Is There such a thing as a "Reasonable Gun Law?"

[Northcountryman]

After reading the current threads on gun control, I wanted to take a different  approach to this discussion and talk about Gun control itself.  I know that the vast majority of members on here are strongly pro 2nd amendment ; moreover, you fear that any relinquishment of rights to purchase/own/maintain firearms inexorably will lead to the revocation of this constituional right. 

What I'm wondering is, are there pure and strict constitutionalists here who believe that NO gun control laws or measures are constitutional and thus, ANYONE who is an American citizen should be able to purchase and own  a firearm (of requisite age , of course)no matter what? Also, citizens should be able to purchase and own ANY firearm available on the market, military/assault weapons, even bazookas and grenades, if they so choose and can afford it? Or, conversely, are you a strict gun control advocate that believes guns should not be allowed to be owned by the citizenry and the 2nd A. should be repealed ( Im pretty sure that nobody on here falls within this category, but had to put it out there anyway in order to frame the discussion effectively!).

As for me, I'm a firm believer in 2nd A. rights but I'm more moderate in terms of what level of gun control measures I will tolerate.  Heres a summary that hopefully, pretty much elucidates my beliefs in regards to the 2nd A. and Gun control:

1. Right to purchase/own and utilize rifles/shotguns and any other weapons primarily intended for recreational use/pursuits related to hunting should be unfettered.
2. Right to purchase handguns permitted with successful completion of a basic background check and an approved handgun safety course; subsequent to this, applicant then should be eligible to receive their firearm after a reasonable waiting (i.e., cooling off) period .
3. Right to purchase a military/assault rifle (AR-15s, and other automatic weapons that can still reasonably be considered a hunting weapon)should be permitted after successful completion of a more thorough background check and also includes a psych eval ; additionally, a longer cooling off period should be required (length and duration IDK, but longer than 3 days , I would think!!).
4. Right to purchase anything else that can be classified as military and not included in the aforementioned points , such as bazookas, grenades, 50 cal machine guns, etc.(for want of a better term, serious military hardware) should not be allowed mostly (exemptions can apply, of course in certain situations). 

 

What do you think?

[ApexerER]

My belief is that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear to me. The way i read it, any gun law is unconstitutional.  The 2nd amendment doesn't say you have the right to own a hunting rifle or a shotgun. It was meant to allow us too defend ourselves from the government. So the way i read the 2nd amendment. I should have access to any weapon the military does. 

Now just because i believe that is what the 2nd amendment says. Doesn't mean i think that should happen. I really don't have an issue with background checks. Now a psych evaluation is leading down  a slippery slope to me.  Who decides if i am worthy? The Government does.....So if they look at my posts on here and see i am a conservative does that disqualify me? What is disqualifying? Is taking an anti anxiety med or anti depression med make you disqualified? Unless you are a criminal, you have the right to bear arms. 

This latest shooting, they guy was on the FBI watch list of some sort. Why wasn't that a red flag in the NICS check? Seems like a pretty easy thing to fix to me....

[Steve D]

I go along with a background check but other than that one should be able to own whatever they want with the possible exception of automatic weapons.

The only other control should be being able to hit your target.

I do support most of the restrictions applied by DEC in regards to calibers, types, etc.

 

[wolc123]

I think a reasonable gun control law would stipulate the penalty of death by hanging or electrocution to anyone who commits a crime with a gun.  

Such a law would be aimed at the criminals, rather than law abiding folks, like all those currently being suggested by the Democrats are.  It would also limit the burden on law abiding folks for feeding and housing the criminals who are found guilty.

It really boggles my mind why anyone would believe that a criminal would abide by a law.  How can folks be that ignorant?

[Robhuntandfish]

Enforcement and strict adherence to multiple current laws, gun and otherwise, would keep a great amount of the repeat offenders from being able to do it again or go on to commit further or worse crimes as they would be incarcerated longer than a couple of months or given an appearance ticket. Considering 1-2% of the population commit the most crimes with guns and have committed previous other crimes. This would lessen the need for people to think they need to make further gun restriction laws.  

I would like a consistent pistol permit qualification and application process. 

[Bigfoot 327]

If it takes you weeks or months to get a concealed carry permit it makes no sense to have any sort of waiting period for firearms purchases. You have already waited.

[Nomad]

I believe , civilians should be able to,own the same weapons as the average military ground pounder , ie the same long and hand guns , I draw the line at crew weapons .

Im all for giving offenders of  first offense,non violent crime , a second chance , public service, fines, restitution and so on.  First offense violent crime ,would be a case by case basis, but you’ll  see some jail time , second offense well you wouldn’t want to appear be for me ...

 

[phantom]

I'm good with just background checks the law they have now . but if they change things something like this would be my idea to reduce  mass shooting damage.  

After a background check you should be able to get any gun you want except .

AR style weapons  should be allowed after a gun safety course and after a few years of responsible ownership of other guns first . Then after a few more years of responsible ownership  and another background check and safety course  you should be able to get even full auto  .   This probably  not going to stop the nuts but it will reduce these nuts from using AR style guns because the crazies' are not going to wait years to get a AR  probably at least that's my theory anyway . I don't think you can stop those crimes maybe minimize the damage they do . 

 

[Buckmaster7600]

I'm good with just background checks the law they have now . but if they change things something like this would be my idea to reduce  mass shooting damage.  
After a background check you should be able to get any gun you want except .
AR style weapons  should be allowed after a gun safety course and after a few years of responsible ownership of other guns first . Then after a few more years of responsible ownership  and another background check and safety course  you should be able to get even full auto  .   This probably  not going to stop the nuts but it will reduce these nuts from using AR style guns because the crazies' are not going to wait years to get a AR  probably at least that's my theory anyway . I don't think you can stop those crimes maybe minimize the damage they do . 
 

.0000149% of ar’s in the us were used in a homicide in 2019. An extra course and a few years all for that? Seems real stupid to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phantom]

8 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

.0000149% of ar’s in the us were used in a homicide in 2019. An extra course and a few years all for that? Seems real stupid to me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

left does not understand facts they see scary black gun 

 

yea its dumb but it maybe something that would appease the left in this country  and let real gun lovers get what they want still. 

btw in japan they have that kinda of system you have to start out with a shotgun before you can get a rifle and so on .

Edited March 27, 2021 by phantom

[Buckmaster7600]

left does not understand facts they see scary black gun 
 
yea its dumb but it maybe something that would appease the left in this country . 
btw in japan they have that kinda of system you have to start out with a shotgun before you can get a rifle and so on .

I’m not ok with giving up rights to appease the left.

Didn’t we gain the ability to not give a crap what Japan does on 8/6/1945?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[phantom]

2 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I’m not ok with giving up rights to appease the left.

Didn’t we gain the ability to not give a crap what Japan does on 8/6/1945?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well if they keep voting lefty  these antigun guys in office all the time what do you expect to happen .

They get enough power they will change things .

[Northcountryman]

2 hours ago, Nomad said:

I believe , civilians should be able to,own the same weapons as the average military ground pounder , ie the same long and hand guns , I draw the line at crew weapons .

Im all for giving offenders of  first offense,non violent crime , a second chance , public service, fines, restitution and so on.  First offense violent crime ,would be a case by case basis, but you’ll  see some jail time , second offense well you wouldn’t want to appear be for me ...

 

I like it , but I age. To ask you : when you say you believe that the avg citizen should be allowed to own the same weapons as those Used in the military , does that include weapons like the M -60 or a 50 cal ? A bazooka perhaps ? Or are those what you mean by crew weapons ? 

[Buckmaster7600]

well if they keep voting lefty  these antigun guys in office all the time what do you expect to happen .
They get enough power they will change things .

Only if the weak follow. The safe act was a perfect example of the lack of cooperation of gun owning Americans.

Less than 20,000 of the estimated 5-10million “assault rifles” were registered when it became mandatory in New York. Don’t think for a minute the left wasn’t paying attention to that on a National scale.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Northcountryman]

14 minutes ago, phantom said:

left does not understand facts they see scary black gun 

 

yea its dumb but it maybe something that would appease the left in this country  and let real gun lovers get what they want still. 

btw in japan they have that kinda of system you have to start out with a shotgun before you can get a rifle and so on .

Japan has very restrictive gun control laws in place ; I don’t even think a citizen can legally obtain an assault trifle there, can they ? 

[Steve D]

52 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Japan has very restrictive gun control laws in place ; I don’t even think a citizen can legally obtain an assault trifle there, can they ? 

Just for the record:

"AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic, a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934."

Please don't get caught up in the terminology like the rest of the un-informed. "AR" stands for automatic rifle.

As they are manufactured today for the general public they are military looking semi-auto rifles.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Steve D

[nybuckboy]

To add to this discussion: Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them - automatic 10 years.  Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them that was used in a shooting - automatic 20 years.  Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them that was used in a murder - Life.  Anyone selling a handgun to another without a paper trail 10 years. 

Laws like this may be the biggest deterrent for criminals to not carry handguns and get them off the streets. 

[phantom]

2 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

Japan has very restrictive gun control laws in place ; I don’t even think a citizen can legally obtain an assault trifle there, can they ? 

No ARs in japan there gun laws are a nightmare .

 

Hunting is a thing in Japan, even with guns. But as you can imagine, it's much more tightly controlled than it is in the US.

First, prospective hunters over 18 must apply for a license (administered by each prefecture) before they are allowed to hunt. There are three types of hunting licenses: nets, traps and firearms, the latter of which covers both air guns and projectiles (rifles and shotguns), although hunters younger than 20 may only use air-powered guns like BB guns. Applicants must supply a medical professional's statement that they don't suffer from mental illness or substance addiction. Vision, hearing, and general fitness is tested. Criminal background checks are also conducted. Finally, a written test is conducted covering hunting laws, different types of game, and various hunting equipment. If you pass the test, you get a hunting license that's good for three years.

 

However, if you want to hunt with a gun, there's even more to it than that. You would need a separate gun permit, which is issued by the National Police Agency. Getting a gun permit is very difficult -- you need to attend a lecture, pass a written test, and practice gun use under police supervision. Background checks are conducted, and are considerable: not only are you interviewed, but your employers, family, neighbors, and others in your neighborhood.

You then have to apply to purchase a specific kind of gun, buy it from a licensed dealer, and then take the gun back to the police to show you bought the right one. Shotguns are the "entry level" gun -- anyone asking for a rifle would have needed to have a shotgun in good standing for a decade before they'd be considered for a rifle (and they'd have to apply and take more tests and such). Pistols and anything else not obviously used for hunting are completely banned for civilians.

As you can imagine, all of the mandatory training, applications, tests and safety gear (you are required to buy a gun locker) do not come cheap. This Japan Times article estimates starting costs to be around ¥115,000, plus local fees for actually hunting in that area. Including taxes, that could run you another ¥20,000 or more. To say nothing of how much time and effort it takes to pass all of these tests and get through the red tape. Annual maintenance and supplies can add up to another ¥40,000.

As younger Japanese tend to be more urbanized than their parents, hunting as a sport is in steep decline in Japan. In 2010 it was estimated that 190,000 people with valid hunting licenses were in Japan (a drop of 2/3 in the last 35 years), and the vast majority of them were issued to senior citizens. As a result, deer and boar populations have been exploding, and causing major damage to agriculture and forest land. The deer are a bigger problem (a smaller local breed known as the sika deer), now numbering over 2.6 million. They have no natural predators left in the wild, with both species of indigenous wolf having gone extinct well over 100 years ago.

Facing such challenges, local governments have been trying to get more young people interested in hunting, holding sponsored events and such. Some social media campaigns have specifically been targeting female prospective hunters. Kentarō Okamoto's Sanzoku Diary manga has also been popular enough to cause some interest in hunting. However, with such a high barrier to entry, these efforts are facing an uphill battle.

Edited March 27, 2021 by phantom

[Grouse]

I'm all for a background check ONCE!  I will agree to allow authorities to look at my record ONCE!  Once I have proven to be a responsible, law abiding citizen, that presents absolutely no danger to anyone, I get a firearms I.D. card that proves to an FFL I'm clean and allows me to buy ANY legal firearm immediately, no secondary NICS checks and no waiting.

If I ever violate any law that would require me to turn in my firearms I.D. card and my guns, I would have to do so, and a Judge would be required to take my firearm's I.D. from me when due process proved it in court.

No more NICS checks, check fees or waiting with every transaction.  That type of redundancy is bureaucratic nonsense and just designed to make money for the state.  If someone is checked thoroughly and completely and proves they have never been violent in any way and not a felon, they should not be subjected to govt scrutiny again unless there is probable cause to do so.

What guns would be considered legal for me to own, is an entirely different matter and a subject all to itself.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Grouse

[Grouse]

A right delayed, is a right denied!

What is this notion of a "cooling off period"?  That is an automatic assumption that all firearms are purchased in anger with malicious intent.  That is absolutely absurd.  If you assume someone is prone to anger and needs to cool off, you are assuming that individual has an unstable personality.  If gun owners agree to "cooling off" periods, they are promoting the idea they have unstable personalities.  Waiting periods convince the public gun owners are unstable.

As far as safety courses go, simply limit the number of courses offered and you limit gun purchases.  Plus, you can charge prohibitive fees for these courses, to deter as many people as possible from going to them.

The idea of a "more thorough background check" implies the first one was "half assed".  What's the point of doing any background check if it isn't thorough?  If this means adding more restrictive requirements like a mental exam, evaluation of social media thoughts or an IQ test, that is simply unconstitutional because it is subjective.

The only gun control laws that are constitutional are laws that penalize people who have used guns to harm others.  Any law assuming I may use a gun to harm others, with no evidence that may happen, presumes guilt and is a "preventative law", meaning my rights are restricted because others have abused theirs.  That is blatantly unconstitutional. 

But as I have been advised prior, the general mood of the public may allow such unconstitutional oppression if the public thinks it makes them safer, individual rights be damned.  That's the fiddle the government is playing on to get the public to do just that.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Grouse

[DoubleDose]

7 hours ago, nybuckboy said:

To add to this discussion: Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them - automatic 10 years.  Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them that was used in a shooting - automatic 20 years.  Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them that was used in a murder - Life.  Anyone selling a handgun to another without a paper trail 10 years. 

Laws like this may be the biggest deterrent for criminals to not carry handguns and get them off the streets. 

This only works in theory.  The criminals defense attorney will plead down these charges for a guilty plea.  Sentencing is up to the judge so years will be reduced.  After a while of this type of sentencing, the Libs will again argue there are too many people in prison for too long, too expensive a sentence, et etc etc.

Reality: NYC has a law of mandatory 1 year added to sentence for any crime committed with an illegal handgun; at the discretion of the sentencing judge.  Oxymoron right there, mandatory and at the discretion.  The ONLY person to receive this sentence was Bernard Getz.   

[Grouse]

It would be a lot simpler to leave registration completely out of the law and legislate anyone not approved to possess firearms can be prosecuted.  I do not support registration of any firearms.  The only reason handguns currently have to be registered is because at one time the government was hot to confiscate them.  It still is hot to confiscate them, but the plan is on the back burner for now.

I say edit the above like this: 

All firearms possessed by anyone without a firearms I.D. are illegally possessed.

Anyone convicted of being illegally in possession of a handgun - 5 years.  Anyone convicted of being illegally in possession of a handgun that was used in a shooting - 10 years.  Anyone convicted of being illegally in possession of a handgun that was used in a murder - 20 years.  Transfers need no paper trail if only people approved to possess firearms, can legally buy and sell them.

If by chance the person currently in possession of a handgun is not responsible for shooting or murdering someone with it, the only way to save their own skin would be to rat on the one who did.

[Northcountryman]

13 hours ago, Bigfoot 327 said:

If it takes you weeks or months to get a concealed carry permit it makes no sense to have any sort of waiting period for firearms purchases. You have already waited.

Yes, that is true and I agree, but what about in other states where you can walk in , apply, and walk out same day with your handgun ( at least, I believe you can in some of the hard-core conservative southern states)? I dont agree with that.  

[Northcountryman]

10 hours ago, Steve D said:

Just for the record:

"AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.” An assault rifle is fully automatic, a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934."

Please don't get caught up in the terminology like the rest of the un-informed. "AR" stands for automatic rifle.

As they are manufactured today for the general public they are military looking semi-auto rifles.

So if someone wanted to purchase an AR-15 in NY, would they be able to? 

[Northcountryman]

9 hours ago, nybuckboy said:

To add to this discussion: Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them - automatic 10 years.  Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them that was used in a shooting - automatic 20 years.  Anyone in possession of a handgun not registered to them that was used in a murder - Life.  Anyone selling a handgun to another without a paper trail 10 years. 

Laws like this may be the biggest deterrent for criminals to not carry handguns and get them off the streets. 

And what would the penalty be for the Shooter?