Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 'Reasonable Regulation' .. Should OC be banned? (Read and answer questions herein)

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

    'Reasonable Regulation' .. Should OC be banned? (Read and answer questions herein)

    Brace yourselves for 'reasonable regulation'



    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?

    Anti-gun newspaper editorials are giving us a road-map to where gun prohibitionists want the country to go following Monday's SCOTUS ruling in McDonald v. Chicago...

    [Be sure to read all the way to the bottom and answer the questions!]

    http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seatt...ble-regulation

    Or try this:

    http://tinyurl.com/28kudgj

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wa, ,
    Posts
    2,769
    Good article Dave, and thanks for the link to the e-mail newsletter from your friend.

  3. #3
    Regular Member USMC1911's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington, USA
    Posts
    190
    1. No
    2. No
    3. No
    4. No
    5. No
    6. No
    7. No

    What part of " NO " are those people not understanding ?
    I am a Sheep Dog, ... Wolves Beware !

  4. #4
    Regular Member Bob Warden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    192
    We're going to see a rash of Neo-Jim-Crow laws in all of the now-former gun-ban states and cities. Just like original Jim Crow, these laws will seek to violate Constitutional rights without facially violating them. Unlike original Jim Crow, the Neo-Jim-Crowers, incredibly, are brazenly proclaiming their specific intent to ban handguns. Imagine openly proclaiming an intent to rid the streets of free speech, Catholics, or racial minorities! That's pretty much what they're doing, it seems to me.
    Meet the new boss; same as the old boss. -The Who

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    You give me a concrete definition of reasonable and I will give you my vote.

  6. #6
    Regular Member killchain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Richland, Washington, USA
    Posts
    788
    Absolutely no, except #4... if it came with this caveat:

    For #4:

    Make it a mandatory class your freshman year of high school. You must have Firearms Safety to graduate from high school.

    That way everyone from here on out has the training and can go buy their first gun on their 18th birthday.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    SO, in a nutshell, nothing's changed.

    The antis will still go after our rights, and we must still defend them.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863
    Works best for my purposes if you ALSO add your responses to the "Comments" section at the end of my column

    thx

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by killchain View Post
    Absolutely no, except #4... if it came with this caveat:

    For #4:

    Make it a mandatory class your freshman year of high school. You must have Firearms Safety to graduate from high school.

    That way everyone from here on out has the training and can go buy their first gun on their 18th birthday.
    I agree here. While I'm sure it would stir up a **** storm with parents - I believe that in every public school (private schools can do whatever else they want), a firearms safety course should be mandatory. It should consist of more than the little "911 Safety First" booklets elementary school kids get to take home and color in with crayons, essentially telling people to do nothing but find an adult who's never had much more experience than they have on handling materials. Put every teenager into a 5 day safety course, where they learn safety of all types of guns and how to generally secure different kinds of guns. Teach them hands on, have them read safety materials and answer a quiz, then have them perform demonstrations of gun safety on the final day to pass. You should also issue a permission slip to parents to be signed authorizing the kid to go on a field trip to a range and learn how to be proficient in the use of a firearm. (parents welcomed to attend)

    My position on regulations:

    *No to licensing
    *Optional to registration
    *Optional to training (mandatory training with large caliber & fully automatic guns)
    *Optional to insurance (discount with training, requiring registration)
    *No to limits on quantity of guns and ammo
    *Impartial to background checks
    *Waiting period should only take as long as the background check
    *No to Open Carry Permits
    *No to Concealed Carry Permits
    *Allow large caliber and fully automatic weapons

    I would require privatized logs of all gun sales from dealers containing the guns make & model number, who it went to & proof of address. This information should not be disclosed freely, a court must issue a warrant to disclose the information. Upon the dissolution of a gun dealership company these records should be turned over to a legally protected agreement with an assigned agent.

    My ideas and beliefs on the subject wouldn't be considered ideal gun laws as much as it would be considered complete gun reform. Most registrations would be masked from government agencies, public view and law enforcement, restricted to the mandates of court orders. I would even go as far as saying registrations and permits should be privatized to an IDC (Identification Code) assigned to people who have passed a background check and that IDC should not bear the persons name, rather the persons name should be in a database protected by the private organization. Extreme privacy and anonymity unless a crime is in the works - and even then anonymity and privacy from public, including full indemnification to everyone in the database from any legal action or consequences that are not being pursued within the mandate.

    In such cases, RAS (Reasonable Articulable Suspicion) should be handled as a document application form filled out by a judge, which should also require full disclosure of the purpose of extracting this information, the intention of its use - and it should require a seal of approval from a certified firearms expert consultant to the court and public.

    The idea is simple. More liberty, more privacy, more anonymity. Provide a practical approach for a court and law enforcement agency to do their job when a legal issue occurs that does not include absolute invasion of privacy and information free-for-alls. Information and databases should not be used as an all-you-can-eat buffet feeding the belly of RAS.

    To enhance gun safety one regulation I wouldn't mind seeing is a law requiring a dealer to provide a brochure on gun safety with the purchase of every firearm. Thats non-intrusive, cheap and practical in my opinion.

    In regards to criminals owning guns, if someone has committed a federal offense of a nature that would suggest they are unfit for gun ownership then the real issue isn't the idea of them owning guns, its the idea of them being on the streets at all. Petty offenses shouldn't be considered.

  10. #10
    Regular Member ghosthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    MOUNT VERNON, Washington, USA
    Posts
    280
    What if every gun owner just opted out? I mean every gun owner in the state ,in the country. Just say nope.
    If they required registration of all firearms. Every gun owner just says no. What are they going to do? They do not have the money or the resources to enforce it on every person. Even if they knew where every gun was.
    I should be able to get in my car and drive across this country with my firearm straped on no problem. I should not need any kind of permit or permission to carry in any way from anyone as long as I do not harm another person with the exception of self defense.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    167
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Workman View Post
    Works best for my purposes if you ALSO add your responses to the "Comments" section at the end of my column

    thx
    Went there - done that.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    What is sad, truly, truly sad, is that "reasonable regulation" will be used for exactly Jim Crow purposes in some locations.

    Do you really, really believe that everybody is color blind in our country? Can you imagine Daley, hizzoner, letting black people in his city, have fire arms? Of course not! He's all smug and self assured, saying he's doing the right thing, but you watch and see how his rules will effect those of color more....

    And of course, as a Demoncrat, (sic) he is for sure honest and forth right on race issues..... (yeah, right, sure...uh-huh)

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Why should we stand for reasonable regulations when thos making the regulations are proven to be far from reasonable.

    If a ban is not constitutional then they will merely substitute expensive process, proceedures, and permits. The idea will be to make it too cumbersome or expensive to own firearms. In a sense this is a constructive ban and as such may also be considered unconstitutional.


    My hope lies in the fact that the McDonald decision DID deal with the right of Self Defense as a fundamental right. The Court may well find that anything more than a simple background check to weed out the known criminals may be unreasonable. In Justice Scalia's writing he mentioned in depth the use of Jim Crow laws to deprive citizens of their rights. It tells me that they may not view favorably any more such legislation.

    Are we better off today than we were before the decision? I believe we are as at least the 2A is now in effect in ALL States. It's been a long time since SCOTUS heard "Miller" in 1939. Hopefully it will not be as long for them to rule on the inevitable unreasonable restrictions we are soon to see from Chicago and others.

Posting Permissions

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