Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:01 AM
Norinco522 Norinco522 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 258
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default What is your definition of reasonable gun regulation?

Obviously nonsense like the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines bans, handgun roster list, non-sporting firearms importation bans, and 922r should be struck down. I also believe in increased deregulation of SBR's and full-auto guns, too. But how do you think we should keep firearms away from the mentally disordered and criminals? What other regulations do you feel would be reasonable for guns?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:07 AM
AndrewMendez's Avatar
AndrewMendez AndrewMendez is offline
C3 Leader
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: 626
Posts: 7,290
iTrader: 44 / 100%
Default

Aren't you the super smart 13 year old? Shouldn't you be asleep right now?
__________________
Need A Realtor in SoCal? Shoot me a PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:07 AM
5thgen4runner's Avatar
5thgen4runner 5thgen4runner is offline
"Dickish" Juggernaut
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Placerville
Posts: 3,490
iTrader: 42 / 100%
Default

Background check only every five years with your hsc. And no other regs. You wanna do harm and have a gun I do too. Natural selection. It's my responsibility to protect self,family,etc. Not anybody elses.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:11 AM
Tweak338's Avatar
Tweak338 Tweak338 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Jose
Posts: 4,043
iTrader: 36 / 100%
Default

I just want to own a Mk19 and mount it in my truck...
__________________
[Technique] you **** with one bean, you get the whole burrito!
[Soldier415] Like my KFC, I like my failed insurgents extra crispy.
[Batman]I once killed a 6-pack, just to watch it die!
Quote:
Originally Posted by scotthmt View Post
I used to take girls that im tryna get at for a drive through oakland to play a game called "spot the hooker". its a kind of "slug bug" but with hookers.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:11 AM
kemikalembalance's Avatar
kemikalembalance kemikalembalance is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 602
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Unfortunately, it is left to the digression of the Gun Store owner. But I would say make it a little stricter on the store owner in regards to educating them and the employees on how to recognize mental issues. Its kinda rough, it sounds bad when i write it, but some sort of clean bill of mental health or something. My opinion is kinda hard to write out. Im in for a training program for "first timers" or "new to a particular type" of firearm. But I also think they should bring back drivers ed to high school. Aint gonna happen.
__________________
,
and our leaders allow themselves to be spoon fed with foreign BS and have forgotten that the great majority of americans do not live in secluded gated comunities with private security 24/7 like they do, while the rest of us are subject to defending ourselves without Police escorts whenever we need it. they dont realize we are subject to different dangers than they are, and we must have and keep the right do defend ourselves!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:15 AM
Cali-Shooter's Avatar
Cali-Shooter Cali-Shooter is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 9,187
iTrader: 71 / 100%
Default

Felons and those with violent criminal records should be barred, those found to be mentally unstable should be limited. I'm ok with a basic bg check, but many states seem to do fine without much stringent requirements in this area.

I believe fully automatic firearms should be 100% legal in ALL states, AND even explosives such as grenades and RPG-7's and LAW's should be able to be had, through a process very similar to how Class III firearms are transferred in "free" states, by a very thorough background check and such.

Also, absolutely no regulation on anything in regards to SBR's, SBS's, adding a forward grip on anything, minimum length on anything, nor magazine capacity, nor restriction of any kind of scopes or what you can put on any gun, no restrictions on any kind of ammo for any gun/weapon, whether AP, incendiary, tracer, explosive, laser, etc.

Open carry, concealed carry, loaded weapons anywhere you go(unless private property, then you are at the discretion of property owner), it should all be legal.

Just my 2 cents.
__________________
In Glock We Trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeep7081
My wife sleeps better knowing we have a zombie killer... Saiga AK47! Although my neighbor with his AR has restless nights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AleksandreCz View Post
Thank god the Federal Government is there to protect us from the Federal Government
WTS: Revision 'Desert Locust' tactical Ballistic/Protective eyewear goggles NEW & USED pairs
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=737563

Last edited by Cali-Shooter; 12-01-2011 at 12:19 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:15 AM
Synergy's Avatar
Synergy Synergy is offline
I need more cowbell!!!!!!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: The good part of California!
Posts: 14,310
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norinco522 View Post
Obviously nonsense like the assault weapons and high-capacity magazines bans, handgun roster list, non-sporting firearms importation bans, and 922r should be struck down. I also believe in increased deregulation of SBR's and full-auto guns, too. But how do you think we should keep firearms away from the mentally disordered and criminals? What other regulations do you feel would be reasonable for guns?
Those that make the laws use words like reasonable to please the masses.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:27 AM
m03's Avatar
m03 m03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,926
iTrader: 66 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Norinco522 View Post
But how do you think we should keep firearms away from the mentally disordered and criminals?
Reduce the number of laws that ultimately foster criminal activity and create criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-01-2011, 12:47 AM
PsychGuy274's Avatar
PsychGuy274 PsychGuy274 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,289
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

The ONLY firearm related restrictions I support are criminal enhancements for violent misuse of a firearm. That's it.
__________________
I am a law enforcement officer in the state of Colorado. Nothing I post is legal advice of any kind.

CLICK HERE for a San Diego County WIN!

CLICK HERE to read my research review on the fight-or-flight response and its application to firearm training
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-01-2011, 1:11 AM
mcmikel61 mcmikel61 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 201
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any regulation is wrong. Such only serves governments trying to preserve themselves. Proof can be seen in the awful stuff going on in Great Britain, the US, the Middle East and worst of all, in Australia and New Zealand. These are all repressed societies.
The steady decline of civility coupled to the growth of government control, mostly unsuccessful and always repressive, tells the tale.
I say a repressed, spied upon, society proves the point. I further say an armed society must, necessarilly, be a polite society. I know many folks with whom I do not want to be polite. But I am glad to be so, for I never know who has a gun in his/her pocket.
I say yay for the individual. Those who do not survive the idea of being polite do not deserve a place in my world.

Last edited by mcmikel61; 12-01-2011 at 1:16 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-01-2011, 1:35 AM
bsg bsg is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: san gabriel valley
Posts: 25,825
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

reasonable is a word used to ease the conscience of the mass when government reinterprets rights in congruence with the effort to limit them... in a reasonable manner.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-01-2011, 3:02 AM
ErikTheRed's Avatar
ErikTheRed ErikTheRed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Hitler's Germa..... er, I mean CA
Posts: 1,623
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Any law that restricts or prevents any LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN from freely and civily excersizing their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is wrong. This includes 95% of all gun laws in California. None of these laws do a damn bit of good to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, the laws only restrict the rights of those who would respect the law--- and those aren't the people anyone need concern themselves with. Corrupt government tyrants who understand the threat of a patriotic armed citizenry to their radical lust for control are the only ones served by gun laws. Those who seek to commit violence upon the innocent are in no way swayed or deterred from either aquiring guns nefariously nor using them to commit a crime..... which is why these people are conveniently referred to as "criminals".

A simple and quick background check on all gun purchasers and possibly a 5-day waiting period for your FIRST GUN PURCHASE ONLY to prevent criminal acts of passion, these are the only gun laws I support.
__________________
Proudly nestled all snugly and warm in Hillary's basket. She even made room for my bibles and guns!


I've committed $10 a month to the CalGuns Foundation. Have you??? Join us and donate here!
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-01-2011, 3:35 AM
dirtykoala dirtykoala is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,486
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsychGuy274 View Post
The ONLY firearm related restrictions I support are criminal enhancements for violent misuse of a firearm. That's it.
+1

If youve read the 2A, you might noticed there is no fine print. Anyone should be allowed to own a gun.

Its cute to say that gang bangers arent allowed to own guns, but we all know that they do it anyway. Restrictions are pointless and ineffective. Like the quoted post said however, if you use a gun to infringe on the life or liberty of someone else, punishment should be harsh.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-01-2011, 3:39 AM
dirtykoala dirtykoala is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,486
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ErikTheRed View Post
Any law that restricts or prevents any LAW ABIDING AMERICAN CITIZEN from freely and civily excersizing their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is wrong. This includes 95% of all gun laws in California. None of these laws do a damn bit of good to keep guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, the laws only restrict the rights of those who would respect the law--- and those aren't the people anyone need concern themselves with. Corrupt government tyrants who understand the threat of a patriotic armed citizenry to their radical lust for control are the only ones served by gun laws. Those who seek to commit violence upon the innocent are in no way swayed or deterred from either aquiring guns nefariously nor using them to commit a crime..... which is why these people are conveniently referred to as "criminals".

A simple and quick background check on all gun purchasers and possibly a 5-day waiting period for your FIRST GUN PURCHASE ONLY to prevent criminal acts of passion, these are the only gun laws I support.
That would work assuming that during that 5 day wait you were also in an asylum wearing a straight jacket, and were unable to come in contact with knives, bats, tools, a car, a stick, or just about anything else really. If you are intent on killing someone, a 5 day wait will do just as much good as a 5 min wait.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-01-2011, 4:18 AM
PsychGuy274's Avatar
PsychGuy274 PsychGuy274 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 4,289
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dirtykoala View Post
That would work assuming that during that 5 day wait you were also in an asylum wearing a straight jacket, and were unable to come in contact with knives, bats, tools, a car, a stick, or just about anything else really. If you are intent on killing someone, a 5 day wait will do just as much good as a 5 min wait.
That and a system where there's a waiting period only for the first firearm purchase implies there's some type of registration going on.
__________________
I am a law enforcement officer in the state of Colorado. Nothing I post is legal advice of any kind.

CLICK HERE for a San Diego County WIN!

CLICK HERE to read my research review on the fight-or-flight response and its application to firearm training
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-01-2011, 5:15 AM
dieselpower dieselpower is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 11,478
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Only people found guilty of assault with a firearm which caused physical injury to another should be prohibited from CARRYING a firearm. They still have the right of Self Defense in their homes, just lost the right to carry since they can not be trusted IN PUBLIC.

Same goes for handy-capped persons.

BATFE should be changed to BE...let the local boys police the booze, cigs and firearms.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-01-2011, 5:28 AM
Don29palms's Avatar
Don29palms Don29palms is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,830
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Any type of gun control is unconstitutional and illegal. Nowhere in the 2A does it say "except for".
__________________
Using gun control to stop crime is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline!
You don't have to get permission to exercise a RIGHT. If you have to get permission or can be told no by the government it is no longer a right. IT IS A PRIVILEGE!
AR-15 ASSEMBLY CHECK LIST FOR BUILDERS
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-01-2011, 6:08 AM
CDFingers CDFingers is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1,853
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I'll bite.

License legal full auto ownership, which includes training.
No exploding projectiles.
Violent felons must work unarmed in food kitchens, serving the poor, for one decade with no problems to regain their rights to own weapons.

That's about it.

Now, there's one that might be called "reasonable," which argues against gun possession by folks younger than 18 without a parent present.

CDFingers
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-01-2011, 6:37 AM
Arisaka's Avatar
Arisaka Arisaka is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Tear-assing around 'Nam, looking for the ****
Posts: 2,163
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

^ I want F/A without a license.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-01-2011, 6:38 AM
chuckdc's Avatar
chuckdc chuckdc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Houston,TX (Formerly, Fresno,CA)
Posts: 1,869
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Reasonably regulated means that the sights are within a click or so of being dead-on.

Oh.. you mean laws..

Instant check at point of purchase. No waiting periods. No permit required for carry, open or concealed.

No BS "Ugly gun" rules (AWs, Suppressors, SBRs, etc)

however, you do something felonious with a gun, and you're SOL. Grey-bar hotel for long periods of time for you.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 12-01-2011, 7:25 AM
Mesa Tactical Mesa Tactical is offline
Vendor/Retailer
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Costa Mesa
Posts: 1,747
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Adam Winkler refers to how the extremists on both sides of the gun rights debate actually make debate impossible. I characterize myself as one of those extremists, but I am not a fanatic. For example, I am pretty extremist in my view that there should be almost no firearms regulation, based on the sound principle that prohibitions almost never work, and in fact are usually counterproductive; but I am not such a fanatic that I can't attempt to accommodate the fears, however ungrounded, of the other side. After all, perception is reality.

For example, the FFL system and NICS check have certainly helped keep guns out of the hands of casual criminals or other irresponsible people. Does it do anything to keep a determined criminal from getting a gun? No more than our cocaine bans keep anyone with the money from getting all the cocaine he can afford. But the ATF and other agencies have compiled reliable statistics indicating that NICS check has in fact prevented prohibited people from buying guns through the transactions they tracked (naturally, some fraction of those prohibited and denied people went off and procured guns in some other manner).

Here in California, we have been living with the PPT-through-FFL system for some years. Very few of us consider it particularly burdensome (it's the ten-day wait - and required trip back to the FFL to pick up your firearm - which constitutes a real hassle). I would consider that a "reasonable" form of gun control, in that it does not represent much of a burden for gun owners and can actually reduce access to guns by prohibited persons. I don't like it, but it's hard to argue forcefully against it.

As a counter-example, the safe handgun roster is of course baloney. We know that because Californians who carry handguns every day for their work - police - are exempt. Accidental firearms-related death and injury is in fact vanishingly rare, and accidents due to equipment failure even more unusual. So it makes no sense at all for a state that doesn't have vehicle safety inspections to nonetheless demand handgun safety tests. It's nothing more than blatant gun control and a shakedown of handgun manufacturers. That's a good example of an unreasonable restriction, even though it doesn't inconvenience Californian gun owners to a great extent. The assault weapon ban - or any features-based ban - falls into the same category. "Gun-free safety zones" are utter nonsense.

So what's reasonable? I'd submit:

o FFL system;

o NICS check for all firearms transactions (without the 10 day wait) should not be particularly onerous in a world where you cannot rent a car or a motel room without the authorization provided by a credit card.

o Firearms registration (I don't understand the gun control the point of registration, except as a precursor to confiscation, but it can be beneficial for gun owners as a tool for recovering stolen firearms. If the gun grabbers would STFU about trying to ban all guns, I think we could easily accept universal registration; it could even make the re-legalization of machine guns more palatable).

o An LTC system (shall issue, of course, without a lot of superfluous hoops to jump through) could be useful, could improve public safety, and is minimally burdensome since no more than 5% of the population is likely ever to apply.

There are probably more if I thought harder about it. As an extremest, I would agree that few of these restrictions significantly enhance public safety; but at the same time they are minimally onerous, do provide a moderate public safety benefit, and can indicate the willingness f the gun rights community to attempt to address the fears of the part of the population that does not understand guns.
__________________
Lucy at www.mesatactical.com
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-01-2011, 7:39 AM
jar jar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

"Don't point guns at people, it's not nice."
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-01-2011, 7:58 AM
donw's Avatar
donw donw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between temecula and palm springs
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

in todays anti-gun culture that rules the legislatures, the word "Reasonable" is THEIR definition, NOT what the dictionary defines it as being.

i would submit, include, but not limit to:

background check...with today's technology it may be performed in minutes.

be at least 18 yrs of age and complete, satisfactorily, a firearms safety training course from an accredited source or be former military or law enforcement with firearms training qualification.

be an American citizen or a legal alien resident.

remove AWB: although, i do NOT support full auto, the use, or ability, to use rifle grenades or exploding/incendiary devices.

allow the use of suppressors/silencers...

remove restrictions on night vision rifle scopes...

a citizen should be allowed to own any firearm that the police have in their inventory...

all the nonsense that describe an "Assault Weapon" be removed...after all, what difference, or influence, does having a forward mounted vertical grip have to do with intent to commit, or the commission of a crime? are people with the forward mounted VG or a flash suppressor, more likely to commit a crime with their firearm? that's utter nonsense!

the "Legislators" in Sacramento have perverted and convoluted "Sensible regulation" into a quagmire of nonsense laden "Laws"; they've created much more of a problem than they'll ever solve!

bottom line: the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime is a big time no-no!
__________________
NRA life member, US Army Veteran

i am a legend in my own mind...

we are told not to judge muslims by what a few do...yet, the NRA membership and firearms owners are ALL considered as radical...

"The second amendment ain't about your deer rifle..."

Last edited by donw; 12-01-2011 at 8:15 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:08 AM
ZombieTactics's Avatar
ZombieTactics ZombieTactics is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Roseville area, or wherever they pay my confiscatory rates for things only I know how to do (lol)
Posts: 3,684
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselpower View Post
Only people found guilty of assault with a firearm which caused physical injury to another should be prohibited from CARRYING a firearm. They still have the right of Self Defense in their homes, just lost the right to carry since they can not be trusted IN PUBLIC ...
Yep, makes a lot of sense.
__________________
|

I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective.

Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:11 AM
Jsapata's Avatar
Jsapata Jsapata is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 554
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Commit a crime with a firearm = go to jail.
Shoot someone for any reason other than self defense = never get out.

That is all.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:18 AM
GWbiker's Avatar
GWbiker GWbiker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 734
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Reasonable gun regulation?

Prior to GCA68 there were very few gun regulations in America and guns were being sold everywhere, mail order included, without anything more than a sales receipt.

THAT was reasonable gun regulation.
__________________
"If 5% of Ducks could shoot back, would you go Duck hunting?"
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:28 AM
notme92069 notme92069 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Marcos, CA
Posts: 863
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Synergy View Post
Those that make the laws use words like reasonable to please the masses.
Actually, those that use "reasonable" use it for 2 purposes;

1. They use it because the facts don't support their position

2. They use it to imply that anyone that doesn't agree with their position is being "unreasonable" and therefore wrong.
__________________
NRA Member
CRPA Member
Don't yank on the trigger. It's not your pecker.
Member #46312
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:49 AM
FeuerFrei's Avatar
FeuerFrei FeuerFrei is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: sign said "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here"
Posts: 3,613
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default


We citizens do NOT enjoy our Constitutionally garanteed rights any longer.
We are frogs in a pot and the water has been boiling for some time now.
Take private property. If you own your own home outright do you think it is yours? Try not paying property taxes. You'll find out who really owns it.
It is the same thing for everything else we think we own.
Bottom line is if it can be taken away from you it was never yours in the first place.
Progressive thinkers have always thought that "Laws" trump your rights. We have watered down our Constitional rights to the point that we discuss these kinda topics at nausium.
Our rights should not be up for discussion. They should all be excersized as written (U.S.Const.) by citizens.
I feel better now...kinda.
Carry on.
__________________
"Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress."
-- Frederick Douglass --

“I didn’t know I was a slave until I found out I couldn’t do the things I wanted.”
– Frederick Douglass --
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:50 AM
CEDaytonaRydr's Avatar
CEDaytonaRydr CEDaytonaRydr is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 4,077
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

I think that there should be a roster of prohibited persons. The only people who should be on that list are people who are a danger to themselves, or others, by way of either a criminal record containing violent crimes, or a clinically diagnosed, psychological disorder. If you're on that list, no guns! That's it...

Beyond that, if someone wants to own an M2 BMG and can prove that they can operate it safely, I don't care. The 10-day, "cooling off" period is a joke, especially if the person purchasing the firearm already owns a gun. In this technological age, there is no reason why an FFL shouldn't be able to file paperwork, verify a buyers identity and hand them a firearm all in the same day. Any legislator who thinks that policy is going to prevent one iota of crime is delusional.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:50 AM
kotetu's Avatar
kotetu kotetu is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 3,241
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

rea·son·a·ble [ rz'nəb'l ]
  1. rational: sensible and capable of making rational judgments
  2. in accord with common sense: acceptable and according to common sense or normal practice
  3. not expecting more than is possible: not expecting or demanding more than is possible or achievable

To be reasonable, one must be able to apply reason - to examine facts and reach conclusions that work within the framework of those facts. So let's examine several basic facts using reason:
  1. "Gun control" laws consist of ownership and or carry prohibitions, to various degrees.
  2. Law abiding citizens follow laws.
  3. Criminals don't follow laws.
  4. Criminals are cowards who choose weak targets.
Now using reason, I conclude that any prohibition of gun ownership, to whatever degree, will decrease the proportion of law abiding citizens who own guns, while the proportion of criminals who own guns will go up or remain constant.

Further I know that criminals attack weak tagrets, and again using reason I also conclude that any prohibition of gun ownership, to whatever degree will cause crime to increase.

Finally, I will hypothesize that reversing the actions brings about a reversal of the result - that is to say increasing gun ownership and promoting open carry would decrease crime. Again, criminals attack weak targets - how weak are you with a killing weapon on your hip?

So you asked what reasonable regulation would be - I say reasonable regulation would be "to make regular" the ownership, training, and open carrying of firearms by every adult* citizen.

* Children and untrained adults can cause accidents with firearms. Perhaps 16 is a good age? or earlier with training and a parent/guardian sign off.

Last edited by kotetu; 12-01-2011 at 8:58 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-01-2011, 8:58 AM
emcon5's Avatar
emcon5 emcon5 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Reno
Posts: 3,116
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Ok, here goes.

1: Some sort of Carry. Either unlicensed Open carry, or Shall issue concealed carry. Preferably both.
2: I am fine with NICS. Waiting periods are stupid.
3: No restrictions on face to face transfers between residents of the same state. No restrictions on residency for purchasing from an FFL in any state.
4: I am OK with the current rules on full auto and destructive devices, except two things, the "Once a machine gun, always a machine gun" and "No new machineguns for civilians" are BS.
5: Standard NICS fee for suppressors/silencers, available at any gun store, with no CLEO signoff. If you are not prohibited, you are good to go.
6: Automatic restoration of rights for non-violent felons or MDV after 3 years, starting on release from incarceration.
7: 18 years of age for purchase of all firearms.
8: No restrictions on barrel length or minimum OALfor rifles,

Mandatory registration will never work, because there are simply too many guns in circulation. Canada is looking at scrapping their system because compliance was so low, and it has so far cost over a billion dollars with no appreciable benefit. I am all for a voluntary registration system though provided it is free. You want to register your guns, go nuts.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-01-2011, 9:24 AM
glockman19 glockman19 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 10,880
iTrader: 18 / 100%
Default

Don't know if it's a definition but my belief is that Gun Regulation should take place at the point of purchase. If you can own a gun you should be able to posess/bear that gun in all but a limited number of secure places...Government buildings, Court houses...

I believe a Felon that has provided restitution and served time for his/her crime should have ALL rights restored...I am also a supporter of the death penalty and life in prision without parole. If you can rejoin society you regain all rights...If you can not rejoin then you stay separated or become executed...You can only be executed for directly taking aonthers life. NO misdemenor should prevent anyone from posessing or owning a firearm.
No limit to what type of firearm or weapon you can posess or carry and style of carry is up to you...Private business and/or Government "May" request that all firearms be concealed as in..."No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service"

This would comport to the Statement/Law/Constitutional Right..."The right to keep and bear arms shal not be infringed"
I see no other way to comply with the Constitution..11 words that the SCOTUS needs to address sooner than later...

...Let's start with defining, "shal not be infringed", then we can move along to making sure the states comply with the law of the land.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-01-2011, 9:32 AM
stix213's Avatar
stix213 stix213 is offline
AKA: Joe Censored
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Rafael
Posts: 17,037
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

You can't keep guns away from the mentally disordered and criminals, that's the entire flaw in the logic. Laws are only ever obeyed by the law abiding, and not by the criminal. The best you can do is punish those prohibited people after the fact, but that will never keep guns away from someone who is determined. Even gun bans like in the UK can't accomplish that.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-01-2011, 9:39 AM
donw's Avatar
donw donw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: between temecula and palm springs
Posts: 1,706
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FeuerFrei View Post

We citizens do NOT enjoy our Constitutionally garanteed rights any longer.
We are frogs in a pot and the water has been boiling for some time now.
Take private property. If you own your own home outright do you think it is yours? Try not paying property taxes. You'll find out who really owns it.
It is the same thing for everything else we think we own.
Bottom line is if it can be taken away from you it was never yours in the first place.
Progressive thinkers have always thought that "Laws" trump your rights. We have watered down our Constitional rights to the point that we discuss these kinda topics at nausium.
Our rights should not be up for discussion. They should all be excersized as written (U.S.Const.) by citizens.
I feel better now...kinda.
Carry on.
well said!

I've had issues with the IRS and county over taxes...they are merciless, brutal and uncaring...facts and situations mean nothing to these entities...all they want is your money...period!
__________________
NRA life member, US Army Veteran

i am a legend in my own mind...

we are told not to judge muslims by what a few do...yet, the NRA membership and firearms owners are ALL considered as radical...

"The second amendment ain't about your deer rifle..."

Last edited by donw; 12-01-2011 at 9:45 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-01-2011, 9:52 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,281
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

IMO the question isn't what regulations are reasonable, but the process by which regulations can be sorted into "unreasonable" and "reasonable"

THAT process should be objective, transparent, unambiguous, and include a way to constantly re-evaluate the effectiveness of existing regulation (or lack thereof)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-01-2011, 9:56 AM
sreiter's Avatar
sreiter sreiter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,614
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Shooter View Post
Felons and those with violent criminal records should be barred, those found to be mentally unstable should be limited. I'm ok with a basic bg check, but many states seem to do fine without much stringent requirements in this area.

I believe fully automatic firearms should be 100% legal in ALL states, AND even explosives such as grenades and RPG-7's and LAW's should be able to be had, through a process very similar to how Class III firearms are transferred in "free" states, by a very thorough background check and such.

Also, absolutely no regulation on anything in regards to SBR's, SBS's, adding a forward grip on anything, minimum length on anything, nor magazine capacity, nor restriction of any kind of scopes or what you can put on any gun, no restrictions on any kind of ammo for any gun/weapon, whether AP, incendiary, tracer, explosive, laser, etc.

Open carry, concealed carry, loaded weapons anywhere you go(unless private property, then you are at the discretion of property owner), it should all be legal.

Just my 2 cents.
this
__________________


"personal security, personal liberty, and private property"--could not be maintained solely by law, for "in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment." -
William Blackstone
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:01 AM
NytWolf NytWolf is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 3,959
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

OP, "reasonable gun regulation" is an oxymoron.

Felons and criminals already have certain rights taken away, so there is no need for overlapping laws.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:02 AM
jar jar is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 43
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by emcon5 View Post
Ok, here goes.

1: Some sort of Carry. Either unlicensed Open carry, or Shall issue concealed carry. Preferably both.
2: I am fine with NICS. Waiting periods are stupid.
3: No restrictions on face to face transfers between residents of the same state. No restrictions on residency for purchasing from an FFL in any state.
4: I am OK with the current rules on full auto and destructive devices, except two things, the "Once a machine gun, always a machine gun" and "No new machineguns for civilians" are BS.
5: Standard NICS fee for suppressors/silencers, available at any gun store, with no CLEO signoff. If you are not prohibited, you are good to go.
6: Automatic restoration of rights for non-violent felons or MDV after 3 years, starting on release from incarceration.
7: 18 years of age for purchase of all firearms.
8: No restrictions on barrel length or minimum OALfor rifles,

Mandatory registration will never work, because there are simply too many guns in circulation. Canada is looking at scrapping their system because compliance was so low, and it has so far cost over a billion dollars with no appreciable benefit. I am all for a voluntary registration system though provided it is free. You want to register your guns, go nuts.
This is what I would call reasonable regulation. I'd prefer less, but if we got to this, gun rights would move to the bottom of the list of things I'm active on politically.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:06 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,064
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

I would place reasonable common sense restrictions on firearms ownership:

The Entire Firearms Law in the USA.

A. If you are a violent felon; no guns.

B. If you are caught purchasing, lending, loaning a gun to or as a felon, public flogging and 5 years in a labor camp prison.

C. If you are a crazy person, and still deemed a hazard to self and others by doctors; no guns.

D. Restriction "B" applies to purchasing for a crazy person.

E. ALL elementary school students in 4th grade must do an NRA Eddie Eagle type gun program.

F. All 9th grade students must do a slightly more advanced gun program.


Purchasing:

P.A. To purchase a firearm you must submit to a background records check
unless purchasing from an individual face to face. (Note law B and D apply here, if you are caught selling to a crazy person, felon, you will be punished, etc).

P.B. An individual can get a copy of his/hers background check from DMV to show to seller they are good. FREE OF CHARGE. (NOTE, all you people saying that "Hey they could fake the certificate", if someone is willing to do that, they are obviously not a law abiding person, and no method of restriction will keep them from getting a gun)

P.C. To purchase a firearm you must show proof that you have completed a firearms training/safety class (no expiration). If you are caught lying on this, public flogging and 5 years hard labor camp. The class in 9th grade will suffice. If you are a recent LEGAL immigrant, you can attend a different firearms safety class. If you lose the record of your 9th grade class, go to the DMV where it is noted on your drivers record if you completed the class or not. Free of Charge.

Note:

There are no restrictions on place of carry, method of carry, caliber, type of ammunition (except depleted uranium), or firearm type.

Questions:

Is it legal to open carry an authentic MG42.

Yes. Although you might get tired from lugging it around due to its heft.

Can I carry at _______? Yes, unless private property and the owner has asked you to leave, you must abide by his wishes.

There is no law on the books pertaining to rifle length, barrel length, method of grip, etc.

Can I have a shoulder thing that goes up?

Yes, there are no restrictions that pertain to a shoulder thing that goes up.
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-01-2011, 10:09 AM
Glock22Fan's Avatar
Glock22Fan Glock22Fan is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 5,752
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

There should definitely be a ban on "shoulder things that go up." Apart from that, existing laws against committing armed crime, murder etc. should be sufficient. "misuse a gun: Go straight to jail," where it is specifically understood that scaring sheeple by carrying a gun is NOT, in itself, misuse.

Other laws, such as registration, limits on barrel length, magazine capacity, sound suppressors, waiting periods etc. have proven a waste of time and should, mostly, be dropped. About the only ones of these that might be kept is an instant check system when purchasing a firearm, thereby banning sales to felons and crazies.
__________________
John -- bitter gun owner.

All opinions expressed here are my own unless I say otherwise.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.


Last edited by Glock22Fan; 12-01-2011 at 10:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 8:30 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.