The battle over "reasonable" gun regulations

[Dave Workman]

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-Seatt...-is-reasonable

If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/lvx7tu

[AirForceShooter]

That's a pretty good read.

AFS

[robert garner]

"Shall not be infringed"
robert

[Aguila Blanca]

On the other side, gun prohibitionists – perhaps clinging to some shred of denial that the Scalia opinion was wrong and that there truly is no individual right protected by the Second Amendment – argue that all manner of restrictions are acceptable.

Scalia WAS wrong. But not about the individual right. He was wrong in leaving the door open to "reasonable" regulation of the right. The language of the 2nd Amendment is unambiguous. "The right ... shall not be infringed."

Compare that to the 4th Amendment, which prohibits "unreasonable" search and seizure. This demonstrates that the authors of the B.O.R. knew and understood what the word "reasonable" meant and were fully capable of invoking it where they intended to do so. Obviously, then, they must NOT have intended to do so in writing the 2nd Amendment.

Ergo: The RKBA is NOT subject to "reasonable" (or any other kind of) regulation, and Scalia blew it.

[Loosedhorse]

I understand the fear that gun regulations can only go in one direction. You allow regulation a, and they're back tomorrow adding regulation b.

But it doesn't have to work that way. We can do the "bologna" technique (just one slice, and now one more slice, and now...) as well as the antigunners do it. And we should.

We all point to Heller as a great victory, and it was to an extent--although DW here again shows that it leaves open what is "reasonable," and Scalia even refused to say "strict scrutiny"--the test for constituionality that has been applied to all enumerated rights, except RKBA.

What is really intersting to me is that Heller would have been impossible, I think, without the slow return--via state legislation--of CCW rights, starting with FL in 1987. Without all those new CCWs, a handgun in the hands of a mere citizen (I think I might faint!) would have seemed a lot more "uncommon" to the SCOTUS, and even Scalia might have ruled that only hunting arms were protected as "in common use at the time."

And it continues, as AZ and other states try to allow law-abiding citizens their RBKA in restaurants, KY tries for churches; andit's already slated for National Parks soon. This is all great. One slice at a time.

If we are ever offered via some court case the whole "what part of 'not be infringed' don't you understand" result, then we should press for that with urgency. But until then, whenever someone says, "Let's open the discussion on gun regulations," I wonder if we shouldn't reply:

"Great. I've been waiting for an opportunity to increase regulations on criminals--AND DECREASE THEM ON EVERYONE ELSE. So let's get started."

That seems to have been working for us, slowly, since 1987.

[ThrottleJockey]

"Great. I've been waiting for an opportunity to increase regulations on criminals--AND DECREASE THEM ON EVERYONE ELSE. So let's get started."

I agree, the only problem is we would be using this argument against a group with an agenda. It would simply be met by what we are already beginning to see, the "criminalization" of more and more activities eventually leading to "everything you do is a criminal act unless you ask permission first".

[WhisperFan]

11) Should the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives be given added authority to inspect the homes of gun owners, or should the agency be abolished and the practices of its agents investigated by independent prosecutors?

I like that part !!!

[230RN]

1. NO
2. NO,
3. YES
4. NO, YES
5. YES
6. NO
7. HELL NO
8. YES
9. NO
10. NO, NO (Assuming you meant to add "in a month" to the second clause. Otherwise, NO and YES)
11. NO, YES, (Awkward "OR" for that question.)
12. a) YES
12. b) &%*@# ! And furthermore, ^%*^$# !

Oh, wait.

There are emoticons for that.

! And furthermore, !

Terry, 230RN

[Standing Wolf]

What is “reasonable” to one person may be outrageous to another. How you answered the questions above may determine whether you should join the National Rifle Association or send a contribution to the Violence Policy Center.

Ding blast and gosh darn it, Dave! That is such a tough decision!

[230RN]

230RN's Highly Philosophical and Closely Reasoned Deep Conceptual Thoughts on "Reasonable."

http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php...04#post5142904

Terry, 230RN

[NEOKShooter]

If we are ever offered via some court case the whole "what part of 'not be infringed' don't you understand" result, then we should press for that with urgency. But until then, whenever someone says, "Let's open the discussion on gun regulations,"

The problem is, too many supposed gun owners, gun supporters, and even gun gun makers support more "reasonable" gun regulation.

[IA_farmboy]

The problem is, too many supposed gun owners, gun supporters, and even gun gun makers support more "reasonable" gun regulation.

You got that right. I believe that the Second Amendment permits the people to purchase full auto rifles, artillery, fighter planes, tanks, battleships, and any instrument of war imaginable. The founding fathers had just finished fighting a war with the largest army on the face of the Earth at that time when they wrote the Constitution. They did so with the use of privately owned artillery and battleships. I have every reason to believe that they truly meant it when they said "shall not be infringed". They saw what happened when an oppressive government was able to steal privately owned arms. History has repeated itself many times since then, first they come for your guns, then they come for your life.

Not only did they view the keeping of arms as a right but as a duty. I believe this as well. A person not willing to defend their freedom by force has already fashioned their own irons.

I have seen too many people willing to hand over their rights in exchange for some illusion of safety. I do my best to convince these people of their folly. The hardest part is that some of these infringements on our rights are so outrageous that many people do not believe me when I tell them of what is happening. I've had two or three conversations about the "no fly, no buy" bill where the person I was talking with did not believe me about the secret list that holds names of people that, without actually breaking any law, are ineligible to fly on commercial aircraft. Such a thing would be unthinkable in a free nation like ours, right?

[Standing Wolf]

How much armed robbery is so-called "reasonable?" How much rape is so-called "reasonable?" How much first degree murder is so-called "reasonable?"

None, hunh? Then why do we ask how much theft is so-called "reasonable?"

[langenc]

One slice at a time-just so the time aint too long.

We lost many of em-one slice at a time.

One slice at a time keeps the antis on edge. Just keep putting the plus bills in-even if they wont pass but will one day. That is how we lost em..it wont pass this year, but is part of the 'softening up barrage'.