What the heck does concealed carry have to do with knocking on a door?

We have the 2nd amendment and we have laws that deal with criminal behavior.

Also, if we and the NRA proposed any gun laws do you really think the antis would accept them without trying to add more to them. You don't seem to understand their mind set. They hate us.
 
Last edited:
So much to read.

I think the most sensible thing here is from Bearcreek: "Mike, here's what Thomas Jefferson said concerning interpreting the Constitution. "On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson


If everyone, on both sides of these discussions, ESPECIALLY including those in a position of power to enact laws, were to have followed this, we would be far better off as a country, and far more united.



For the past week I've been reading "Florida Firearms Law, Use & Ownership" by Jon H. Gutmacher, Esq. Fascinating reading, not only about how we've gotten to where we are now, but how to deal with the world we find ourselves in.

The first three pages deal what the Constitution actually SAYS. There is also an explanation of what the words meant when the document was written.

If "we" use that as a starting point, I think we have a much better chance of influencing the world we live in. Remember, we will have laws. We have always had laws. The history of humanity is filled with laws. Those laws exist for many reasons. Our job should be to make sure the laws are reasonable, constitutional, and that they will be good for all of us.
 
husbandofaromanian wrote:

The 2nd is an individual right. Therefor, it makes common sense that weapons owned and operated by an individual would be covered.
Click to expand...

I own several belt-fed MGs, up to and including an M2HB (all registered under the NFA, of course). These, I suppose, are classified as crew-served weapons. I disagree strongly that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to them.

Yes, the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. However, it did not hold that the 2nd Amendment is exclusively an individual right. It's also a collective right, in that individuals can band together to protect themselves from organized threats, including, potentially, the threat of a tyrannical government. Nowhere in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the right is limited to weapons that one individual can carry/operate by him/herself. Quite the contrary, when one considers the militia clause in the Amendment.
 
I don't have many problems with laws regulating the discharge of firearms. Keeping and bearing does not include a right to shoot holes in things anytime and anywhere we please. When you start sending bullets out or threatening to do so at someone, that's when the law should be involved.
 
We don't need a specific "gun" law to deal with that. It's called reckless endangerment. Same as if someone was speeding their car through people's yards or something.
 
From page 3 of the book I mentioned earlier...

...on June 26, 2008 the United States Supreme Court sorted this out.

As the book describes things:

...the Second Amendment protects an individual right of firearms ownership for purposes of self defense unconnected with any militia or military purpose. The Court held that the historical purpose of the Amendment was to make sure the federal government would not seize firearms from citizens, and thereby be able to rule over them in a tyrannical fashion. Moreover, it made clear that at the time of its passage the right of free citizens to own and possess firearms for self defense was sacrosanct. Still, the Court recognized that the right to own and possess firearms is not without limitation, and that unusually dangerous weapons, and those used primarily by criminals, could be regulated - just as they were in Colonial times. However, since handguns are the primary defensive weapon of choice in the modern era - these weapons are protected under the Second Amendment."



As Thomas Jefferson also said, "Government is a necessary evil."

Unless I'm missing something, it sure seems to me like we should back the above wording, as we would have both history and the US Supreme Court on our side. It also seems to me that the above wording would be accepted by both sides of the "gun control" issue. At least that would be a start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Any New Laws You Would Like To See?
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Zeke/PA
Z
L
  • Locked
A reasonable regulation? What could one be?
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
3K
TheBluesMan
T
D
  • Locked
More Gun Laws or Fewer Idiots?
Replies
4
Views
498
Black Knight
B
T
  • Locked
Indiana Gun Owners
Replies
0
Views
548
txgho1911
T
J
  • Locked
(CO) Court weighs city's ability to write local firearms laws
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
jimpeel
J
Back
Top