Conservative Common Sense Gun Laws

As the phrase “Common Sense Gun Laws” has been so overused by the MSM as a means to try to enact every type of intrusive, incremental type of restriction and gun ban that the anti-freedom collective wishes to impose on free citizens, I thought it would be interesting to hear Freepers ideas on what real common sense gun laws would be. I have come up with a few ideas for starters:

1. Eliminate sales taxes on guns if the buyer shows that they have passed a gun safety course.

2. Eliminate the Federal restrictions on the sale and ownership of firearms suppressors, as a public health measure to reduce hearing loss and a way to reduce noise pollution.

3. Eliminate the prohibition on "short" rifles and shotguns. It makes no sense for common self defense tools such as a Glock with a standard magazine of 17 rounds to be Constitutionaly protected, but the simple possession of a single shot .22 rifle with a barrel of 15.9 inches is a federal felony!

4. Eliminate customs duties on firearms purchased outside the U.S. For private use.

5. Bring back the time honored tradition of “war trophies” so that U.S. Personnel serving overseas can bring back firearms obtained in the service of our country. This common practice was stopped by the first president Bush during the Gulf war.

no one should have the right to tell you how much if any training you should have.....? WRONG!!!! Read the Second Amendment it says ?a well regulated militia? I guess that right there in say that you CAN be told how much training you have/need.

You are both wrong in claiming that the first part of the 2nd Amendment, dealing with a well-regulated militia, has anything to do with some power to compel people to train and reach some level of skill before being allowed to own arms (not FIREARMS, mind you, but ARMS - a term encompassing far more than rifles, pistols and shotguns...but that is a different debate).

Why are you both wrong? Simple:

First, the 2nd grants nothing, government doesn't grant rights to us as it pleases. It is a specific restriction on governmental power. Not that government has the power to regulate arms for ordinary citizens anyway, but the 2nd is a specific safeguard of liberties (keeping and bearing arms) that are deemed essential to the people retaining their overall liberties.

2) The militia clause in the 2nd is not the operative clause, it a mere statement of a purpose. Having a well-regulated (i.e. trained) militia is the essential goal (it is necessary for a free state). By itself it is meaningless. Note that the 2nd could state, "The Moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - and we'd still have the RKBA. However, the Founders viewed that as impossible unless the population was armed and familiar with weapons to begin with. As such, disarming the populace was forbidden for the express purpose of ensuring that there would always be a large pool of people who were familiar with arms and who could also bring their own arms for militia duty (as was the custom here then, and in Switzerland (on whose system ours was modeled) to this day.

Children, mental incompetents and violent criminals are deemed to have a disability that makes their control over arms dangerous to others and society, thus making prohibitions on them reasonable and, hence, Constitutional.

Letting the government set training standards on the right to keep and bear arms is an invitation for abuse. What if the standard is hitting a pie plate at 1,000 yards? That is a recipe for prohibition, and has nothing to do with regulating the militia. That task occurs WITHIN the militia, not prior to or after one leaves service therein.

Gentlemen, where in the body of the Constitution or in the 2nd is the right to keep and bear arms limited to those who are sufficiently trained? Your argument actually quite unoriginal, and it was easily disposed of during the debate in Congress on the 2nd. The text had been inserted about it not applying to those who had a religious problem (the term was "religiously scrupulous") with military service (meaning Quakers at the time). The clause was tossed out, leaving us with the existing 2nd, when a general consensus arose that government intent on tyranny could deem all of its opponents to have such a religious objection and thereby prohibit them arms. What you speak of is a similar government-set (and abusable) standard, which is equally unacceptable.

>Absolutely, you can, and you should. It doesn’t say anywhere in the Constitution than violent, murdering ex-convicts can’t own Mossberg shotguns. How are mental patients supposed to defend the free state without AR15s? Why doesn’t little Billy’s public school kindergarten class have access to Glocks?
>
>What are you, some kind of gun grabber? Give Billy a Glock with his juice and cookies, you statist thug! ;-)

Ah, but you’ve hit upon an excellent mechanism for gun confiscation here. Most people do not think there is anything wrong with forever stripping a felon of his right to keep and bear arms even after he has served his sentence. Yet, Obamacare makes it a FELONY for an individual not to have “qualifying” health-insurance; there are no exceptions for unemployment or extensions for, say, even a single day of non-coverage for someone transitioning from one policy to another. {Also note the ever-increasing unemployment.}

I think it not at all unreasonable to assume that tens of thousands — and perhaps millions — will become ineligible to own firearms in 2014 when Obamacare comes into effect.

I appreciate that. I do enjoy your posts.

That being said, I cannot find a reference to anyone using radioactive metal to make guns, which is odd because I’m pretty sure I saw some references to it a while back. I do know that radioactive contamination in scrap is such that some junkyards, at least, monitor for it.

http://www.window.state.tx.us/border/ch09/cobalto.html

http://www.flonnet.com/fl2710/stories/20100521271002500.htm

I’m sure the thought has crossed the minds of many spooks that providing hot rifles to their enemies would help things along, as it were.

Ah, so reasonble prohibitions are Constitutional?

I think it's perfectly reasonble that basic level of familiarization training on the safe and proficient use of a device that can accidentally kill the operator or an innocent bystander should be mandatory.

How are your three exemptions more reasonable?

(1) Children should not be allowed weapons? A trained teenager or child is less dangerous with a loaded weapon than an untrained adult, and more useful militarily. Where do you think the word 'infantry' comes from?

(2) What if the state decides that you're depressed, or confused, because you don't like their policies, and declares you mentally incapable of owning a weapon? Don't worry, it's for your own good.

(3) "Ah, what's this in your record? A speeding ticket? Well, that's a crime in this town, friend. Looks like we can't trust you with that Kimber 1911, now can we?"

You seem perfectly fine with arbitrary, highly abusable rules in the actual 'shall not be infringed' section of keeping and bearing arms. So why protest a simple training requirement for the 'well regulated militia' part. No one is saying that requiring a gun safety or basic marksmanship class needs to come with a pass / fail block. This ain't the Army. "Oh, you only scored 15 out of 40, we're going to have to take that M1 Garand back."

What is the objection to requiring someone to sit through some familiarization instruction on how to take apart, clean and safely operate their firearm? I'm not even saying you can't have the gun, like you are with your 'reasonable and, hence, Constitutional' rules. Just show you've been taught how to use it.

I believe you are confusing the National Guard, which is a state run organization, with the well organized militia, which is the pool of able bodied, armed citizens able to stand up and defend their territory in time of need.

'Training standards' as such, are the thing of formal, standing armies, not informal militias. Although since the intent would be for the militia to combat any threat from a standing army on down, some level of equivalent training wouldn't hurt, even if it wasn't pass or fail.

What some would consider an unnecessary inconvenience would be magnify our 'anti-tyranny insurance' ten fold.

Absolutely, you can, and you should. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution than violent, murdering ex-convicts can't own Mossberg shotguns. How are mental patients supposed to defend the free state without AR15s? Why doesn't little Billy's public school kindergarten class have access to Glocks?

First, if someone is a violent murderer, they ought to still be imprisoned, not running around free among the responsible citizens. Second, there are other aspects of the constitution and established law which deal with those that are not sentient adults, including young children and the mentally disabled. In the case of children, it is up to the parents to decide when they can handle a firearm, even though the law (erroneously) limits handgun ownership to those of a certain age.

Government is a necessary evil. Or, as George Washington put it, it is like fire. Either a fearful servant or a dangerous master. Even though the government is trying to put its 'dangerous master' pants on, its proper role is to regulate the well regulated militia as our 'fearful servant'.

Government is the very entity for which the second amendment was written. It is ludicrous to think that giving the entity against which we should defend ourselves the ability to control access to the very tools with which that should be done. This is akin to giving the fox the authority to set up security for the hen house.

Steel Wolf said: "What is the objection to requiring someone to sit through some familiarization instruction on how to take apart, clean and safely operate their firearm?

I have a right to train and equip my family as I see fit.

The natural outcome of your approach is evident in Kalifornia, where the local sheriff gets to decide who is worthy, where and when they may bear arms, and that they must obtain expensive, redundant training every two years.

Our Founders would not be happy with what has happened in Kalifornia and I don't believe that they would support the infringements you have in mind.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.