How do you feel about licensing gun owners, registering all of their firearms, requiring training in order to own a firearm, mandatory liability insurance for every gun owner, limiting citizens to owning a single handgun for personal protection, background checks for all firearms transactions and mandatory waiting periods on all gun purchases?
Are these “reasonable regulations” that pass the constitutional smell test? (Be sure and offer an opinion below.)
In the 48 hours that followed Monday’s historic ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court – in the Bellevue, WA-based Second Amendment Foundation’s McDonald v. Chicago lawsuit – that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies as a limit on state and local governments, various anti-gun newspaper editorials have essentially provided the gun prohibition lobby’s definition of “reasonable regulation.”
In the end, no one will be better off in this country if those challenges lead to more people owning or carrying guns. Firearms in homes increase the odds of children getting ahold of them. They lead to accidental deaths. They put otherwise nonviolent people one pull of a trigger away from shooting someone, and perhaps landing themselves in prison.—Des Moines Register
Ever since the 2008 Heller ruling, which left the door open to some regulation of firearms – sending Second Amendment purists into orbit because it did not affirm their belief that the right is absolute and thus immune from any regulation – gun prohibitionists have been drooling at the prospect of regulating this important right out of practical existence.
For example, the Des Moines, IA Register insisted that “such regulations are important - especially in a country riddled with gun violence. Felons should not be allowed to possess guns and people should not be able to carry them into government buildings. Parents do not want anyone toting guns into schools.” It lamented the foregone conclusion that many of this nation’s gun laws are about to be challenged.
In that light, it's difficult to see how the various restrictions that have been debated in recent years — requiring background checks for all guns purchases, for instance, or repealing a Bush era rule that allows people to carry concealed, loaded weapons into a national park — would run afoul of the court's interpretation of the Second Amendment.—Baltimore Sun
A recurring theme of these editorials is that it is okay to require background checks. Some advocate waiting periods, though there is no credible evidence that a waiting period has ever prevented a crime.
Various newspapers tossed in additional hints. The Baltimore Sun, for example, suggested that a “reasonable” move would be to repeal the federal statute that allows the carrying of defensive firearms in national parks. The Louisville Courier-Journal tosses in the suggestion that “reasonable regulation” includes banning so-called “assault weapons,” though statistics indicate the 10-year Clinton ban accomplished nothing other than to drive prices up.
At a minimum, one hopes that bans on military assault rifles; tougher regulations regarding gun shows, licensing of dealers and background checks, and restrictions on guns in schools, bars, government buildings and other public places remain possible.—Louisville Courier-Journal
The Charlotte, N.C. Observer reminds us that we don’t want felons or the mentally ill to have guns – even though a cursory check with police agencies around the country would confirm that they already have guns – and they also want waiting periods. They want existing laws enforced, and longer prison terms for armed criminals.
The anti-gun Miami Herald took a different tack, telegraphing what they think is reasonable in the form of questions to readers. They want to know, for example, if cities or states can limit transactions at gun shows. The newspaper also asked whether the right to own a gun conflicts with the public’s right to feel safe. (Where in the Constitution is this “right to feel safe?”)
That means no guns for felons or the mentally ill. It means strict background checks, registration and waiting periods. It means regulating dealers. It means better enforcing the laws already on the books.—Charlotte Observer
Down in Santa Rosa, CA, the Press-Democrat added a mention about regulating concealed weapons and the open carry of firearms, a rather obvious indication that the rights of more than 6 million Americans now licensed to carry are also on the anti-gunners’ regulatory wish list.
Meanwhile, Chicago officials led by fanatically anti-gun Mayor Richard Daley – trying to press his luck and do things his way regardless what the Supreme Court said – initially wanted to limit people to a single handgun, and require liability insurance. He backed off Thursday morning, instead offering a proposed ordinance allowing only one handgun per month, and allowing only one operable handgun (the others must be dismantled or locked with trigger locks) in possession. There is a licensing and registration scheme and a training requirement, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
The Chicago Firearms Permit would cost $100 and have to be renewed every three years. In addition, gun owners would have to pay an application fee of $15 for each firearm registered and an annual reporting fee of $10-per-firearm.—Chicago Sun Times
Bear in mind, registration and licensing normally carry with them a fee to pay for the bureaucracy that will be necessary to manage licensing and registration. How high should that fee be? Can it be $10 per gun? How about $25 per gun? How about $100 for a three-year permit to even have a gun? Should registration be on an annual basis? If the process is too expensive, poor and lower middle class citizens would be the victims of economic discrimination, although discrimination has historically never bothered gun control proponents. Gun control has deep racist and class roots.
Daley also wants to prohibit the possession of lawfully-owned handguns outside the home. Illinois remains one of only two states where there is no provision for concealed carry in the statutes. The other is Wisconsin, where at least open carry is legal.
Can states still require background checks for weapons purchases? Can states outlaw sales of assault weapons while allowing pistols and rifles to be sold? Can cities or states put limits on transactions at gun shows? Where is the line to be drawn between the right to own a gun and the public's right to feel safe?—Miami Herald
Certain to cause heartburn in the gun control ranks is the Second Amendment Foundation’s new lawsuit, filed just hours after their Supreme Court win on Monday, again with attorney Alan Gura at the helm. This one – mounted in cooperation with Grass Roots North Carolina and three private citizens – is challenging the state’s emergency powers law that allows the governor or local officials to suspend a citizen’s right to bear arms outside of the home during a declared emergency.
Scalia’s (2008 Heller) opinion also left room for government regulation of commercial firearm sales, concealed weapons laws, prohibition of “dangerous or unusual weapons” and, potentially, registration of firearms.The first step in that process is a healthy debate of issues such as concealed-weapon permits, open-carry rules and assault weapons and what restrictions — if any — are appropriate in a given city, county or state.—Santa Rosa Pres Democrat
Anybody recall the chaos and anarchy in New Orleans that followed Hurricane Katrina? Cops and National Guard troopers were dispatched to seize private firearms; an order for which nobody will accept responsibility to this day, and for which there was no probable cause and no warrants issued. Some officials simply decided that “nobody but the police will be allowed to have guns” and then put that thought into action…right up to the point that a SAF-inspired lawsuit in cooperation with the National Rifle Association stopped them in federal court.
Said SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb: “Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.” At a time when there may be no communications, and certainly no law enforcement response, that is when citizens may urgently need to exercise their right to bear arms.
We intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified.”—Alan Gottlieb
Gottlieb noted that such a statute also exists here in Washington State. State RCW 43.06.220 allows the governor to, among other things, ban the possession of firearms outside of their home or business, and also ban the “sale, purchase or dispensing of other commodities or goods” that they think should be prohibited. That definition would almost certainly include firearms and ammunition.
Now might be a good time to run that statute’s language past Attorney General Rob McKenna to see whether it stacks up against Article 1, Section 24 of the State Constitution, as well as the Second Amendment, against which every gun law may now have to measure up.
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
Q. Should open carry be banned?
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
For more info: Second Amendment Foundation. Assault on Weapons: The Campaign to Eliminate Your Guns. These Dogs Don't Hunt: The Democrats' War on Guns. Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities.
Are you traveling safer streets?
If you'd like to be, one of my colleagues a newsletter for you.
Los Angeles Gun Rights Examiner John Longenecker has created the Liberty News/Safer Streets Newsletter. You can read a recent sample here. (I already did.)
And to make sure you never miss an issue, you can sign up for convenient free email delivery here.
PLEASE FORWARD the link to this column and share with all of your chat lists and forums
More from Gun Rights Examiners
Atlanta Ed Stone | Austin Howard Nemerov | Boston Ron Bokleman | Charlotte Paul Valone | Cheyenne Anthony Bouchard | Chicago Don Gwinn | Cleveland Daniel White | DC Mike Stollenwerk | Denver Dan Bidstrup | Des Moines Sean McClanahan |Detroit Rob Reed | Fort Smith Steve D. Jones | Knoxville Liston Matthews | Los Angeles John Longenecker | Minneapolis John Pierce | National David Codrea | Seattle Dave Workman | St. Louis Kurt Hofmann | Tucson Chris Woodard
And Don’t forget to visit:
Comments
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
A: This is infringing our right to not self-incriminate.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
A: Same as above.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
A: Arms is plural in the 2nd amendment :-)
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
A: Perhaps justifiable given the regulate militia aspect.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
A: Only reason would be that it discriminates against poor gun owners.
Q. Should open carry be banned?
A: Bearing needs to be allowed, if not open then concealed.
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
A: Bearing needs to be allowed, if not concealed then open. :-)
I will let history answer for me:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
I'm on the fence about this. On the one hand, I don't like or agree with the idea that the Government may know exactly what I own. However, as with automobiles, I would have no problem with a central system -- not open to public scrutiny and only available to law enforcement ONLY WITH THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT FROM A FEDERAL JUDGE to assist in tracing a firearm's origins after a crime would be something I could live with.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
Not to own, no.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
No.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
Yes.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
No.
Q. Should open carry be banned?
No.
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs
Absolutely not.
No No No No No No No.
Answers - NO to all of the above.
One other thought:
While I think that licensing and training, especially for people who are afraid of being robbed or killed who buy guns and know absolutely nothing about them, HOW ABOUT ENFORCING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE? WHY DO WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT NEW LAWS AND BANS WHEN THE CURRENT LAWS AREN'T EVEN UPHELD?
Unlike the Fourth Amendment, which makes allowances for reasonable search and seizure, the Second Amendment makes no allowances for reasonable infringement.
We Knew the other shoe was going to drop! Now we will have to see how stupid they will get with the Reasonable Restrictions!
Q: Should all be registered? No. Register criminals, instead.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed? No. Lisencing is an obvious precursor to confiscation. Yes, cars & drivers are lisenced, but that's just to collect taxws. No one is suggesting that cars be confiscated UNLESS THE DRIVER COMMITS A CRIME. See a connecton?
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month? Or one pair of shoes a month, or one car, or one airplane or one pizza? Dumb question.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm? Not required, unless it's mandatory in high school, as is driver's ed. Encouraged, yes
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance? Should dog owners? Runners?
Q. Open carry be banned? No, it should be encouraged.
Q. Should "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of police chiefs? Bah! That's what NJ has now and only the rich & connected can get permits.
This has been tried and defeated several times throughout history. Ownership of weaopons was tied to your social status so it was not possible for a peasant to overthow his rulers. During reconstruction of the Southern United States the same thing happend to Blacks, thier guns were literally taken away and they were left defenseless. These are all good questions which have been challenged and answered before. If you apply this same reasoning to the first ammendment then the Seattle times should only be allowed one liberal opinionated article per month. What we need is legislation to mandate a fire arm in every home. How ludicris is that?? How would the government know if I made a private purchase?? How would the government know if a made a private sale?? I spent my entire adult life defending the Constititution and the Ideals that made America strong. Try to take my guns...I am prepared to defend my way of life and my rights with the same integrity that I defended my country.
My answer to all of the questions is: Guns should be restricted no more than our freedom of speech (First Amendment) or our right to remain silent (Fifth Amendment). Until a license/registration is required to speak freely, it should not be required to "bear Arms".
Mayor Daley should have a look at the text of the Second Amendment and note that Arms is plural.
El Jefe: Comments per your questions -- in CAPS. dd in MA
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered? NO. NONE SHOULD BE REGISTERED.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed? NO. PROBLEMS WITH GUNS ARE CAUSED BY CRIMINALS AND WE ALREADY HAVE LAWS THAT PROHIBIT FELONS FROM HAVING ANY TYPE OF GUNS.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month? NO. A PERSON NEVER KNOWS WHEN A COLLECTION FROM A DECEASED PERSON COMES ONTO THE MARKET WHICH A BUYER/COLLECTOR MAY WANT SEVERAL OF. BESIDES, IF A PERSON PLANNED TO *GO POSTAL* (PARDONS FROM OUR USPO BRETHREN), ONLY NE GUN WOULD BE NEEDED TO ATTACK A SOURCE OF ADDL GUNS TO ACQUIRE MORE.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm? NO, HOWEVER TRAINING SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED AND MADE AVAILABLE BY GUN CLUBS SO THAT GOVERNMENT CANNOT LIMIT CLASSES AND ATTENDANCE.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance? NO. THERE IS NO BODY OF EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT AVERAGE GUN OWN
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
7. No
" NO " Not in any way shape or form ! " NO " !
What part of " NO " do those people not understand ?
Answers - NO to all of the above.
I'm in favor of a waiting period.
Specifically, convicted criminals should have longer waiting periods before they get out of prison!
They will be as unreasonable as we allow them to be by not harming them for their trespasses against liberty.
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
Just militia grade firearms could be registered, and maybe just a subset of those should be (automatic rifles, grenade launchers, bazookas, etc.). No need to register sporting and training guns.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
Members of the unorganized militia should be enrolled upon their 18th birthday (perhaps it would then be a minimally organized militia). Persons not wishing to participate or keep a militia grade arm should have to pay an equivalent. People who can not afford a militia grade gun could have one loaned to them from armed forces surplus (or have one paid for out of the equivalent collections).
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
Enrolled members in the unorganized militia should be able to buy as much as they want.
End of part 1
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
Training should be required of all school children and offered at the mandatory annual muster required of all citizens in the unorganized militia until they reach some reasonable age (Maybe 25?).
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
Everybody should be required to have liability insurance, unless they are very poor. Perhaps the poor could “pay” for their insurance by volunteering for extra duty at muster.
Q. Should open carry be banned?
Maybe in “polite society”. When open is considered really rude a gentleman carries concealed (or at least cased).
End of part 2
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
Concealed laws should be repealed and your militia enrollment card re-issued with the “Firearms OK” endorsement reappearing for those people who have lost their firearm rights due to felony, mental disability, etc. when they petition the court for reinstitution of their civil rights.
End of part 3
Because:
The congress shall have power:…
14. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
15. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of then as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress.
Since virtually all of us can be (or are) a part of the federal unorganized militia, that is a lot of constitutional power. What the congress cannot do is deny the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
BothellBob
My answers to your questions appear below.
Some very good answers have been given before me but we have much of this already in effect in California law and it has only forced more and more guns to go unreistered and it has not changed the crime stats or put one more felon out of business because he was caught with a stolen weapon. It has raised the paranoia fear of government take over and polarized the sides even more. It scares me how many untrained gun owners are out there who have no idea how much firepower they hold in their hands and it might be the only thing I would agree on. Ownership of guns should not be a political issue. All the government should be concerned about is that all who own guns are properly trained so as not to be a threat to their neighbors and others by reason of ignorance. Beyond that government should refrain form involving itself where guns and honest citizens are concerned.
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
-No registration of guns should be encouraged.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
-No.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
-No.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
-No, but training should be encouraged at dealerships, gun clubs and ranges, and by peers/friends. Training is a good thing... but mandatory training? No.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
-No - why?
Q. Should open carry be banned?
-No, it should be legal in all states.
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
-No States should standardize and make uniform laws to avoid confusion within their borders.
*Just from reading the first page of comments, it amazes me how many are willing to give some of their liberty away. =8^O
edit to add - that first one didn't read right... I meant to say NO. Do not encourage it, either (just in case you saw the same thing I did when I finished).
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
A: Registration is infringement. Which part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear?
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
A: License requirements are an infringement. Which part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear?
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
A: Purchase limits are an infringement. Which part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear?
(Are we beginning to note a pattern here?)
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
A: Eh... This one is iffy - While the idea that someone with training is likely to be safer and/or better in handling/using his/her firearm is sound, a requirement for training is, in and of itself, an infringement. Which part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear?
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
A: Requiring insurance is an infringement. Which part of "...shall not be infringed." is unclear?
Q.
I have to say No on all,however,I would like to see mandatory education on gun safety in school,and shooting classes.
If door knobs like these Mayors and others are really concerned about crime, get out and arrest these idiots and make them do some real time,with No plea bargaining.Also,if you dont like guns,dont let the taxpayers pay for your protection with armed officers..They can issue time outs to the bad guys..
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
A: Neither one. Absolutely no registration of any kind for "ARMS" of any type.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
A: No, period. End of discussion.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
A: No, period. End of discussion.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
A: No, period. End of discussion.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
A: No, period. End of discussion.
Q. Should open carry be banned?
A: No, period. End of discussion.
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
A: Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed? Absolutely.
Should carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs? Absolutely NOT!!
When the antis say "reasonable restrictions", don't they actually mean "reasonable infringements"? Why do they not use the term "reasonable infringement"? Because it would give away their play book to the opposing team. We should start defining the debate and instead of usuing their term, use ours which is "reasonable infringement". There are no "reasonable infringements".
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
A: No gun should ever be registered. It will lead directly to another incidently like that in New Orleans where guns were being confiscated from law-abiding citizens.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
A: No. See above.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
A: No, there are plenty of legitimate reasons for purchasing more than one a month.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
A: No. Training is not required for you to be able to exercise any of your other fundamental rights. So why should it be for your 2A right?
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
A: No. Do you have to have liability insurance to exercise your right to free speech? Do you have to have liability insurance to exercise your right to self defense?
TBC...
Part 2 of 3
Q. Should open carry be banned?
A: No. What benefit would banning open carry achieve? No criminal openly carries their weapons as it would draw too much attention to them. Only law abiding citizens openly carry.
Part 3 of 3
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
A: No, that would be unreasonable and easily lead to discrimination. The difference between shall-issue and may-issue is that may-issue allows and even encourages discrimination, including racial, whereas shall-issue disallows and prevents most discrimination. Though permits are already unreasonably infringing on your rights. They will have no impact whatsoever on criminals that carry and only prevent law abiding citizens from carrying. There are already laws about using firearms to commit a crime which are very severe punishments. If the criminal is will to commit a felony, they are not going to care about a misdemeanor charge of carrying a gun without a carry license.
to your questions...simple answer is NO to all of them. We have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed as much as I think there are buffoons who should not have firearms it is a right. Criminals will always have guns they are criminals they do not obey the law to begin with so restricting the freedom of law obeying citizens does nothing except make it easier for criminals.
My belief is there is no reasonable regulation, all any regulation does is open the door to control by government of personal liberties.
Regulating any of our rights is a step in the wrong direction....freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion are all equal in my eyes, take away one you will lose them all.
And for the record I am female, I am blonde, and I am not a right wing christian. They also need to stop trying to box all gun owners into one category we come from many walks of life.
What part of "shall not be infringed" are they having a problem with?
Unlike the Fourth Amendment, which makes allowances for reasonable search and seizure, the Second Amendment makes no allowances for reasonable infringement.
The only reasonable gun regulations are those that punish those who misuse guns for misusing them. Period. No other right is regulated, registered or licensed and guns should not be either.
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
No guns should be ever registered.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
Again, no.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
No. No more than one book a month or one TV show a month.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
No, but training should be offered as part of a youth's normal middle school education.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
NO
Q. Should open carry be banned?
Of course not. Should library books be banned?
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs? No. We've seen how that only leads to abuse of minorities and favors for political elites.
No to all the questions. Yet as important is Daleys desire to see a once a year renewal of registration. Where does that go? Think, you sell a gun, which is your private property to keep or sell as you wish. Now nesx year when you renew the registration of other guns, the "Ahhthoritys" ask "what happened to this pistol, serial # "what gives you the right to sell without permission and to who did you sell it" Sounds like a backdoor circumvention of individual sales to me
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered? None. All registration provides. The feds already had a method to track weapons via firearms dealers. Anything more is a waste of money and effort
Q. Should gun owners be licensed? No. Should voters be registered? Shouldn't voters be licensed and tested on their knowledge of events and the constitution? How can they make a reasoned vote while ignorant?
Same difference.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month? No.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm? Anti-gunners like to compare owning and carrying a weapon to a driver's license. No driver's license is required to buy an automobile. None should be necessary to buy a gun.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance? No
Q. Should open carry be banned? No.
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police
no
no
no
that's an iffy one, i've been at controlled ranges where i've feared for my life due to other shooters
no
no
no, all states should be shall issue, or like AK and VT, no permit required!
I have been practicing "reasonable regulation" and I recommend all patriots do so. I have been studiously regulating the iron sights on my firearms so that they hit what I aim at. I find that eminently "reasonable".
I do not think "reasonable regulation" means what they think it means.
No, it does not pass the
Second Amendment and
Constitutional "smell test."
However, none of the bedrock
defenders of our Constitution
and Republic will do anything
because it mainly effects a
city full of Negroes and crime.
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
NO, this leads to them being able to confiscate all guns.
Q. Should gun owners be licensed?
NO, if they have a CCW then they are licensed, correct.
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
NO, free country, purchase what you can afford.
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
NO, it should be done as it was with me, when I was 12 my dad taught me proper handeling. or do it in school.
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
NO, this is just stupid, allows the insurance companies to rape the public more.
Q. Should open carry be banned?
NO, we should be allowed to.
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
NO, it should be shall issue, if the person is law biding, it should not matter. Police can discriminate.
"Permits? We don' need no steenking permits!"
Educating the public regarding their fundamental human rights and the relationship the Constitution and BoRs has to them is absolutely critical in this fight to retain our FREE Republic. Too many of the comments on this page indicate a severe lack of knowledge. Not that I know EVERYTHING. But I know that the rights existed BEFORE establishment of the Constitution and BoRs AND the U.S. Government. Therefore, the government does NOT have any legitimate authority to usurp, infringe or otherwise interfere with them.
Our two greatest obstacles is reversing the damage we've allowed to take place to our liberties by the Congress and administrations perverting the intent of the so-called "commerce clause" and the "general welfare" reference (it's really not an enumerated power). We've got a lot of work to do to get ourselves educated PROPERLY. Glenn Beck is on the right track in this regard - no doubt.
Shall Not Be Infringed....
The argument between wolves about a sheep's "rights" continues.
They are seeking with great deliberation, to violate the Constitution and the highest laws of the land. They do it knowingly, and at great cost to the taxpayer.
When is a Constitution and Bill of Rights no longer relevant? When Government ignores it's existence or changes the mean of it's words.
And what will be the manner of our redress? More unenforced opinions, by their courts.
They are willing to take the next steps in commandeering our power and freedoms. The only question is when and how it will be done. They want to do it through the opinions of their courts because they can then claim legitimacy for their actions.
But they are tyrants and there is no mistake where that will lead.
Who cares? They can pass any laws they want to.
The root of the problem is that those favoring regulation are defining what is reasonable on their own terms. By simply declaring them to be so, they believe their suggestions to be reasonable.
If something is truly reasonable, it is possible for others with the facts in hand to be able to reach a similar conclusion. They may disagree, but they can see the REASON. This precludes hysteria and any other factors that are not well-reasoned.
Any time a politician or an advocate declares something to be "reasonable" or "commonsense", I grab my wallet and start listening carefully.
Q: Should all guns or just handguns be registered? - Neither
Q. Should gun owners be licensed? - No
Q. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month? - No
Q. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm? - No
Q. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance? - No
Q. Should open carry be banned? - No
Q. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs? - A thousand times no
I am very glad that it is people like the DC and Chicago politicians that are pushing this BS--because the laws that they are passing are so patently UNreasonable (several hundred dollars to register ONE gun, defining standard semiautos as "machine guns", one defensive handgun per household, forbidding carry in an attached garage), these guys are our best friends because the courts will eventually forbid all this BS
{Rationale / thoughts shown in braces}
{We had better correct the lies and misrepresentations left-wing (& right-wing) extremists are teaching our children in public & private schools or we are doomed. Where do you think the current crop of liberal, activist judges came from?}
{Second Amendment rights should be no more restricted than First Amendment rights or Fifth Amendment rights or ANY of the rights guaranteed by (NOT created by) the Constitution. If anybody doesn't like that, they can propose a Constitutional Amendment and work to get it passed. Of course, they already tried that and failed. Anyone who tries to infringe or restrict Constitutionally protected rights in any other way that a Constitutional Amendment is guilty of treason and should be so prosecuted.}
Q1: Should all guns or just handguns be registered?
No firearms should be registered.
{Used by the government for confiscation; by criminals as a shopping list}
Q2. Should gun owners be licensed?
No {see Q1}
Q3. Should people be limited to one gun purchase per month?
No {no valid reason/no useful objective; "... shall not be infringed."}
Q4. Should training be required before citizens can purchase a firearm?
Yes. {Should be a required Civics class in high school, starting about age 14 & repeated each year. Syllabus to include: function; handling (handgun, rifle, shotgun); safety; laws regarding; when to shoot: when not to shoot; view autopsy of gunshot victim (human, provided one is available during the school year (guaranteed in Chicago or DC), animal otherwise); live fire (handgun, rifle, shotgun) at least once before graduation with permission of parent & conditional on passing the function, safety & handling portions of the curriculum.}
Q5. Should gun owners be required to have liability insurance?
Maybe. {But only if part of a mandatory (everybody has to have it), broad coverage policy that includes every liability that a citizen can incur & is the same price for everybody. I don't think mandatory liability insurance is a good idea, but maybe. But absolutely not when gun use or ownership or ANY specific behavior is singled out.}
Q6. Should open carry be banned?
No. {"... shall not be infringed." Open carry should be encouraged. Concealed carry should be encouraged. Carry should be encouraged.}
Q7. Should right-to-carry / "Shall-issue" laws be repealed and carry permits only be issued at the discretion of local sheriffs and police chiefs?
No.
{HOW ABOUT ENFORCING THE LAWS WE ALREADY HAVE? WHY DO WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT NEW LAWS AND BANS WHEN THE CURRENT LAWS AREN'T EVEN UPHELD?}
{In the interest of good government, states should preempt ALL local governments and standardize the rules for carry and issuance of permits to carry. Both open carry and concealed carry should be defined and specific rules for both defined.}
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!