What is a reasonable gun law?

[chipbennett]

And for brevity, there are no reasonable gun laws.

"Shall not be infringed" means just that. I should not need a government permission slip, nor pay a tax to own a Cannon or an automatic weapon or any other arm.

In case no one has noticed, laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms do not stop felons from possessing firearms.

Laws should be few, and penalties severe. If someone has committed a felonious act been tried and convicted by a jury of his peers they need to do the full-time associated with that conviction. When their sentence is complete they need to be fully restored as a citizen without restriction. To do otherwise is to create a permanent criminal underclass who will live among us doing the only thing they know how to do being a criminal.

Better to incarcerate them for their full sentence at hard labor, than give parole and time off for good behavior to only return a younger and more predatory individual to our midsts.

ETA: correct spelling of cannon

This.

There is no such thing as a "common sense" gun law. No such law enacted or proposed could or would ever have the purported effect that proponents claim it would have. Every such law only serves to compel, constrain, inconvenience, or hinder law-abiding people in their exercise of RKBA, while not once, ever, compelling or constraining violent criminals in their possession and use of firearms to commit violent crimes.

 

[chipbennett]

People currently in prison should not have access to firearms. That is it.

And yet, the government can't even ensure that people in prison don't have access to firearms.

 

[chipbennett]

Not to hijack the thread but this is an interesting question. How do we define an 'arm'? Is it limited to something one person can carry alone? A cannon?
Can my crazy neighbor and his drinking buddies obtain a howitzer and leave it parked in his front yard aimed at city hall?
Can a rich guy buy a suitcase nuke and leave it in his basement 'just in case he needs it'?

"Arm" has a definition. That definition is rather uncontroversial. That definition is referenced in various SCOTUS decisions.

A nuclear weapon does not meet that definition.

 

[BJHay]

"Arm" has a definition. That definition is rather uncontroversial. That definition is referenced in various SCOTUS decisions.

A nuclear weapon does not meet that definition.

From Heller.

"Arms, the Court asserted, has the same meaning now as it did during the eighteenth century: any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or use in wrath to cast at or strike another, including weapons not specifically designed for military use."

 

[Rick Mason]

No sales tax on firearms, ammo, and gun safes.

 

[Knights1776]

Unfortunately, the anti-gun crowd uses the guise of "reasonable" to slip in draconian gun control laws.

 

[sailordave]

There are no reasonable gun laws.

You nailed it !

 

[Knights1776]

What is a reasonable gun law?

There is no such thing because gun grabbers always use incrementalism to ban guns.