Musings on the concept of Reasonable Restriction

J

jselvy

New member
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Forum,

It appears to me that a majority of the membership of this site supports or at least has no real objection to reasonable restriction on the ownership of firearms.

The analysis that I'm looking for is "What defines Reasonable?" It seems that reasonable calls for a value judgment. That means that there is probably a different definition for every person. I don't see how laws can be applied equally and fairly when it requires an individual assessment by those that create and enforce the law. For example I'm sure that Lautenberg thought his amendment was well within the idea of reasonable, but many others don't see it that way. How can "We the People" create a common definition of "Reasonable?" Is that even possible?

Thank you for your responses
Jefferson

(this is also posted on THR)
 
Well, reasonable to me is not allowing grade schoolers to carry. Reasonable to me is not allowing anyone to walk into a store and buy land mines or grenades. Reasonable to me is restricting violent ex-cons from buying guns from the store (yes, they'll get them illegally but that doesn't make we should make it easier for them). Reasonable to me means safety training and licensing for public carry.

Completely unrestricted firearms ownership just ain't gonna fly. But you're right, not everyone agrees on what's reasonable.
 
No, 'we the people' cannot agree on what is reasonable. It's largely a subjective term and will remain that way. If we must agree on what is reasonable it the term reasonable restriction, reasonable cause, etc. becomes meaningless.
 
This is a huge gray area. If reasonable restriction means that our rights are restricted, then the constitution prohibits that. However our history shows that, without reason, we would have criminals with c4,Semtex,machine guns in drivebys and shoulder fired rockets. Obviously our society could not withstand that. So, we must put some restrictions on ourselves. But what? And who limits the restrictions? If the reason for the 2nd Amendment was to secure our right to have the means to resist tyranny from our own government or from without; then it has already failed. :rolleyes: We would have to have the capability to combat air assault, armor, and combined operations. It would also include communications and detection. Obviously beyond the individuals capabilities.:rolleyes:

So then, our right to defend ourselves must be interpreted on a smaller scale. Restrictions on the sale or possession of explosives, weapons of mass destruction (machine guns), gas, bio weapons, armed warplanes, cannon etc are reasonable if one wants to live in a stable and reasonably safe world. Hey, wait a minute, we already have those restrictions. Thank God.:)

I think there should be no restrictions on the sale,possession, or carrying of individual weapons,except for children,felons,or the insane. There should be no concealed weapon laws. After all keeping arms without the right to bear those arms is unconstitutional. Society should have the collective right to protect the members from crime, but we already have laws that are not being enforced. :mad: Passing new laws to restrict our rights will not make society safe.:(
 
I will agree with you jselvy.
The law is definitely not applied equally in this sense and many others.

Those brought up in metropolis with a high crime rate who see guns as the precursor to violence, will question a farm boys "need" to hunt or even possess a firearm.

To the farm boy it is simply the tool used to accomplish a task.

Metropolitans who steer clear of those dangerous parts of town and have never experienced a need for a firearm, cannot reason why the rest of us would need or want one either.

And WA as far as scotus, which one, the one presently sitting or say the one of the 80's or 60's or.... you see my point.

Judges, no matter how high up the bench will vote according to personal experience.

Does this mean their decision is reasonable? Well of course not.
 
We would have to have the capability to combat air assault, armor, and combined operations. It would also include communications and detection. Obviously beyond the individuals capabilities.
Click to expand...
orly? tell that to the iraqis giving the mighty American military steamroller a hard time :p

Sure, Uncle Sam could just bomb the living frak out of a district that got uppity but so much for occupying it without casualties. ;) While I doubt I can do as much damage to them with an SKS as they could to me with an F15 it's also a lot harder to kill a fly with a sledgehammer than a fly swatter.


but despite that, I like your take on the situation as a whole and completely agree :) NO NEW GUN CONTROL LAWS.
 
I don't see how laws can be applied equally and fairly when it requires an individual assessment by those that create and enforce the law. For example I'm sure that Lautenberg thought his amendment was well within the idea of reasonable, but many others don't see it that way. How can "We the People" create a common definition of "Reasonable?" Is that even possible?
Click to expand...

No its not; thats why whatever one may think "reasonable" means is largely irrelevant with respect to firearms laws. The law isn't based upon whatever your own personal view of what "reasonable" is - its based upon the courts interpretation of what the law (as enacted by the legislature) means. Frank Lautenberg is every bit as entitled to his opinion of what "reasonable" gun laws are as you or I, but its only those gun laws that have been enacted by the legislature (and how they've been interpreted by the judiciary) that matter. Whether you think those laws are reasonable or unreasonable is merely a matter of opinion, not grounds for enforcement or non-enforcement.
 
There is no restriction that someone, somewhere, does not find reasonable. You will find those people sitting in the US House of Representatives, US Senate, and on judicial benches nationwide.

The "reasonable" standard fails miserably because it depends greatly on what the "decider" finds "reasonable." To most of us in the RKBA community, any restrictions on the ownership of small arms by those who have not proven themselves violent felons is unreasonable. To others in this nation, a full and complete ban "for the sake of the children" is perfectly reasonable.

Anything in between is a compromise, and will mean that one group suffers what they see as unreasonable restrictions, which another group feels that the other is unreasonable themselves, willing to sacrifice lives so they can play with their toys.

One side views it as the liberty and autonomy of the individual, one of the sacred founding tenets of the United States of America.
The other side views it as paving the way for the wholesale slaughter of the innocent.

You cannot reconcile the two sides. Much like some other highly divisive issues (abortion), there is no middle ground to be had, because those who feel strongly cannot compromise a little without completely betraying their ideals. It is possible to not feel strongly on the issue, but for those with strong feelings, how much violation of your own personal code of morality are you willing to welcome?
 
To most of us in the RKBA community, any restrictions on the ownership of small arms by those who have not proven themselves violent felons is unreasonable
Click to expand...

I wouldnt say most of us :)

WildprobablysomeAlaska
 
To most people reasonable goes back to the often heard statement: "be reasonable, do it my way".
 
Yes, Wild, most.

To me? Reasonable is the prosecution of those who commit a crime with a firearm. It would be resonable to restrict ownership by those previously conicted of such. Otherwise government has no more right to restrict firearms ownership than they do pens or cars or property.
 
orly? tell that to the iraqis giving the mighty American military steamroller a hard time
Click to expand...

it's not the Iraqis, it's the liberals........our miltary needs only permission.
The problem is not that it is difficult or impossible, it is only a matter of will.
The difficult is no problem, the impossible takes only a little longer.

Sorry....OT but those guys aren't giving us the hard time......our desenting patriots are.
After all, desent is the greatet form of patriotism right? Not that old fashioned standing united as a nation gobliddy gook.
 
Yes, Wild, most.
Click to expand...

No Scott, not most. Most gun owners are not firebreathing radicals seeing black helicopters at every turn...

The small majorites you may see here who want gun anarchy DO NOT represent the American gun Owner.

WildandthecrappypollsforwhattheyareworthshowitAlaska
 
No Scott, not most. Most gun owners are not firebreathing radicals seeing black helicopters at every turn...
Click to expand...

See, this is why you are not very credible. Believing that law abiding citizens should not be monitored/restricted, while perpetrating criminal acts IS justification for swift, sure justice and restrictions can not be logically linked to black helicopters or paranoia by any serious person.

The small majorites you may see here who want gun anarchy DO NOT represent the American gun Owner.
Click to expand...

Of course, in reality, it's a vast majority here and "here" is a rather sedate group of gun owners. Maybe you should get out more? Anyway, wanting restrictions to be applied to firearms ownership only in the same way we apply restrictions to other things and areas of life, AFTER a criminal/violent act, is, again, not logically comparable to anarchy.
 
Believing that law abiding citizens should not be monitored/restricted, while perpetrating criminal acts IS justification for swift, sure justice and restrictions can not be logically linked to black helicopters or paranoia by any serious person.
Click to expand...

Huh? Say again?

Of course, in reality, it's a vast majority here
Click to expand...

OK....

Poll Time!

WildimsufferingbadlyintheheatAlaska
 
The repealing of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the prohibition of gun ownership to small children, felons, gang-bangers, and the mentally insane would be more realistic. There are havens for the partially and fully anti-gun
folks in New York and partially in California, Mass. as well as a few others.

Strict punishment for criminals violating the already hundreds of gun laws on the books, and no plea bargains regarding the latter.

I don't favor compromise with the antis even one inch. I wish my representatives in the State and Federal level felt likewise, ditto my NRA.
 
Huh? Say again?
Click to expand...

"Believing that law abiding citizens should not be monitored/restricted in the pursuit of a legal endeavor/hobby, while perpetrating criminal acts IS justification for swift, sure justice and restrictions on individuals and their activities can not be logically linked to black helicopters or paranoia by any serious person. "


While it seemed clear enough to me, I added the italicized portions to help you out...
 
Repeal all mesures passed since and including the gca 68 , re open the nfa registry for new " machine guns " nationwide , and IMHO that is reasonable . I dont mind an interstate commerce tax on nfa items , but other than that anyone who can own a firearm should be able to own them . The same with recieveing an interstate transfer thro the mail .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top