Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: What defines "reasonable regulation?" Seattle GRE discusses issue

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Gun Rights activists, prohibitionists battle over what is "reasonable" regulation of guns.

    The Seattle Gun Rights Examiner asks some probing questions and how you answer will determine which side of this battle you are on.



    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m6d29-Gun-rights-activists-prohibitionists-battle-over-what-is-reasonable

    If that doesn't work, try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    Good article. I think you know where most people on this site would stand. At least I hope so.

    .....'could lead to more violence'.......He is swaying american public with speach like this, I think could has become has become his favorite tool.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Port Orchard, Washington, USA
    Posts
    897

    Post imported post

    My idea of reasonable gun control legislation. All firearms owners and/or CPL holders must complete a one day course on safety and proper care/use of their firearm. A certification process, similar to a drivers license, that is done once and recognized in all states. No renewal process either, once certified and you're done. A reasonable fee could be collected by the agency conducting the training whether it be a government agency or private company, like a gun range or gun store.

    I think the biggest issue with negligent discharges is because of a lack of proper understanding of firearms. Most of the NDs are because the person "thought it was unloaded". If everyone is taught the 4 cardinal rules of gun safety and taught how to properly handle and care for any type of firearm then the number of "accidents" would dramatically decrease.

    If you want to take the drivers license as an example, we don't license people to buy but to operate. The larger the vehicle the tougher the testing process. The US has some pretty high accident rates compared to Europe but much better than places like India or the Middle East. Germany actually has a much longer process for drivers ed than we do in the US. People over there actually drive for the sake of driving. Anyone who has been there will notice that their cars don't have cup holders. You don't eat, drink or talk on the cell phone over there while driving. They also adhere to certain rules of the road like keep right except to pass, signal when changing lanes/turning and keeping proper distance. I see all too often these basic rules being ignored here in the US by the average driver. However our truck drivers are much better about their driving habits. Like Europe, it takes more time, effort and money to get a CDL than it does for a regular driver and like Europe, they have a much better safety rating than regular drivers.

    I don't believe in gun registration, bullet registration or any restrictions on our rights to keep and bear arms (what part of "Shall NOT be infringed" do they just not get), but I would support something that would ensure better education.

  4. #4
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    sirpuma wrote:
    My idea of reasonable gun control legislation. All firearms owners and/or CPL holders must complete a one day course on safety and proper care/use of their firearm. A certification process, similar to a drivers license, that is done once and recognized in all states. No renewal process either, once certified and you're done. A reasonable fee could be collected by the agency conducting the training whether it be a government agency or private company, like a gun range or gun store.
    While I don't disagree with the concept of what you suggest I have some questions on implementation of such a program.

    On the issue of training, WHO will determine the curriculum? The Government? Associations like the NRA? The Military? Private Contractors? Local Law Enforcement? Training is a good idea but who will determine what is taught?

    Driver's Training is based on a "national model traffic code" that standardizes such taken for granted items as what side of the road to drive on, what Stop Signs look like, and basic rules of the road. Licenses are recognized from State to State and even in foreign countries. Will we see something like this for Firearms? Get trained in Washington State, be licensed to own and carry, and you can carry everywhere in the US?

    What about that "Official" that doesn't like guns. If he/she has any input into the training and licensing process what do you think the training course will look like. Probably something like the final exam for a Brain Surgeon. If training is required before any carry permit is issued then this will eliminate the "Shall Issue" standard that is in place in many states today. It will only be "Shall Issue" if I determine that you meet the qualifications and if I am an Anti-Gun official, your chances of being qualified are almost nil.

    How about cost? Who bears the expense? Taxes? Fees levied on the application and exam?

    Who conducts the training? Today there are hundreds, if not thousands, of training "Schools" teaching everything from State Courses for Concealed Carry Permits to Advanced Tactical Training that makes every graduate think they are up with the SEAL's, SAS, Special Forces, SWAT, etc., etc. Do these schools then become the "trainers" or do we create a totally new system?

    Training is a great idea. Making it mandatory presents a great deal of questions, however.



    All that said, I propose two steps to cut down on guns in the wrong hands. Both use existing law.

    First, make it a campaign to jail as many criminals that are found illegally carrying firearms or use them in crime. Separate sentences to be completed AFTER the sentence for the original crime is served. NO pleas, NO parole, NO good behavior early release. If 5 years isn't enough, then make it 10.

    Second, and I know this one will raise the hackles of many here, make transfers of firearms subject to background checks. If anyone knows a better way to keep criminals from buying guns I'd be more than willing to listen. The fact is that many guns are purchased from private parties by criminals. Some professional criminals have long lists of "friends" that purchase guns legally where they live and then, when they go to visit their "friend" in another state, they take the weapons to them. Why do you think there are so many guns in DC that were originally sold in Maryland and other southern states? Straw Purchases are a large source of guns that end up in the hands of criminals. A simple (although hard to swallow) solution would be to make EVERY transfer of a firearm subject to filling out a Form 4473 and an NICS check.



    Got a better way, bring it on.
    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    How do you propose to enforce these newly required background checks? What is stopping someone from selling their guns in a back alley to unsavory characters anyway?

  6. #6
    Regular Member Batousaii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,234

    Post imported post

    Yeah, i have thought of similar things too. One thing that always bothered me was the ATF format. Like we all grab our Beer and Stogies and go shooting at the river right ? Guns and Alcohol don't mix, so why are they mixed on a government level?

    - Seems the Department of Motor Vehicles and Department of Licensing is much morein linewith the needs of today. ... Guns and Cars are both combustion devices made of plastic and steel with serial numbers. Bothcan kill you if improperly operated. However, In the hands of the average person, with average training, and of average intelligence, both of these devices are perfectly safe and legitimate parts of our modern society.

    - As another poster mentioned above, it's a license to OPERATE not to own. I can buy a car from anyone, but to have it legally in my name i need to transfer it's title. I can still legally have the car, even if not in my name on my property, as long as it's not registered stolen. Now, If i want to operate the vehicle on a public road, i need to have a license to drive, and definitely best to have it in my name. If i want to drive a "big rig"18-wheeled trucki need a higher level license, but still affordable and achievable by the average person, a little more training, etc. We already have CC permits with a fairly reasonable price and in line with our constitutional rights. The Drivers License has a fairly reasonable price too, and the training is reasonable so as to facilitate the average person, of average intelligence, with an average ability to afford the costsallowing them topass the tests and operate a vehicle. Following a similar model would definitely help to keep criminals out of that bracket, or at least make it more identifiable when caught. My big issue on this, is doing it in such a way as NOT to impede or infringe on my base 2nd / state amendment rights, or my personal privacy rights. Correct me if i am wrong, but a LEO can get your address from your visible vehicle plate, but cannot go to a DOL and request your information that way. Similar, that a LEO can check to see if your OC pistols serial number returns as a stolen weapon, but other than that can not collect much data as "evidence". Definitely there needs to be heavy privacy laws attached here for personal protection.

    -I am open to modern ways of managing firearm usage, much as we do vehicles, but i am also very hardcore about the 2nd Amendment. Iam a 100% supporter oflegal legitimate small arms ownership, up to and including class-iii automatic weapons. I simply think the licensing, if it were to ever be implemented, and ownership needs to be fair and properly organized so as to co-exist within a free-modern-society. It 100% should not be infringed...it should be 100% affordable and achievable...it should 100% not be easy for hardened criminals... Realistic and simple methods exist today that allow us to achieve these goals. But, as with the FDA, things are prone to progressing verrryyy slowly, and unfortunately are often subject to special interests and outside forces. --- So whats the real answer to this delicate balance? to be honest not entirely sure, but this has been a thought of mine too (for quite a while i'll add). criminals definitely should not have guns... But fact is, they will get them, they will use them, and hopefully get stopped and/or arrested.

    - I am very happy we have this forum, and i am excited to see all the growth here. It keeps America free, fights crime and corruption, and in the end, it even can be a supporting force for our diminishing LEO's who are facing cutbacks and down-sizing. The honest American LEO, hopefully can see and count on it's OC citizens to support them in a time of need. With a touch of training, and instructions, the two philosophies can easily mingle. If we can get the LEO community to see this, the tides of "change" (hehe-sorry couldn't help it) will definitely turn to OC favor.

    Ah, Now i shown my true color - lol: Pro Gun, Pro constitution, pro gov, pro leo, pro citizen....Of course, in the light that these are all kept healthy, compatable and individual rights are not being infringed..

    Keep America free

    Bat.


    p.s. Thank you for spell checker :celebrate
    ~ ENCLAVE vmc ~
    The Enclave is looking for patriotic motorcycle riders in Washington State who support liberty and freedom for all. ~ Check us out!
    ~
    * " To be swayed neither by the opponent nor by his sword is the essence of swordsmanship." - Miyamoto Musashi.

  7. #7
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    antispam540 wrote:
    How do you propose to enforce these newly required background checks? What is stopping someone from selling their guns in a back alley to unsavory characters anyway?
    Good question. Got an answer?



    Sirpuma used the automobile/driving analogy. In that case it is impossible to keek people from driving while drunk, without licenses, or in general with their heads up their@$$e$ but we still have the laws. It gives someone a starting pont. Regardless of what we all believe, guns are registered right up to the first legal purchaser. From there it stops. How about holding that purchaser repsponsible for the legal transfer to the next owner. Gun Dealers do it every day. Why not use the same system?



    FWIW, there will be no solution as long as everyone points out the obstacles. There has to be a first step. It might aswell be one that legal gun owners can live with as the alternative which woudl be laws passed by those with a clear anti-gun agenda.




    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    736

    Post imported post

    My idea of reasonable firearms regulation:

    The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    There ya go. I find that highly reasonable.

  9. #9
    Regular Member DEROS72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    SEATAC, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,819

    Post imported post

    I can't believe what I'm reading here.No infingment or restrictions what soever other than a background check at a gun shop.I will own sell,operate ,buy without further rules .I expect no further laws regulations retrictions or anything of the sort.Leave it the f alone.Thats how they nit pick our rights away.When they pass bans are you just going to hide or stand and fight??????????

    I don't believe we have to answer to anyone for our personal protection.Not gov especially an Obama gov.not LE ..........No one!!!!As I and bookman explained to a couple of Kent cops that tried to corner me when I was waiting for a haircut.They ask me to step ouitside.I said no we can talk right here.(in front of all these people) One tried to lecture me about causing alarm and told me to cover up .I said no.One regonized me pretty much from the last Willow lake meet.I told them we were having an even bigger one on the 18th.The one officer kept trying to get me to step outside .I flat told him no.He asked me why I refused to cover up.I said ,I don't have to.He seemed to be getting a little pissed.I told them I have never been hasseled by any police ever except it seems to be kent cops that hassle folk.I told him I went to war for this country ,etc. I basically didn't answer to him or anyone else regarding my right to self protection..In so many words.The gal that cuts my hair looked out and said.Yeah he's here all the time never an issue .Then Bookman walks up and starts lecturing these guys and hands them invites to our meet.They just left.I got my hair cut and went about my business.I have sat down to coffee with many officers ,I will talk with mostLEO"S who have questions,I have stood and talked to many a LEO in really good coversations.But these Kent guys need to get their seirra hotel India Tango together....Trying to exert somekind of authority and it blew up in their face in front of people.

    By the way 2 ladies saw me in Fred Meyer and asked meif I was the one from Willow lake that carries all the time.I said yes I was.Told them about the meet.They said"We are glad to haveyou guys around,we feel a lot safer."The cops are never here.They also told me of some dealers in a particular building here.








  10. #10
    Regular Member Gene Beasley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Federal Way, Washington, USA
    Posts
    426

    Post imported post

    grishnav wrote:
    My idea of reasonable firearms regulation:

    The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    There ya go. I find that highly reasonable.
    Ding Ding; Winner, Winner!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Poulsbo, Washington, USA
    Posts
    546

    Post imported post

    There comes a point where you have to make a choice. You can try to force people to behave in an upstanding manner, but eventually your efforts are going to require the loss of freedoms. When that happens, the Constitution is very clear - your efforts stop there.

    Sometimes the methods used to acquire "safety" aren't worth the cost. Given the number of immigrants that cross our borders in an already completely-illegal manner, do you really think more laws could keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Even if all guns were banned in the country, criminals would still have them. They'd have knives, but we could ban all knives. They'd still have knives. We could ban clubs, forks, toothpicks, and rocks, but criminals would still get them, and law abiding citizens would have no legal means with which to defend themselves.

    I'm with Benjamin Franklin. If you prefer safety over liberty, you deserve neither.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •