What do you define as reasonable restrictions for the second amendment?

[jamesrage]

What do you define as reasonable restrictions to the second amendment? This is mostly aimed at the 35 plus people who voted in this thread. Everybody has their own interpretation of what exactly is "reasonable".

Permits/licenses for firearms/weapons

Fire arms/weapons registrations

Waiting Periods.

Laws governing how firearms are to be stored.

Firearms/weapon class requirement.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)

Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)

Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify)

Firearm magazine size restrictions(please specify)

ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify)

other(please specify)








It is my belief that you do not need permission from the government in order to exercise a right. It is also my belief that our founding forefathers created the second amendment as a means for individuals to protect themselves and loved ones, to to protect this country if it was ever invaded, and to over throw the government if it became too tyrannical/ corrupt. So the government therefore has no business restricting any firearms or which law abiding citizens can own firearms.

 

[Ikari]

From the list, I took felons and crazy people temporarily banned. Because I think in the case of felons, once their punishment is over the full of their rights should be recognized again. Maybe there could be a better argument for crazy people being permanently banned, but it would have to be a good argument and one with no wiggle room for the government to subvert. And maybe I can take age limits. 16 for a hand gun, probably younger for a rifle. All the others are right out.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Permits/licenses for firearms/weapons: Yes.

Fire arms/weapons registrations: No.

Waiting Periods.: No.

Laws governing how firearms are to be stored.: No.

Firearms/weapon class requirement.: No.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify): Depends. Dangerous crazy people Yes. Murderers Yes. Multiple times convicted of any type of rape Yes. Everyone else No.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify): With the exceptions I stated above a ban for as long as they are under probation and still paying fines/restitution. Once everything is done and paid for no longer banned.

Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify): No.

Firearm magazine size restrictions(please specify): No.

ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify): If you can carry it then you can have it. If you can't then not allowed to have it.

It is my belief that you do not need permission from the government in order to exercise a right. It is also my belief that our founding forefathers created the second amendment as a means for individuals to protect themselves and loved ones, to to protect this country if it was ever invaded, and to over throw the government if it became too tyrannical/ corrupt. So the government therefore has no business restricting any firearms or which law abiding citizens can own firearms.

I agree with this.

 

[other]

Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership...

self explanatory, for offenders whose crimes/craziness warrant permanent resitriction...ie their craziness is a permanent fixture of their personality or they are sentenced to pay for a crime for life because of the seriousness of the crime.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership...

self explanatory

Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify)...

Law best set by the states...children are minors, not full citizens yet.

 

[Goobieman]

The only 'resonable'' restrictions possible are those that have some measurable effect on the misuse of guns, and that do not violate the constitution -- else, they are useless and/or unconsitutional

As for constitutionality -- as I said before, this is best examined by looking at the consttutional restrictions on the 1st amendment and adopting whatever parallesl may be derived.

See:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/55563-constitutional-restrictions-gunsd.html

Its clear from the text of the 2nd, and especially from the SCotUS interpretation of that text, that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, with the exercise of same being independent of any relationship to any militia.

The question then becomes what sort of regulation can be placed on the right to arms without conflicting with the Constitutional imperative that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? That is, what regulations can the government lay on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms without infringing upon that right?

It seems to me that we have a rather broad set of examples to look to for guidance -- the jurispridence surrounding the various rights protected by the 1st amendment, specifically the right to free speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom to assemble.

Without going into detail, the general direction of this jurispridence is that these rights do not include actions/expressions that cause direct harm to others, or place others in an immediate position of clear and present danger -- you may freely express your opinion of someone, so long as you do not slander them or commit libel; you can advocate individual or collective action so long as said action does not include things like inciting a riot, and you can make public proclimations/exclamations, so long as you do not directly endanger others by doing something like yelling 'Fire!" in a theater.

These conditions placed on your first amendment rights create excellent analogues for constitutionally acceptable conditions for the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms -- you may freely exercise your right to keep and bear arms so long as you do not cause harm to others (outside the obvious exercise of the right during the exercise of right to self-defense) or place them in an immediate position of clear and present danger; any restrictions above and beyond these create infringements on the right to arms and thus violate the Constitution.

 

[Goobieman]

Permits/licenses for firearms/weapons

No. Violates the constitution, just as a license or permit to go to church does.

Fire arms/weapons registrations

No. Violates the constitution, just as having to register your webblog does.

Waiting Periods.

No. Assuming this is for a background check, it violates the constitution as prior restraint.

Firearms/weapon class requirement.

No. Violates the constitution, just as a legal requirement to have a certain education before you can be a reporter does..

 

[Redress]

Permits/licenses for firearms/weapons-I have no problem with this if it means concealed carry permits and the like. If you need a permit or liscense just to own, then I would be against it

Fire arms/weapons registrations-no problem with this.

Waiting Periods-no problem with this as long as it is reasonable. 3 days is ok, 3 months not so much.

Laws governing how firearms are to be stored-I don't think this is appropriate.

Firearms/weapon class requirement-I do not think this can or should be required.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)-I can see no problem with felons being unable to legally own firearms.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify)-See above.

Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify)-certain weapons yes, all no. You can hunt deer in Michigan at I believe 14, so no reason you should not be able to own a shotgun at that age for example.

Firearm magazine size restrictions(please specify)-I don't have a problem with some restrictions on magazine size, but to be honest I don't know enough about guns to specify what is appropriate.

ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify)-fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are banned now, and I have no problem with that.

 

[Goobieman]

Ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify)-fully automatic weapons and sawed off shotguns are banned now, and I have no problem with that.

I'm respondng to this because it is factually incorrect.

These weapons are not banned, at least not nationally.

That said, the bans that DO exist violate the Constititon as these weapons are considered 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd, and therefore any such ban cannot be called "reasonable".

 

[Black Dog]

The only thing I see as reasonable is the age requirement. Can't have youngsters full of piss and vinegar running around armed. At least till they are 16 for rifles and 18 for hand guns.

I also don't have a problem with instant background checks. I don't support em mind you, but I also really have no problem with them.

 

[Redress]

That said, the bans that DO exist violate the Constititon as these weapons are considered 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd, and therefore any such ban cannot be called "reasonable".

As soon as you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, I will give merit to your argument.

 

[Harshaw]

As soon as you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, I will give merit to your argument.

It did. US v. Miller, wherein a weapon is protected if it (the weapon, not the person) bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a militia. These are infantry/militia arms, and even if not every soldier carries one, the reasonable relationship is pretty clear.

 

[Sanitas]

Permits/licenses for firearms/weapons: Yes.

Fire arms/weapons registrations: Yes.

Waiting Periods: Yes.

Laws governing how firearms are to be stored: Yes.

Firearms/weapon class requirement: I'm not sure what this is, can somebody explain?

Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify): Yes, if the crime was unprovoked murder.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership.(please specify): Yes, if the crime was deemed a "violent crime".

Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify): Yes.

Firearm magazine size restrictions(please specify): No, I don't see the need.

ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify): Yes. Machine guns, silenced guns, rockets, grenades, anything chemical or nuclear.

other(please specify): N/A

 

[Redress]

It did. US v. Miller, wherein a weapon is protected if it (the weapon, not the person) bears a reasonable relationship to the preservation of a militia. These are infantry/militia arms, and even if not every soldier carries one, the reasonable relationship is pretty clear.

So explain to me how there are bans for such weapons then. Apparently some one with more knowledge and authority than you stated that the ban could exist(hint, it was the Supreme Court in the very ruling you cite).

 

[Harshaw]

So explain to me how there are bans for such weapons then. Apparently some one with more knowledge and authority than you stated that the ban could exist(hint, it was the Supreme Court in the very ruling you cite).

No, it wasn't. The Miller court actually made no ruling on any specific weapon; the question re: the weapon in the case (a sawed-off shotgun) was remanded back to the lower court.

These bans have been allowed to exist because of decades of judicial misconstruction of both the Second Amendment and Miller, and the ball for correcting all of that was recently set in motion by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. We'll see what happens after that.

 

[Kandahar]

Hmm...it seems like I always find myself on the gun control side of these discussions, and I don't even really consider myself an anti-gun person.

Fire arms/weapons registrations

Yes, this seems appropriate. If the weapon is ever used in a crime, this will at least show where it came from. I don't really see any downside to this.

Waiting Periods.

Yes. Again, I don't really see the problem with this. It will give people time to cool off before doing something stupid, if they just had a fight or something. Lots of products require a waiting period anyway (not legally, but because of the nature of the product).

Laws governing how firearms are to be stored.

Ehh...depends. I voted yes, because I can think of some circumstances where this would be a good idea. I believe it's child endangerment to, say, leave a loaded gun sitting next to a five-year-old's bed. On the other hand, I don't really buy into all the crap about requiring adults with no kids to keep their guns with the safety on in certain designated locations.

Firearms/weapon class requirement.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Like a class that you have to take before you can use the gun? No, I don't support that. It's easier and cheaper for people to train themselves.

Convicted felons and certified crazy people permanently banned from firearms/weapon ownership.
Convicted felons and certified crazy people temporarily banned from firearms/weapon ownership

Depending on the felony and/or the mental illness, either of these (or neither one) might be appropriate.

Age minimum requirement to buy firearms/weapons(please specify)

Yes. We have an age limit for lots of other things which society has deemed dangerous, such as automobiles, cigarettes, and alcohol. Why not firearms too?

Firearm magazine size restrictions(please specify)

I don't really see the point in this restriction.

ban on certain firearms/weapons (please specify)

The really heavy stuff like grenade launchers and flame throwers, yes. But I don't see the point in more general bans. However, I do think that individual cities/metro areas should be able to ban certain weapons if they are strongly correlated with crime and gang activity. I think it would be much too sweeping at the federal/state level though.

 

[Redress]

No, it wasn't. The Miller court actually made no ruling on any specific weapon; the question re: the weapon in the case (a sawed-off shotgun) was remanded back to the lower court.

These bans have been allowed to exist because of decades of judicial misconstruction of both the Second Amendment and Miller, and the ball for correcting all of that was recently set in motion by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision. We'll see what happens after that.

So 6 decades of rulings, but you know better. Got it. Heller will make things interesting, but there is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that SCOTUS will agree with you.

 

[Ethereal]

As soon as you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, I will give merit to your argument.

Why!? Why do you use this argument? Do you know how many times the SCOTUS has been wrong? I mean, did they become infallible once you were born or something? Appeals to authority are the worst kind of illogical nonsense.

 

[Missouri Mule]

There shouldn't be any restrictions. This is the only amendment that keeps us safe from Obama's storm troopers.

 

[Harshaw]

So 6 decades of rulings, but you know better. Got it.

It's not like I'm alone in this; there's also decades of scholarship on the issue.

But if you'd like to take Miller and point out where I got it wrong, feel free.

Heller will make things interesting, but there is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that SCOTUS will agree with you.

With Heller, they already do. All of the jurisprudence to which I refer relies on the construction of Miller as declaring there is no individual right to arms. That was wrong. The Heller court said so.

 

[Harshaw]

Why!? Why do you use this argument? Do you know how many times the SCOTUS has been wrong? I mean, did they become infallible once you were born or something? Appeals to authority are the worst kind of illogical nonsense.

Doesn't matter; they agree with me.

 

[Ethereal]

Doesn't matter; they agree with me.

They certainly do, but I don't think it should matter in an intellectual discussion. Nothing irks me more than hearing a person cite the SCOTUS as a confirmation of their argument or a negation of someone else’s.

 

[Harshaw]

They certainly do, but I don't think it should matter in an intellectual discussion. Nothing irks me more than hearing a person cite the SCOTUS as a confirmation of their argument or a negation of someone else’s.

No, I totally agree. Just sayin', either way, I'm covered here.

 

[Redress]

Why!? Why do you use this argument? Do you know how many times the SCOTUS has been wrong? I mean, did they become infallible once you were born or something? Appeals to authority are the worst kind of illogical nonsense.

Who is the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not? You and I can discuss it, but our discussions mean exactly jack, as it is SCOTUS that ends up deciding. IF SCOTUS says something is constitutional, then it is, until a later SCOTUS changes it's mind. They are the final authority.

 

[Ikari]

Who is the final arbiter of whether a law is constitutional or not?

The People.

 

[Morality Games]

I went with fire arms registrations, storage laws, temporary bans for the mentally ill and felons, and prohibitions on certain firearms.

The People.

According to the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court decides.