Do any limits pass constitutional muster?

[BillCA]

Since many folks have different ideas of what should be permitted under the 2nd amendment in an "ideal world" I'd like to see what laws you think would pass constitutional muster.

This isn't about what you want, but what you think would be permissible laws under the constitution.

Chose all that apply:
1. Instant background checks at time of purchase (w/in 60-90 minutes)
2. Registration at time of purchase only.
3. FFL required to sell guns as a business.
4. FFL required for selling full auto weapons & explosives.
5. Minimum age limits to purchase firearms (may be varied by type)
6. Weapons with a bores over 16mm require special storage/security.
7. Restrictions on storage of explosive munitions (e.g. not in residential zones).
8. Prohibition possession of WMDs (nuclear, biological or lethal chemical).
9. Requirement to secure weapons against burglary when not home.
10. Permits for concealed carry, but not open carry.
11. Laws limiting AP pistol ammo and restricting tracer ammo.
12. Prohibit convicted felons possessing handguns or full-autos only.
13. Prohibiton against mental incompetents possessing firearms.
14. Limitations on purchase, storage of crew-served weapons (artillery, tanks, etc.)
15. Restrictions on the size/length of long guns (rifles, shotguns, etc.)
16. None of the above
17. No limits. I can own anything I want, anywhere.

 

[Crosshair]

Personaly The only real restrictions I could see that would be constitutional would be anything that has a dangerous, uncontrollable fallout like Nukes, biological, and chemical weapons. A TOW missile or such is no problem for me. Find a range big enough to use it and have at it. It would not be that much of a problem anyway. Most people can't afford 50 BMG rifle, let alone a TOW or RPG.

Punish those who misuse these weapons and leave the law abiding people alone.

As for mental illness, coming from someone that is bipolar and had some rough times when not treated, I would say that mentally ill people should not have a lifetime ban. In my case and most people I have met, the mentally ill are mostly only a threat to themselves. If someone is deemed to be unfit to take care of their own affairs, they should not be allowed guns, cars or other objects that could be misused. Once they have been treated and continue whatever treatment helps them, I see no reason why they should not be allowed to own firearms. Mental health has long been neglected in the US.

As for age limit, I think 18 is a good place to start for guns, cigs and alcohol. At 16 there should be a learners permit for both guns and alcohol. Let young people learn about these things in a safe and controlled manner.

 

[Yellowfin]

1, 4, 5, 12, and 13 make sense to me. Everything else is and can be determined economically: no point in outlawing something that costs $20 million, takes a tank to launch it, or is so darn dangerous nearly nobody would touch it in the first place. Self filtering is a big part of things: in places where a CHL is relatively easy to come about, still fewer than 5% of those eligible for them do.

 

[tony pasley]

3&4 are about businesses not citizenery so they would pass as restriction.

 

[surveyor]

from a constititional standpoint,
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

#3,#4 come from federal interstate commerce law. setup by article 1 section 8 of the constitition
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"

#5 (relates when a person reaches age of majority, and becomes one "of the people" )


#8,#14, would fall under Article 1, section 8
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

________________________________________________________________
1,2,6,7,9-11,14,15
have no direct bearing on constitition at a federal level, and IF regulated AT all, should be states rights.

#12, #13 since states are the ones that take these rights away, they should be the ones to restore them.

 

[toybox99615]

8 is enough

Probably having your own personal stash of WMDs would fall outside the 2nd Amendment. And convicted felons who have lost their civil liberties don't qualify for rights of citizens. Other than those I'd disagree with the rest of the questions.

 

[Shane Tuttle]

5. Don't think a 5 year old is at the age of reason yet....
8. obvious
12. There's some leeway here. Some clarification is required for me to be fully on board on this one
13. Same as 12...

 

[Buzzcook]

Where there are compelling public interests or where other rights are affected in a negative manner. Then any constitutional right can be set aside.
The right of free speech is absolute unless you yell fire in a crowded theater.

I think there's an argument for each of those restrictions. But the argument has to be made and the burden of proof is on the people who want to reduce those rights.

 

[Tanzer]

Voted before I viewed the results. Came in on the 4 highest categories. What's my prize???

 

[LawDog]

Since this one really deals with Constitutional issues, I really think it belongs over in Legal/Political.

LawDog

 

[EastSideRich]

There's really people who think you should be able to have WMDs?
I suppose, maybe we can start up a VX dispersal league at the range.
Smallpox night will be Thursdays.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I think that there should be some type of limit, but not shure exactly where it should be. Nuclear weapons should be off limits IMO. The current limits seem silly. Short barrel shotguns, magazine capacities and other limits seem rediculous. Bad actions should be punished. Punishing the potential to act badly is an invitation to tyranny.

 

[rampage841512]

I think these would be permissable:
1. Instant background checks at time of purchase (w/in 60-90 minutes)
3. FFL required to sell guns as a business.
5. Minimum age limits to purchase firearms (may be varied by type)
7. Restrictions on storage of explosive munitions (not sure abou this one. If it could be used to restrict ammunition storage, after all ammo uses a controled explosion to work, I would say NO! If we're talking about grenades, mortars, and what not, I say the Constitution allows restriction on the basis of weapons needing those munitions are not 'small arms')
10. Permits for concealed carry, but not open carry.(I'm on the fence with this one, but it doesn't seem to bad)
12. Prohibit convicted felons possessing handguns or full-autos only.
13. Prohibiton against mental incompetents possessing firearms.
14. Limitations on purchase, storage of crew-served weapons (artillery, tanks, etc.)

__________________

 

[JuanCarlos]

Interesting. The only results that I found particularly surprising were that so many (nearly half) supported "instant" background checks and that so many (over 30%) saw no issue with private ownership of WMD's. I wonder how many of that 30% think it's necessary that we intervene when other countries pursue WMD's but for whatever reason think Jethro down the road should be able to own them.

I ended up choosing about nine of them. Though note that there were a couple that I think can be argued as Constitutional but don't particularly support.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I don't want my neighbor across the street to have WMD. He is likely to set it off just poking at it. He can't even pick out the right screwdriver to hammer in a nail!

 

[Bruxley]

Good thread Bill, thanks.

I view firearms ownership as defensive vs. offensive. There is alot of sub-surface attitude that given the opportunity offensive use is just a second away for alot of people. Given that part of the reason RKBA is to deter tyranny I see that argument. But that needs to be more within the scope of a group such as a militia vs. individual action. Groups tend to be better at checking emotion and organizing/implementing a coarse of productive action then several individuals acting autonomously do.

That said, some of the line items in the survey I would be apprehensive about individuals owning as they are impractical as defensive weapons but should be available for purchase as an organization with the reason for being an organization strictly that of civil defense but defense done with the capacity to inflict great offensive harm on an enemy.

A description I agreed with for a weapon that was reasonable for individual ownership was one that could be transported and operated by one person and that addressed a single target per cycle with no restriction on how quickly or often it could cycle. Mortars,chemical, nuclear, grenades, explosives, etc. address multiple targets indiscriminately.

1. Instant background checks at time of purchase (w/in 60-90 minutes)
-Yes. Good system. Ensures felons, non-citizens etc. aren't buying. Needs to be done without giving info on what firearm or how many are being purchased.

2. Registration at time of purchase only.
-NO!

3. FFL required to sell guns as a business.
-Yes, but shouldn't federal. Each State should regulate the business done within their jurisdiction as they already do with almost every other kind of business.

4. FFL required for selling full auto weapons & explosives.
-Answer to #3 is the same

5. Minimum age limits to purchase firearms (may be varied by type)
-Yes. Adult item, adults need to make the purchase. If they wish to allow their children to own then it's their responsibility at that point.

6. Weapons with a bores over 16mm require special storage/security.
-This is one of those militia items. As a civil militia this would need to be under lock and key as a responsible course of action and to prevent pre-emptive seizure.

7. Restrictions on storage of explosive munitions (e.g. not in residential zones).
-Local zoning would cover this for a location the local militia could use.

8. Prohibition possession of WMDs (nuclear, biological or lethal chemical).
-Very volatile stuff. HIGHLY skilled and trained people need to be responsible here. Not for non-military hands yet.

9. Requirement to secure weapons against burglary when not home.
-NO! My property, my risk. Stay out of my house and we won't have a problem.

10. Permits for concealed carry, but not open carry.
-NO! Assumed to be allowed to carry concealed or open unless you come up as ineligible on instant BG check done when LE enc outers you (traffic, complaint, etc.) and runs your ID.

11. Laws limiting AP pistol ammo and restricting tracer ammo.
-NO! Tracers are damn handy and BG w/ vest needs to be dealt w/ too.

12. Prohibit convicted felons possessing handguns or full-autos only.
-Yes. If your a felon you have demonstrated a willingness to break laws that protect society and therefore the trust is broken. There are means in place to have rights restored if it was a 'young and dumb' one time event.

13. Prohibition against mental incompetents possessing firearms.
-Yes, IF found mentally incompetent with due process in court with means of having such a finding reversed should your condition improve.

14. Limitations on purchase, storage of crew-served weapons (artillery, tanks, etc.)
-Yes. This is a militia not self defense weapon.

15. Restrictions on the size/length of long guns (rifles, shotguns, etc.)
-NO!

16. None of the above
-To answer this with a yes would say that you are comfortable with your neighbor possessing nuclear materials, epidemic diseases, and chemical agents that even in very small quantities would kill everyone within a large area around them. I trust my neighbor but not THAT much.

17. No limits. I can own anything I want, anywhere.
-Again. You may be OK with YOU owning this stuff but are you comfortable with ANYONE owning this stuff at grave risk to you?

 

[Perldog007]

How many thousand gun laws are are we any safer?



The SA does not leave any room for doubt "shall not be infringed" .

Whether or not I agree with any restrictions is not the issue. The constitution is.

 

[cabin pressure]

To everyone who selected an infringement to the second amendment and rationalized that limit's constitutionality:

You invented your rationalization out of thin air. You added something that's not there.

That being said, since the founders secured and protected sovereignty in the hands of the people and the states (in that order), a few of those non infringing requirements would pass muster IF DONE BY THE STATES. Absolutely none of those pass constitutional muster at the federal level. The federal government was simply NEVER given the authority. It's not there. All the wishful thinking and touchy feely utopianism in the world doesn't change the fact that the federal government was just not given the authority to regulate personal possession of ANYTHING. It's just not there. Since 1934 the federal government has TAKEN the POWER to regulate all sorts of things, but that doesn't change the fact that it STILL does not possess constitutional authority (the darker side of this though is the obvious evidence that the constitution was truthfully and literally overthrown in 1933 by individuals who were capitalizing on the great depression which they helped create).

This is a legal question, but like most of the public, many of you didn't answer it in a LEGAL way, you answered it with your own personal preference.

I have one final question for those who selected certain illegal limits in that list: if you're non legal view of things had been adopted, several of those items would not have been invented in the first place because it was individual and independent (non government) inventors/researchers who used their constitutional right to possess items and created those items in the first place! Stupid and arrogant government showed up after the fact and refined some of those items and illegally regulated them, but that's it.

 

[Bruxley]

Just out of curiosity Cabin Pressure, why aren't the issue of radioactive materials, biological weapons, nerve agents, intercontinental ballistic missiles, or other weapons of MASS destruction mentioned in the Constitution?

Further, do you assert it is OK for them to be available to the general public?

 

[dmxx99]

1.Instant background checks at time of purchase (w/in 60-90 minutes)
Thats how it should be not waiting days just to get your gun.

4.FFL required for selling full auto weapons & explosives
Needs to be regulated there because of stupid criminals out there

5.Minimum age limits to purchase firearms (may be varied by type)
I am partial to this I agree some 13 year old should not be able to buy a gun himself but if he has a parent then its ok for the parent to buy it for him as a gift
The age for purchasing rifles should be 16-18 up to discretion of state
The age to purchase a pistol should be 18
However if someone under 18 has a parent then its ok for the parent to gift the gun to them.

8. Prohibition possession of WMDs (nuclear, biological or lethal chemical).
These weapons are designed to kill many people in a large area so for defense it would be worthless because it would kill everyone within the mile or so including the user if he is in proximity of it.It makes sense to regulate them because they are useless for defense in a neighborhood against a mugger.Only Military should have it and it should be tightly regulated to them too.

12. Prohibit convicted felons possessing handguns or full-autos only.
Only violent felons otherwise the nonviolent felons should have all their rights restored once they served their time in jail or prison.

13. Prohibiton against mental incompetents possessing firearms.
If the guy is clearly nutcase that is a danger to himself and others then he should be locked up until he is not longer a danger but until then he should have no right to have any dangerous object or weapon.Some one who has bipolar disorder should not be prevented from owning a gun at all in fact they should have all rights.Any person with a mental illness that is not hindering to the point where judgement and reason is clouded or not present should have full rights including gun owner ship and right to protect themselves and family.