What is your definition of reasonable gun regulation?

[dieselpower]

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.

[Don29palms]

Any type of gun control is unconstitutional and illegal. Nowhere in the 2A does it say "except for".

[CDFingers]

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

[Arisaka]

^ I want F/A without a license.

[chuckdc]

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.

[Mesa Tactical]

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.

[jar]

"Don't point guns at people, it's not nice."

[donw]

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!

[ZombieTactics]

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.

[Jsapata]

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

That is all.

[GWbiker]

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.

[notme92069]

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.

[FeuerFrei]

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.

[CEDaytonaRydr]

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.

[kotetu]

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.