Reasonable Restrictions on Carrying

Funtimes said:

What most people "want" and what the courts find reasonable are never going to agree. Many people will always say "no regulations" -- well, all the SCOTUS have said that **** won't fly... so don't hold your breath.

Reasonable? If i had to go for something the courts will probably push it would be

Handgun course -- similar to Florida to teach you the laws, the where and where not to, and ensure you can hit a target. Course should be very inexpensive or free + cost of your ammunition, readily available, tailored to the average reasonable citizen in terms of learning curve and content. No expiration. So people don't have to go out and do it again. Passing the course would allow you to carry openly (loaded) concealed (loaded) anywhere that is not truly a sensitive place (school *ground*, hospitals, courts, govt buildings etc) for life, in all states.

If your in a state where constitutional carry will fly, then ++ to you. I don't think most of us will ever fall in this category. So again -- don't hold your breath!

Click to expand...

You can never reach the clouds by standing on a ladder. -kh63

With the exception of HankT and Funtimes (from what I can see) just about everyone could either not get in the spirit of the thread, or feels the compulsion to rebel (which I understand). Yes, I know it's free speech, but all I wanted you to do was vote or specify something you think is reasonable. If you don't think any of them are or can't make one up, then don't vote, and take the "constitutional carry or die" somewhere else. I'm sorry, but you're missing the point.

To clear it up: Pick one of the options, or click other and specify what restriction (NOT constitutional carry). We all appreciate the sentiment, but I wanted to see which of the options that were provided people thought the best of. Because you could not, for a moment, use your imagination, now I have no idea.

For instance, if you had chosen the Shooting Qualification, you could say: "I like this option because it will clear the ignorance of thinking that we don't have training or have little practice."

I vote OTHER -- NO RESTRICTIONS.

Tekniqe said:

With the exception of HankT and Funtimes (from what I can see) just about everyone could either not get in the spirit of the thread, or feels the compulsion to rebel (which I understand). Yes, I know it's free speech, but all I wanted you to do was vote or specify something you think is reasonable. If you don't think any of them are or can't make one up, then don't vote, and take the "constitutional carry or die" somewhere else. I'm sorry, but you're missing the point.

To clear it up: Pick one of the options, or click other and specify what restriction (NOT constitutional carry). We all appreciate the sentiment, but I wanted to see which of the options that were provided people thought the best of. Because you could not, for a moment, use your imagination, now I have no idea.

For instance, if you had chosen the Shooting Qualification, you could say: "I like this option because it will clear the ignorance of thinking that we don't have training or have little practice."

Click to expand...

I agree with kittyhawk63. You are the one missing the point. This is a forum. You started the thread, but it does not belong to you. If so many felt that they could not answer the question as it was provided, maybe the question needs to be changed.

Qft.

wewd said:

any restriction on a fundamental right is inherently unreasonable. No compromise. Voted "other".

Click to expand...

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.
JJS

kittyhawk63 said:

No, it is you that is missing the point. 41 vs 2...I think you three showed up at the wrong party. Restrictions on rights are unreasonable. Rights are not granted by the SCOTUS. The Framers of the Constitution did not "grant" us our rights, they recognized them as inalienable. Maybe you need to go off in the corner with the other two and learn what inalienable meant to the Founders of our country.

All SCOTUS can do is ensure that we keep our inalienable rights by not infringing upon them, or they can continue to break the Constitution and make rulings against those rights.

You are asking a forum of 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment Constitutionalists to go against their innate beliefs.

Your poll was set up with the option of "Other." You left it open for us to give you our view. Now you tell us to go away. It becomes obvious from your comments that your poll is meant to be biased toward asking us to go against our beliefs. Answering for myself, forget it. It will not happen. Just a suggestion...maybe you should think about posting your poll on an anti-gun forum. You should get the results you are looking for.

I still vote OTHER -- NO RESTRICTIONS.

Click to expand...

I haven't missed anything. I fully understand, that in the second amendment cases, it has constantly been affirmed that "reasonable regulation" will stand.

All amendments have some sort of reasonable regulation -- the second wont be any different. Ie: First does not protect hate speech or speech that would intend to incite violence into a reasonable person.

His poll is not anti-gun, its sensible. If you believe that in all states, in all counties, and all cities you will enact 100% restriction free legislation in regards to open and concealed carry then well, I need to get the drugs your on. I don't see it ever happening based on the text of Heller or McDonald. However, I would love to be wrong.

I see many restrictions falling, many bans going away, and a lot more "reasonable" (which will end up getting defined in some future case I imagine) laws popping up in those states where there is not a pro-gun majority. Sadly, we can't just say "this is a infringement". That is left to the people in black robes and behind the bench. We can only hope to persuade and influence with history or previous cases what their opinion on it is. And next time you shouldn't bash others or try to say they are anti-gun because they responded to another members thread.

kittyhawk63 said:

No, it is you that is missing the point. 41 vs 2...I think you three showed up at the wrong party. Restrictions on rights are unreasonable. Rights are not granted by the SCOTUS. The Framers of the Constitution did not "grant" us our rights, they recognized them as inalienable. Maybe you need to go off in the corner with the other two and learn what inalienable meant to the Founders of our country.

All SCOTUS can do is ensure that we keep our inalienable rights by not infringing upon them, or they can continue to break the Constitution and make rulings against those rights.

You are asking a forum of 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment Constitutionalists to go against their innate beliefs.

Your poll was set up with the option of "Other." You left it open for us to give you our view. Now you tell us to go away. It becomes obvious from your comments that your poll is meant to be biased toward asking us to go against our beliefs. Answering for myself, forget it. It will not happen. Just a suggestion...maybe you should think about posting your poll on an anti-gun forum. You should get the results you are looking for.

I still vote OTHER -- NO RESTRICTIONS.

Click to expand...

A++

I belive that my viewpoint IS reasonable. NO Regulation.

We must make a decision to try forever to throw off unreasonable regulation and never compromise. That's the ONLY way we will get there.

Some say it will NEVER happen. Well alot has changed for the better and never is a very long time.

Gun control of any kind is based on a lie that people in a free country can actually be controlled. It's a LIE.

Now just because most of us believe this way dose not mean we will actually break these unjust laws. We don't. We are law abiding. Most will follow the law forever. A few may take a stand at some point and physically resist outright tyranny. Unless the NRAs words of "from our cold dead hands" mean nothing.

It isn't a Right if you have to prostrate yourself to the Government to do it.

Voted OTHER!

ryanburbridge said:

A++
I belive that my viewpoint IS reasonable. NO Regulation.

Click to expand...

So violent felons with guns? Criminally insane with guns? People with domestic violence convictions and restraining orders against them with guns? Carrying a firearm while consuming alcohol? What about places to carry -- jails, courthouses, school buildings, government buildings i.e. courtrooms ?

These are all regulations and restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms! I can't really think of any rights off hand that don't have some sort of restriction or regulation....

And based off the poll there are more then just "the 3 of us" as there is one vote for a test, 5 for licenses, 8 for a shooting qualification and 38 others. Which could be a mix of stuff, but we can assume that at least 80% of them are of the "no" regulation.

Everyone missed the spirit of this. The question should have been, "What do you think the courts will find to be a reasonable restriction on the right to bear arms?"

kittyhawk63 said:

Maybe you need to go off in the corner with the other two and learn what inalienable meant to the Founders of our country.

Click to expand...

Ouch the Principal just put you in the corner with the dunce hat on. <:-|

"It becomes obvious from your comments that your poll is meant to be biased toward asking us to go against our beliefs"

If you are truly unable to, even for a moment, be on track with this thread, then please make your own.

What you're doing is considered spam, as of Rule 8 of the forum: (8) KEEP IT ON-TOPIC.

Funtimes said:

So violent felons with guns? Criminally insane with guns? People with domestic violence convictions and restraining orders against them with guns? Carrying a firearm while consuming alcohol? What about places to carry -- jails, courthouses, school buildings, government buildings i.e. courtrooms ?

Click to expand...

Is this straight out of the antis play book?

Let's take them one at a time.

1. violent felons with guns? Umm yes! If they want it they will get it. I want mine too.
2. Criminally insane with guns? Never met one. But if he wants it he WILL get one. Or did you think they stop when the gun store says no?
3. People with domestic violence convictions and restraining orders against them with guns? I know one personally was on drugs and screwed up has DV no gun forever. Love him dearly. Should be able to protect himself and loved ones. Oh and the bad ones they still have guns.
4. Carrying a firearm while consuming alcohol? I love my beer and I would like to have a gun even when I have one. Did you think that because a law says no beer and guns criminals will obey?


You sound like you belive the LIES. I will not hurt someone with my gun. (defense only) So why not at the places you mention? Yes schools yes court yes yes. Have you heard the one about the guy that goes to a school with a gun a kills people? He broke the law. It did not stop him. Armed teachers could have.

Please rethink your veiws on what is reasonable.

Freedom is scary as hell. You may have to think for yourself. The NANY state did not always exist.

ryanburbridge said:

Is this straight out of the antis play book?

Let's take them one at a time.

1. violent felons with guns? Umm yes! If they want it they will get it. I want mine too.

2. Criminally insane with guns? Never met one. But if he wants it he WILL get one. Or did you think they stop when the gun store says no?

3. People with domestic violence convictions and restraining orders against them with guns? I know one personally was on drugs and screwed up has DV no gun forever. Love him dearly. Should be able to protect himself and loved ones. Oh and the bad ones they still have guns.

4. Carrying a firearm while consuming alcohol? I love my beer and I would like to have a gun even when I have one. Did you think that because a law says no beer and guns criminals will obey?
.

Click to expand...

1. I never said they couldn't obtain one illegally, and yes it's hard to prevent. Yes, I do understand that "more regulations" won't prevent their obtaining a firearm.

No one said anything about you not having your weapon. I said its a regulation that they not be legally allowed to purchase or carry; however, it appears that in your mind they should be able to go and carry whatever weapons, wherever, whenever they want. I mean.. that's what no rules or regulations would allow right?

2. I have met truly insane people. I guess that's what I get for living in area where there is a state hospital. There are plenty of people who are deemed psychologically unfit by medical standards. So no regulation would allow them to legally carry. That's alright in your book though!

3. Yeah your addict friend who beats on women.... great choice. I wouldn't say he should be barred from life, unless hes a felon. Well, never mind, in Ryan's world we have no restrictions. Give that man a gun!!!!!!

4. In your world there is no law about consumption of alcohol and carrying a weapon. Have a six pack on me. I carried concealed in Georgia and Florida never once did I think I should consume alcohol while possessing a firearm. Impaired judgment, slower reaction times, piss poor hand eye coordination, sounds like a great combo for me shooting rounds at someone in an emergency. Guns and alcohol consumption don't mix, and consuming while carrying I believe is irresponsible and setting yourself up for failure.

I'm sorry if you disagree with the THE SUPREME COURT and their holding that:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Click to expand...

Do I feel those places should be totally off limits and gun free? Absolutely not. I feel that programs like Florida, where you have a class and a little bit of range time prepare a person to better handle their firearm, and should allow people to carry in those places. Good luck though ever getting a firearm into a court room.

We can discuss this all you like; however, there is really no reason try to demean other members, including myself, so I would ask that you stop that. Those with opinions that oppose your own hardly makes anyone an "anti" or suggests that they are buying into the "lies". I mean even Alan Gura, Eugene Volokh, the legal brains from CATO, the Independence Institute, and the NRA have conceded that some regulation will pass constitutional muster. If me suggesting that a person should be required to take an inexpensive, readily available, and useful course makes me anti-gun, I believe your going to be quite out numbered I think regulations of this nature will be found reasonable. That's going to make a ton of people "anti-gun."

I would like to suggest we look at the answer to, "What regulations do you think the court's will find to be truly reasonable?" Because at the end of the day this is what really matters.

Off topic:

First Amendment regulation is also wrong IMO.

Yelling Fire in a theater-the theater should kick you out.

Hate Speech-get over it. Ever hear "Sticks and Stones may break my bones"?

Inciting a riot-put the rioters in jail.

No regulation by the government does not mean no regulation. I have yet to see a situation that could be solved by the government but not by the people regarding gun control. Prove me wrong.

other

Other: None of the above. Try again.

Sorry to keep this going. My final thoughts in thus thread.


It is my belief that the so called reasonable regulation by the GOVENMENT is WRONG. I give the framers of this country a little credit. They set it up as a very LIMITED government. Did they know people were sometimes evil? Yes! Did they know arms would evolve? Yes!

If you look at history you will see where reasonable regulation by the government WILL lead.

How did this country work when there were absolutely NO gun regulation?

When has one gun regulation by the government EVER worked?

I am not unrealistic. I know guns are regulated. And may be for a very long time. BUT I will NOT change my core belief. The government has no athority but what WE give it.

By reading some of the posts above I see some belive the LIE about gun regulation. It is a LIE! It dose NOT work now and NEVER will!

The key to FREEDOM is to understand personal responsibility! An addict, criminal, insane, (insert whatever here) will not obey regulation. Reasonable regulation ONLY affects us the law abiding! And who are you (anyone who would regulate others) to say what and when I may protect myself and loved ones.

I may sound crazy but look at who started this country and why. They killed for what they believed.

We may agree to disagree. It's not personal. I have no hard feelings. This is a good forum and hope no one is too upset.

Let's kick but today at the polls we are on the same side.

Ryan Burbridge

This is essentially a "Where do you draw the line?" argument. To be truly free.....one wouldn't draw a line. However, for the sake of peace and order within society people want rules(they need rules). The biggest problem with that is we will all never come to find a middle ground. Life would suck if we all agreed! This is one of those debates for which there is no clear cut answer. Unless of course you want true freedom, to which there would be no rules.

I vote OTHER...NO RESTRICTIONS.

Voted Other. No restriction on LOC, BGS don't follow laws so weather they are allowed to carry or not they will if they want to. The LAC that are following the laws are the ones that would be at the disadvantage when they need to defend themselves. As it stands I can draw, load, and fire on a target 15yards away and hit center mass in about 3.5 sec but that is still longer than I like. But due to the laws I cant carry loaded but all the BGs can cause they dont care about the laws.