The problem with waiting periods is it pretty much restricts you to local purchase. If I am 6 hour drive from home and see the Colt MKIV I have been wanting in a shop I have to spend another day and $150 to $200 expenses. The background check should be instant, and that system still needs work as many good citizens still don't clear instantly. After clearing background check it's nobodys business why I want the gun and purchase should be completed.
Reasonable gun control:Your views?
- Thread starter marlboroman84
- Start date
"reasonable" is ALWAYS determined by a committee... 
"A camel is an Arabian Horse assembled by a committee."
Perhaps the ACLU should be consulted for it's definition of "reasonable".
Or perhaps the Democratic National Committee...?
How about the 9th Circuit Court? :barf:
Would that be reasonable?
"A camel is an Arabian Horse assembled by a committee."
Perhaps the ACLU should be consulted for it's definition of "reasonable".
Or perhaps the Democratic National Committee...?
How about the 9th Circuit Court? :barf:
Would that be reasonable?
Wildalaska
Moderator
The present regularatory shceme on the Federal Level regarding firearms, with a few exceptions, is both constituional and reasonable.
WildbuymoregunsAlaska
WildbuymoregunsAlaska
HiPowering Along
New member
Waiting periods: Worthless as airbrakes on a turtle, and more annoying than Nancy "nooneshouldevereverhaveagunandwhereismyarmedSecretServicedetail" Pelosi. Premeditated murder doesn't change with the amount of time between the incident and the murder - be it a waiting period of 20 minutes or 30 days as the Clintonites would like to see. Premeditation comes into play when you plan to do it, period. NO waiting period will change that. If someone is hellbent for leather to kill you, it'll take more than an irritating waiting period to derail those plans.
Background checks: Again, irritating to fork over more hard earned dollars for a State Police background check, but can see the need for them in today's society. This is why there should be no limits on monthly purchases - my old school thriftiness says to save the money with volume purchases....
Where you can carry: Personally, the places you can and can't carry blur so much it's difficult not to be in violation during a short drive in your home area. If I drive through my hometown on the north side, I'm in violation for having a firearm within 1,000 ft. of a school. I cannot take it through a National Park or on Federal lands. If open or concealed carry is legal, it should be legal everywhere - violence doesn't have it's own zipcode. The only ones that are being punished are the "law-abiding" citizens - criminals don't care about the laws. Restrictions only make us sheeple heading down the chute to the barrel where we're easy prey.
Registering firearms: ENGLAND AND AUSTRAILIA, need I say more? Again, only the law abiding ones are easy targets when the members of the UN/Pelosi Posse come to your front door. The PA State Police have been keeping records on handgun sales after the checks are done - their argument of "it's not a gun-owners database" was challenged on state law and unfortunately our State Supreme Circus Court agreed 3-2.
The FBI maintained in an audit of the PSP records that they are in violation of Federal laws prohibiting such databases. Bottom line is - the government has no business keeping records of what I have in my home.
Background checks: Again, irritating to fork over more hard earned dollars for a State Police background check, but can see the need for them in today's society. This is why there should be no limits on monthly purchases - my old school thriftiness says to save the money with volume purchases....
Where you can carry: Personally, the places you can and can't carry blur so much it's difficult not to be in violation during a short drive in your home area. If I drive through my hometown on the north side, I'm in violation for having a firearm within 1,000 ft. of a school. I cannot take it through a National Park or on Federal lands. If open or concealed carry is legal, it should be legal everywhere - violence doesn't have it's own zipcode. The only ones that are being punished are the "law-abiding" citizens - criminals don't care about the laws. Restrictions only make us sheeple heading down the chute to the barrel where we're easy prey.
Registering firearms: ENGLAND AND AUSTRAILIA, need I say more? Again, only the law abiding ones are easy targets when the members of the UN/Pelosi Posse come to your front door. The PA State Police have been keeping records on handgun sales after the checks are done - their argument of "it's not a gun-owners database" was challenged on state law and unfortunately our State Supreme Circus Court agreed 3-2.
The FBI maintained in an audit of the PSP records that they are in violation of Federal laws prohibiting such databases. Bottom line is - the government has no business keeping records of what I have in my home."...on the Federal Level..."
Unfortunately, I am forced to buy at the local level.
After 50 years of owning firearms, I don't see why I should have to wait 5 minutes for a background check or a day for a waiting period. After ten violation-free years of carrying a concealed gun, I think I should be able to carry everywhere.
Nothing but a bunch o' silly rules. It's about like having to drive your entire life with learner's permit restrictions.
John
Unfortunately, I am forced to buy at the local level.
After 50 years of owning firearms, I don't see why I should have to wait 5 minutes for a background check or a day for a waiting period. After ten violation-free years of carrying a concealed gun, I think I should be able to carry everywhere.
Nothing but a bunch o' silly rules. It's about like having to drive your entire life with learner's permit restrictions.
John
HiPowering Along
New member
Pointer - you have a typo in your post, my friend...
It's the 9th Circus Court...
It's the 9th Circus Court...
leadcounsel
Moderator
+1 Rick Reno
I wholeheartedly agree with this statement and couldn't have said it better. I don't mind waiting a few minutes to buy a gun and I think it just simply makes sense to have the government check a person's background before allowing them to buy a gun. No rational person could possibly think otherwise. As long as I can buy a gun the same day I want to, carry when I need and want to, and shoot when I want to, I don't have a problem. I don't have a problem with magazine capacities and feel that limiting them is unconstitutional. I don't think your average Joe should be able to own a M-249 or M-240 or any other "true assault rifle". Yes you can have access to these weapons but it is a long process. I personally don't think you should have to pay as many fees but do feel that it should be approved on a case by case basis by local authorities.
Reasonable
Reasonable is such a clearly defined word. That is the trouble with "reasonable". It depends entirely on who you are, where you are, and when you are.
In 1925, reasonable was being able to walk into a store, put down the cash and walk out with ANY kind of firearm, from a .22 pocket pistol to a belt fed machinegun. All without any kind of wait or government check. And also reasonable was have the same material delivered direct to your door through the US Postal Service.
After 1934 it was reasonable to have certain classes of firearms and firearms accessories highly restriced and taxed under federal law.
After 1968 it was reasonable to prohibit importation of whole other categories of firearms, and to end direct mail shipment of firearms for the general public. And to require recordkeeping of ammunition purchases.
In 1986 it was reasonable to prohibit any new manufactured machineguns (already highly taxed and regulated) to be sold to private citizens.
The Brady law mandated a reasonable 5 day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun, to be replaced with an "instant check" on ALL firearms purchases when the technology became available.
The Lautenberg amendment was a reasonable law that stripped anyone ever convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence of their right to own a firearm.
In 1994 it was reasonable to outlaw new manufacture and sale to private citizens, of certain semi-automatic firearms because of certain combinations of cosmetic features. And to ban the sale and posession of magazines of greater than 10 round capacity (made after the enactment of the law) while millions upon millions of magazines made before the enactment of the law remained legal.
All these (and many others not listed) have been reasonable gun control laws.
Reasonable is a term used by the anti-gunners for anything (and everything) that supports their agenda. Another one of their other buzz word phrases is common sense.
And repeatedly they have claimed that each reasonable, common sense gun control measure that they propose is the last of their demands.
Adolf Hitler (after his armies had conquered Czechoslovakia) claimed that this was the last of his territorial demands in Europe. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought this was reasonable, and at Munich signed a treaty, with an ironclad promise of "Peace in our Time".
That worked out well, didn't it.
As far as a 24hr (or any) waiting period, for a handgun, "if it saves just one life it is worth it." Why not look at the other side of the coin. It has the same value.
One of the most common defensive situations in America today is a wife/girfriend haveing to defend herself from an abusive (ex)husband/boyfriend. Time after time, restraining orders have proven themselves not worth the paper they are written on. The police can only take action after the fact.
So if "just one life" is lost because of a waiting period shouldn't they be abolished?
Reasonable gun control laws to me don't exist. There are no reasonable laws governing the ownership of property. Guns, books, cars, computers, chairs, houses, etc. All property, no matter what.
Now, laws governing the USE of property are a different matter. After all, what does it matter what you own, what matters is what you DO with it. And I think we already have more than enough laws covering that.
I would prefer a return to the laws of a century ago. No prior restraint on what kind of firearm, or how many, or how often you could own, and harsh, swift, and permanent punishment for those who commit crimes with guns.
Reasonable is such a clearly defined word. That is the trouble with "reasonable". It depends entirely on who you are, where you are, and when you are.
In 1925, reasonable was being able to walk into a store, put down the cash and walk out with ANY kind of firearm, from a .22 pocket pistol to a belt fed machinegun. All without any kind of wait or government check. And also reasonable was have the same material delivered direct to your door through the US Postal Service.
After 1934 it was reasonable to have certain classes of firearms and firearms accessories highly restriced and taxed under federal law.
After 1968 it was reasonable to prohibit importation of whole other categories of firearms, and to end direct mail shipment of firearms for the general public. And to require recordkeeping of ammunition purchases.
In 1986 it was reasonable to prohibit any new manufactured machineguns (already highly taxed and regulated) to be sold to private citizens.
The Brady law mandated a reasonable 5 day waiting period on the purchase of a handgun, to be replaced with an "instant check" on ALL firearms purchases when the technology became available.
The Lautenberg amendment was a reasonable law that stripped anyone ever convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence of their right to own a firearm.
In 1994 it was reasonable to outlaw new manufacture and sale to private citizens, of certain semi-automatic firearms because of certain combinations of cosmetic features. And to ban the sale and posession of magazines of greater than 10 round capacity (made after the enactment of the law) while millions upon millions of magazines made before the enactment of the law remained legal.
All these (and many others not listed) have been reasonable gun control laws.
Reasonable is a term used by the anti-gunners for anything (and everything) that supports their agenda. Another one of their other buzz word phrases is common sense.
And repeatedly they have claimed that each reasonable, common sense gun control measure that they propose is the last of their demands.
Adolf Hitler (after his armies had conquered Czechoslovakia) claimed that this was the last of his territorial demands in Europe. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought this was reasonable, and at Munich signed a treaty, with an ironclad promise of "Peace in our Time".
That worked out well, didn't it.
As far as a 24hr (or any) waiting period, for a handgun, "if it saves just one life it is worth it." Why not look at the other side of the coin. It has the same value.
One of the most common defensive situations in America today is a wife/girfriend haveing to defend herself from an abusive (ex)husband/boyfriend. Time after time, restraining orders have proven themselves not worth the paper they are written on. The police can only take action after the fact.
So if "just one life" is lost because of a waiting period shouldn't they be abolished?
Reasonable gun control laws to me don't exist. There are no reasonable laws governing the ownership of property. Guns, books, cars, computers, chairs, houses, etc. All property, no matter what.
Now, laws governing the USE of property are a different matter. After all, what does it matter what you own, what matters is what you DO with it. And I think we already have more than enough laws covering that.
I would prefer a return to the laws of a century ago. No prior restraint on what kind of firearm, or how many, or how often you could own, and harsh, swift, and permanent punishment for those who commit crimes with guns.
Wildalaska
Moderator
My FFL has nothing to do with it. My legal background does. 
I do have quarrels with the reasonableness and constitutoinality of many Stae/Federal laws. Others, like Instant Checks are OK. Others, like registration, are constitutional but not reasonable. One must analyze them on a case by case basis rather than just emotionally screaming "shall not be infringed".
WildstrictlyconstruingofcourseAlaska
I do have quarrels with the reasonableness and constitutoinality of many Stae/Federal laws. Others, like Instant Checks are OK. Others, like registration, are constitutional but not reasonable. One must analyze them on a case by case basis rather than just emotionally screaming "shall not be infringed".
WildstrictlyconstruingofcourseAlaska
My favorite gun shop is 50 miles away. I gotta drive 200 miles to buy something there if there is even a days waiting period.
I totally agree with any licensing to carry being unconstitutional.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
If you can own a gun, you should be able to carry it.
And while I'm at it, the ATF form.
"then any criminal could buy a gun!"
Yeah, because it is impossible for criminals to get guns right?
Ever seen those cop shows?
-Undercover guy to the first guy he sees on the side of the street.
"you know were I can buy a gun bro?"
- Guy on the street corner
"yep"
I totally agree with any licensing to carry being unconstitutional.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
If you can own a gun, you should be able to carry it.
And while I'm at it, the ATF form.
"then any criminal could buy a gun!"
Yeah, because it is impossible for criminals to get guns right?
Ever seen those cop shows?
-Undercover guy to the first guy he sees on the side of the street.
"you know were I can buy a gun bro?"
- Guy on the street corner
"yep"
And why is that? Because you think it reduces gun crime by 5% or 2%, or because you think felons shouldn't have pieces of metal, regardless of any real impact on the crime rate?
That's the spirit!
I suppose computer registration would be constitutional too? Nationalized internet infrastructure with a government permit required to gain access is okay? Maybe even a permit to carry ball-point pens or laptops?
"If it solves just one crime, it's constitutional."
Wildalaska
Moderator
Why wouldnt it be?
You and I have gone back and forth on this on two Boards...whats the point of arguing further,,,
Aw heck...why not once more....read up on the standards of constituional analysis presently governing issues such as this...that is strict scrutiny (assuming an individual right to keep and bear arms which is still at issue) and you will ascertain that even a 1% reduction in gun crime vis a vis an Instant heck would render the statute constituional...
As to felons? Nope felons should not be permitted to own firearms, a point which you must lamentably admit is in accord with the Constiution and the common law.
WildandonitgoesAlaska
L O LI believe the "exceptions" are what we're talking about...
Background checks, regardless how reasonable...
it opens the door a little wider for the un-reasonable "adjustments".
It also seems reasonable to check the backgrounds of people who buy whiskey and beer...
Or Doctors who've been banned in other states...
The gov'mint needs to regulate everything "reasonably" (Like Big Brother) or get the hell out of our private decision making...
I don't need another motorcyle helmet law or records being kept on how much ammo I purchase...
I hear many of you bitchin' about the Patriot Act... but it seemed like the "reasonable" thing to do at the time...
marlboroman84
New member
I think i stuck the proverbial stick in the proverbial hornet's nest. I really hope all of you do not view me as some gun totin' liberal or that i'm just misinformed or something of the kind. I know any type of view on any type of gun control on this type of forum is gonna be met with alot of heated debate, but debate is good for the soul I think. I won't back down and take back any of my comments, but I'll say this. I see the point alot of you make about waiting periods being inconvenient. I very much like the idea of go to store, pick out gun, buy gun, take gun home. It has made me happy on both my purchases. I think what bothers me the most personally is that there really is no way to effectively prevent violent crime. people are gonna do what they are gonna do. It bothers me that the government wants to control good people, but can barely contain the criminals. I'll still say that a 24 hour waiting period wouldn't bother me personally, but seeing some of the other views and how it could affect people at Gun Shows or through travel, etc. I'll resign the view and let it ride. I still wish there was a common sense gun test though, because I still say there are alot of people out there that carry that I wouldn't want within 100 yards of me with a firearm!