What is your definition of reasonable gun regulation?

[dantodd]

Well monitored at least if its that severe and they're really a danger to having guns who would allow them to have one? There's help for PTSD and the victims need to seek it. Plenty of programs for returning veterans suffering like military one source, family readyness centers, chaplains, ect. Problem is people do not utilize these programs and services. I don't like the idea of denying my fellow veterans their right to bear arms without due process of law.

Now here we agree. "without due process of law" is critical but in previous posts you were ignoring this distinction. There should be a process for someone who MAY be a danger to himself or others to be temporarily denied, by a legal and appealable process, easy access to firearms. As you said, those around the person in need are very unlikely to allow access as they are presumed to be responsible humans who do not want to see someone in this situation to potentially injure himself or others. But the local gun shop doesn't know about the illness and has no way of knowing that the guy who just walked in the door is not in full control of his impulses etc. unless there is a GOOD background check system. In such cases a 10 day wait might actually help the vet but such a scheme is clearly not narrowly enough tailored and would place an undue burden on other gun owners.

The biggest problem with our current system of mental health related firearms prohibitions is that it places the burden on the patient rather than the state. This can't be seen as acceptable when fundamental rights lie in the balance. Also, many times the situation demanding the prohibition is transitory but the prohibition is permanent or multiple years long when a six week or six month prohibition might see the person through to the point of being well enough to exercise his 2A rights. Unfortunately, the current environment is such that once a physician requests someone be prohibited it is very hard to get another medical professional to say that he is now well enough to possess guns agin. Too many will feel this is a liability, personally and professionally if not legally.

[Cato]

I don't think there should be any regulations whatsoever. A crazy guy can go into a Target and buy a steak knife and run around stabbing people, yet no one cares to regulate steak knives.

Guns are very expensive, really crazy people aren't going to have the money to buy them.

I supose the only regulation could be safety checks on the product itself (ie kaboom prone guns would have to be recalled)

[FullMetalJacket]

A reasonable gun law is one that effectively achieves some universally (or near-universally) desirable social goal without infringing on the right of the law-abiding to acquire, inherit, own, keep ready, bear, bequeath, sell, practice with, transport, and use firearms, ammunition, and all associated material. If it does all three (aimed at some recognizable goal, effective at achieving that goal, does not infringe), then it's a reasonable gun law.

I think most all of us would agree with the statement "it is a desirable social goal to prevent people who have a history of criminal violence or mental instability from acquiring firearms." If, say, an instant check can catch most of these disqualified individuals at the point of purchase, I'm fine with that.

If these criteria were in place, I doubt waiting periods would survive, certainly not for anything other than the FIRST gun purchase. Bans of semi-autos or magazines would not survive. Carry could be subject to a background check and perhaps some very rudimentary training, but that would be all.

[QQQ]

A reasonable gun law is one that effectively achieves some universally (or near-universally) desirable social goal without infringing on the right of the law-abiding to acquire, inherit, own, keep ready, bear, bequeath, sell, practice with, transport, and use firearms, ammunition, and all associated material. If it does all three (aimed at some recognizable goal, effective at achieving that goal, does not infringe), then it's a reasonable gun law.

I think most all of us would agree with the statement "it is a desirable social goal to prevent people who have a history of criminal violence or mental instability from acquiring firearms." If, say, an instant check can catch most of these disqualified individuals at the point of purchase, I'm fine with that.

If these criteria were in place, I doubt waiting periods would survive, certainly not for anything other than the FIRST gun purchase. Bans of semi-autos or magazines would not survive. Carry could be subject to a background check and perhaps some very rudimentary training, but that would be all.

Innocent men can be and have been flagged by instant background checks before.

[jokat989]

you need to pass an IQ test to own a firearm

[a1c]

And there in lies the problem. You have judges that are legislating from the bench and have been doing so for a long time. Could you imagine what would happen if the SCOTUS actually did their job and said that any restriction on the 2A is an infringement? Any type of restriction, reasonable or not, is by definition an infringement.

Judges ALWAYS "legislate from the bench." This is a silly argument used by people who disagree with their rulings. There are three branches of government, and judges are one of those.

SCOTUS doing their job? They ARE doing their job. You're just not agreeing with their interpretation. I'm not either, but I also understand that I cannot have it all, right now, right away. Patience is necessary.

All rights are restricted in some ways. Including the First. The Fourth. And so on. A society where all rights would be absolute would simply not function. It wouldn't need a Constitution nor a government to begin with.

So maybe you are another anarchist. Nothing wrong with that. I'm not one, but hey, you have the right to be one.

[QQQ]

It wouldn't need a Constitution nor a government to begin with.

Imagine that- a society in which people respected each others' rights without imposing their rules on everyone else- a society without taxes, government oppression, police brutality, bribery, imperialism, and offensive wars!
Surely, only an irrational person would want to live this way.

[Josh3239]

I was with my buddy when he went to a store (in Alaska where he lives) and during the instant check he was nabbed. His step brother gave the arresting officers in multiple felonies his identification. My friend has an FBI agent who helps him out when this happens. Even though it has been straightened out several times. He still supports instant checks, I still support them. No system is perfect but if it kept a gun out of the hands of one criminal I'd say it worked, and the facts show the instant check to be the most effective. And lets be realistic, the chances of an innocent person getting dinged by the instant check is miniscule and can be reversed.

Innocent men can be and have been flagged by instant background checks before.

[QQQ]

I was with my buddy when he went to a store (in Alaska where he lives) and during the instant check he was nabbed. His step brother gave the arresting officers in multiple felonies his identification. My friend has an FBI agent who helps him out when this happens. Even though it has been straightened out several times. He still supports instant checks, I still support them. No system is perfect but if it kept a gun out of the hands of one criminal I'd say it worked, and the facts show the instant check to be the most effective. And lets be realistic, the chances of an innocent person getting dinged by the instant check is miniscule and can be reversed.

Not every innocent man has a friend at the FBI who can bail him out when he is unfairly and unjustly singled out by an unconstitutional instant background check while exercising a constitutionally-guaranteed right.

[a1c]

Imagine that- a society in which people respected each others' rights without imposing their rules on everyone else- a society without taxes, government oppression, police brutality, bribery, imperialism, and offensive wars!
Surely, only an irrational person would want to live this way.

As much as I would like to imagine a society without taxes, I don't think that's a very realistic idea. Unless you envision a world without any infrastructure or services.

[bombadillo]

Reasonable to me is to walk into a gun store, buy ANY gun that I would like. Have them do a 1 day check to really make sure that I'm not a criminal in any state or a felon of any nature, buy as many round mags as I would like, put a Gemtech suppressor with the proper paperwork on it, and shoot the crap out of untaxed ammo I bought online. I think a 1 day waiting period is fine so long as they do a thorough background check. Other than that, no limitations.

In some ways I'm against most civilians owning burst and auto weapons because any buffoon can go get one that doesn't know the first thing on how to control it and kill somebody else. Personal opinion is that most people don't NEED a full auto weapon, but that doesn't mean I think they should regulate it completely out either. I think with proper paperwork and proving that you know what you're doing with it would go a long way.

[QQQ]

As much as I would like to imagine a society without taxes, I don't think that's a very realistic idea. Unless you envision a world without any infrastructure or services.

In the People's Republic of China, they probably can't imagine the idea of private education, or private utilities. But we have them.

The things that we think we need a compuslory government for can all be handled in the private sector, without a government pointing a gun to our heads and forcing us to pay for the services whether we want to use them or not. Or without a government to tell us what guns we can and can't own, or telling us who should own them and who shouldn't.

[a1c]

In the People's Republic of China, they probably can't imagine the idea of private education, or private utilities. But we have them.

The things that we think we need a compuslory government for can all be handled in the private sector, without a government pointing a gun to our heads and forcing us to pay for the services whether we want to use them or not. Or without a government to tell us what guns we can and can't own, or telling us who should own them and who shouldn't.

Well, maybe you can imagine a world with only private roads, and tolls every few miles. A lot of such roads used to exist in America. They were thankfully progressively purchased by the government.

I don't believe in the hardcore libertarian ideal of privatizing everything. It leads to a system just as corrupt - probably more, actually - but with no avenue to fight it.

[QQQ]

Well, maybe you can imagine a world with only private roads, and tolls every few miles. A lot of such roads used to exist in America. They were thankfully progressively purchased by the government.

I don't believe in the hardcore libertarian ideal of privatizing everything. It leads to a system just as corrupt - probably more, actually - but with no avenue to fight it.

At least you can walk away from a bad deal with a private firm. You can't really walk away from a bad law set by the government.
Likewise, an honest man has little recourse when the government determines that for whatever stupid reason, he shouldn't own a firearm.

[a1c]

At least you can walk away from a bad deal with a private firm. You can't really walk away from a bad law set by the government.
Likewise, an honest man has little recourse when the government determines that for whatever stupid reason, he shouldn't own a firearm.

If all infrastructure was privatized, you actually could NOT literally walk away.

I believe government has a role to play. And that when it doesn't work, it should be fixed. Private business is not the solution to everything, far from it. It would be the surest way to a neo-feudal society.