Reasonable Restrictions on Carrying

Saldana's bill is referred to as "reasonable" restrictions. What would your opinions be on a reasonable restriction? For the moment, let's assume that you are presented with the above options, and must select one. If other, please specify.

The three options are, I believe, 3 distinct magnitudes of "reasonable". Some might prefer the most convenient or easy, while others might like to see something so we know that those who carry are at least competent.

Option 1: Similar in length to the HSC (no more than 25-50 questoins).
Option 2: Concealed Carry licenses still available with the same taxes.
Option 3: Shooting, for example, at 2/3's accuracy, or something similar.

ONLY vote for one of the above options (if a different restriction, specify). Do not vote "Other" if you mean to specify constitutional open carry.

Any restriction on a fundamental right is inherently unreasonable. No compromise. Voted "Other".

I forgot to mention that wewd's response is completely valid (it is my view as well). If you feel so, don't hesitate to say so. Should you select other as a terms of voting thus, please specify one of the other options in your reply as a "but"; one that you would select as a "lesser" evil. This is something I was just wondering as I went about my day. One day one of these options could possibly be something we must face, and wanted various opinions.

wewd said:

Any restriction on a fundamental right is inherently unreasonable. No compromise. Voted "Other".

Click to expand...

+1. When a Right becomes licensed, it's no longer a Right but a privilege...

Our unalienable rights are not open for negotiation. "Reasonable restriction" is an oxymoron, its a lie told by the nanny statists, leftists, progressives, socialists, and communists as a marketing ploy to sell the unwitting their evil, tyrannical plans that lead to their power and your servitude.

I appreciate the sentiment guys, but whether unreasonable or just, it might be something that happens. I know that none of us would like any of these options. For the moment though, if you vote "other", please try to specify something. It's kind of a role playing scenario, where you are the legislator.

OK fine. Other - constitutional carry. No restrictions.

Crap i voted for the wrong one!! I meant to vote for other..

The acceptable restriction is for a violent felon.

Do people not realize that we are a free country and all these laws they have on everything is just taking the rights away of Americans. We were givin these rights less the 300 years ago and we squandered them. The constitution needs to be read by these idiot left wing people before they go to far and THEN realize they screwed up. They need to realize it now not later. I voted other. If you have no felony charge then you should be allowed to carry a LOADED gun without having to get anything.

I think most people here would find all of those regulations to be unreasonable.

Felid`Maximus said:

I think most people here would find all of those regulations to be unreasonable.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt. This thread was meant to be, as I mentioned, a role playing scenario. We all know how we feel about the current "reasonable" restriction. The purpose was to select one of the options that you feel is most reasonable in the list.

By the way, I forgot to mention that the options would permit you to loaded open carry.

For the sake of discussion, lets say you could choose one of the options to loaded open carry. Unloaded open carry would remain in it's current state. Which option would you opt for to carry loaded?

I'm gonna go with constitutional carry here on this one!!

For a twist of fate, California should follow Arizona for once instead of the opposite. We are returning to our roots and rights, and Commifornia should do the same. Anyone who professes rights for issues not even addressed by the U.S.Constitution should have no problem standing up for the ones that are clearly defined. There is no negotiation. Our Constitution stands on it's merit and shall not be infringed upon by anyone, period!!!

I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.
Thomas Jefferson

coolusername2007 said:

OK fine. Other - constitutional carry. No restrictions.

Click to expand...

+1

Heres my problem with 'reasonable restrictions.' They all stem from fear, from the minute possibility that something not so good MIGHT happen. There is no real rational basis for them, and the courts have ruled multiple times that rights cannot be infringed upon or taken away based on fear.

Not to mention that the constitution is pretty dang clear when it reads 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' Once again, multiple times through multiple sources, the second amendment has been known as a natural right, one that is not granted to us by any amendment or any government, but also one that shall not be denied to any person by any government. Should that happen, it is time for a new government, which is what happened during the revolutionary war, the declaration of independence stating basically what I just did.

But what about criminals getting guns? What about it? As we all know, no amount of legislation will keep guns out of the hands of criminals, they get their guns no matter what. Even without infringement, should a criminal carry a gun (albeit ironically legally,) said criminal would no doubt sooner rather than later run into a good citizen who will put that criminal where they belong. The thing with firearms and self defense is that it is a self regulating entity, the good will trump the bad, be it a criminal or a government.

Don't forget, the German Government disarming the Jews was seen as a 'reasonable regulation' !!!

Just my two cents!!

Other. No restrictions. No government permissions. No taxing of rights.

On the flip side, a reasonable restriction would be flogging and/or up to life imprisonment of any legislator who would infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms! I think that's reasonable. Maybe we could push through a ballot initiative?!:shocker:

Hmmm, "reasonable restrictions" for the exercise of a fundamental right? I do believe "constitutional carry" covers it all.

What "reasonable restrictions" might one place on other fundamental rights such as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc.? Once you come up with "reasonable restrictions" for those fundamental rights, then, and only then, can you come up with "reasonable restrictions" on the right to bear arms.

Your elected officials in California need replacing.

Sons of Liberty said:

Other. No restrictions. No government permissions. No taxing of rights.

On the flip side, a reasonable restriction would be flogging and/or up to life imprisonment of any legislator who would infringe upon the rights of the people to keep and bear arms! I think that's reasonable. Maybe we could push through a ballot initiative?!:shocker:

Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. Wake up people...please wake up!!! Qualified immunity is nothing short of tyrannical totalitarianism. Qualified immunity says "We can do whatever we want and you (the subject) has no recourse." Sure one might say "Well we can vote them out of office." To which I say one person does not pass legislation by themselves, it takes the whole damn lot of them...all of whom are protected from citizen recourse. Eliminate qualified immunity, at least for civil rights issues if nothing else, and things get a lot better a whole lot faster. If they fear lawsuit and personal responsibility they will think twice before voting to eliminate your unalienable, well settled law, incorporated rights! That's my 2 cents.

kootsoup said:

The acceptable restriction is for a violent felon.

Click to expand...

It is detrimental to the ideas of liberty when you give the government the power to arbitrarily declare someone a member of a sub-class of society without the full and equal rights of others. They frequently use the excuse of denying violent criminals access to firearms in order to enact draconian restrictions on the acquisition and possession of those firearms, that in reality only affect those of us who have no propensity for criminality in the first place. The end goal of these restrictions is to make it so onerous and difficult to actually acquire and carry firearms that most people would be dissuaded from doing so altogether.

Instead of creating arbitrary sub-classes of free people who have more or less rights than others, how about we just keep people locked up who are too violent and untrustworthy to be free members of society? If you go to prison for committing a horrible violent crime, and you haven't shown any change in your character toward being a peaceful and responsible member of society, then why should you be let back into society at all? Anyone who commits a violent crime but is able to prove by their actions and their character that they are no longer a danger to society, should be restored their full rights and privileges when they become free once again.

Let the good people continue to be free, and keep the bad ones where they can't hurt others. No one who walks the earth as a free man should ever have his right to property and self preservation questioned by anyone. Of course, if everyone who wanted to carry a gun was able, there would be fewer violent criminals to send to prison, and more to send to the coroner.

Statkowski said:

Your elected officials in California need replacing.

Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time finding any tyrants that I like better than the ones we currently have in power. Can I just vote none of the above? And by none I mean none.