What is your definition of reasonable gun regulation?

[Decoligny]

If you were convicted and served your sentence (no longer on parole, really completed sentence), you should regain your status as a free individual with all the rights of a free individual.

If you are really considered too dangerous to legally own a firearm, then you should be considered too dangerous to be free and should be kept in prison, because we all know you can get a gun very easily.

[Archie B.]

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.

This is the purpose for registration:

The corporate government (under Maritime/Admiralty Jurisdiction) system requires:

Registration of guns.

Means to bring them into the corporate registrar.
Then becomes the property of the corporate government, and that is why they can take them at any time.
The constitution makes no mention of registering guns.

Whenever something is registered it is actually being put into the kings domain. The word "registered" is derived from the word "regis" which means "kingly." Therefore, recording a document today is the same as registering it and putting it into the king’s domain.

Property recorded or registered at the recorders office makes the corporate de facto government "holders in due course.”

The Banker's Manifesto: ties in with U.S. Senate Document No. 43, 73rd Congress, 1st Session (1934), to wit:

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e., law, amounting to mere "user" and use must be in acceptance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

[dantodd]

I'll bite.

Safe storage (while not at home) laws are ok

Instant checks are ok. For private sales they should be optional but provide civil immunity if performed. Along with this there needs to be dramatic reform and narrowing of who is a prohibited person.

FFL license laws should be dramatically curtailed. One doesn't need a "printing press license" to paicipate in 1a commerce.

General outdoor discharge prohibitions in urban areas is pretty reasonable. Inside ranges at home should be easy to do legally though.

Limiting sales to adults.

Carry licenses would be reasonable if the possession prohibitions were greatly narrowed.

I am against "gun enhancement" sentencing. These are just another form of blaming the tool. One is no more dead when shot than when stabbed, or thrown off a building.

I think that the existing mail-order prohibitions are ok. One needs a way to verify the buyer is an adult.

I think that registration of militia weapons would be acceptable.

[jrr]

Good gun control is the ability to draw, put three rounds on target, and reholster competently and quickly.

[gatesbox]

I pretty much draw the line at Nukes, but only because a negligent discharge would be a real bummer for your neighbors.....

Otherwise, I would only make an attempt to bar felons and other citizens who loose complete access to their rights because of violation of the rights of others....

[a1c]

I'm OK with CUI laws (Carrying Under the Influence). I'm OK with instant background checks. I'm even OK with a "cooling period" of 3 days or so for the first handgun purchase. I'm OK with requiring training to issue LTCs. I'm OK with controlling and monitoring the purchase of "destructive devices" (although I would narrow down the California definition). That's about it.

[himurax13]

Cash and Carry for those with Valid Drivers License or State ID. I would like to be on equal footing with the Cops and Criminals.

Arizona like CCW standards.

Make Murder with Firearms Illegal.

[MasterYong]

There should be no restrictions.

/thread.

[dantodd]

I'm OK with CUI laws (Carrying Under the Influence).

how do you define under the influence?

[notme92069]

"shoulder things that go up" should be legal. I hear that there are some that are C&R (from Roswell NM)

[mej16489]

I'm astonished that people are actually proposing 'reasonable' regulations which are actually more restrictive then current CA/FED Law...

[emptybottle151]

None. I see no difference if someone uses a gun, knife, or a grenade in a crime. They still committed a crime. Regulations only hurt the law abiding.

[IrishPirate]

-instant background checks when buying new guns and include mental health clinics in the database.
-triple the current penalty for crimes involving guns (not gun crimes like AWB, but crimes that dont need guns to be committed...rape, murder, robbery, etc). make using a gun in a crime so outrageously not worth it that criminals disarm themselves.

anyone who thinks HSC cards are ok is saying that having to pay a fee and take a test to exercise a fundamental right is an ok thing. It's no different than a poll tax. once the bigger fish are fried, or if getting this thrown out would help get rid of other asinine laws, then this needs to go!!!!

[a1c]

how do you define under the influence?

I didn't expand on that, but let's just say I believe one shouldn't carry if their BAC is .08 or higher. I believe people should be able to carry in bars or restaurants, but then either not drink alcohol or limit their intakes so that they blood alcohol doesn't get over the limit.

[hnoppenberger]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

so, with that being said, then absolutly no regulation may take place or that would be deemed unconstitutional.

want to take it a step further? well then, i suppose your ability to make money is a resonable infringement.

EDIT- I made the mistake of reading previous posts. CGF, with followers like this I have my doubts of your success; too many Nancy's around here, that and slack-jaws.