What is your definition of reasonable gun regulation?

[AbrahamBurden]

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?

[AndrewMendez]

Aren't you the super smart 13 year old? Shouldn't you be asleep right now?

[5thgen4runner]

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

[Tweak338]

I just want to own a Mk19 and mount it in my truck...

[kemikalembalance]

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.

[Cali-Shooter]

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.

[Synergy]

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.

[m03]

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.

[PsychGuy274]

The ONLY firearm related restrictions I support are criminal enhancements for violent misuse of a firearm. That's it.

[mcmikel61]

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.

[bsg]

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.

[ErikTheRed]

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.

[dirtykoala]

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.

[dirtykoala]

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.

[PsychGuy274]

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.