The test of what is “reasonable”

The test of what is “reasonable” One of the tactics of those who oppose our right to keep and bear arms is to label any of their proposals as “reasonable” or “common sense” – leaving our positions to be seen as “unreasonable” and “nonsensical”. The fact is that since most Americans are in the middle ground on 2A issues, they can easily be influenced by the language used. We can’t allow our enemies to control the definitions used, or we will lose the debate before it even begins. The real test of what is “reasonable” in terms of gun control is to look at how the same policy would be viewed if applied to another aspect of life. If what seems “reasonable” for one matter that is less important to someone seems “unreasonable” for a matter that is important to them, we must expose that hypocrisy. Unfortunately, exposing the hypocrisy of the “Antis” may also cause some of us to have to examine ourselves for hypocritical thinking. ID and background checks that are reasonable for purchasing a gun are also reasonable for voting. In both cases, there is a compelling public interest in knowing that the person exercising the right is how they say they are, and is not a “prohibited person” (i.e. felon, insane, or non-citizen), so both require the same safeguards – right? If a waiting period is “reasonable” to allow a person to “cool off” and avoid “rushing into” a major decision, then it is “Common sense” for the same waiting period that applies to gun purchases should also be applied to abortion. These are both decisions where a life may end up being at stake, so both should require the same amount of deliberation – right? If a\it is “reasonable” for a citizen to be required to show ID and provide a fingerprint to buy ammunition, and must do so with a licensed seller in a face to face transaction, then it is “common sense” for the same policy needs to be applied to the sale of gasoline. After all, many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by “prohibited persons” who are illegally operating motor vehicles without a valid license, registration, or insurance. This also applies to limits on amount of purchase in a given period. If a citizen can be restarted to purchasing only x cases of ammunition a week, then it stands to reason that a limit of x gallons of gasoline would also be appropriate. These are both instances where regulating of the supply will arguably impact public safety, so both should be treated the same (although gun ownership is an enumerated right, while car ownership comes under general property rights) – right? Personally, the ID verification and making sure that they are not a felon, insane person, or non-citizen makes sense before I want to allow anyone to vote or buy a gun. In the other two, I have to say that they are not reasonable to me – but are equivalently unreasonable. I think it’s clear that the main purpose of waiting periods is simply to create an inconvenience, and thus limit the citizen’s ability to exercise their right (gun ownership is an enumerated right, while abortion is often described as being a “right” although it is not mentioned anywhere in the constitution). Likewise the ammunition or gasoline regulation/check is simply an attempt to create an inconvenience and raise costs, so as to limit a citizen’s ability to exercise their right (the enumerated right to keep and bear arms, and the right to freedom of movement/travel).

A “Reasonable Compromise” on Universal Background Checks for Firearms Purchases

A “Reasonable Compromise” on Universal Background Checks for Firearms Purchases There has been a lot of hype in the media about the supposed “Gun show loophole” in the national background check system, and calls for universal background checks for firearms purchases. It seems that this could be accomplished in such a way that both pro 2nd Amendment rights groups and pro gun-control groups would be satisfied. Let’s start by taking a look at what each side reasonably wants to have, and then seeing if this can be accomplished in a manner that meets the needs of both sides. Both sides want to prevent “prohibited people” from acquiring firearms and other dangerous weapons. The pro 2nd Amendment rights side wants citizens to enjoy their constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. They want to be able to transfer (sell, purchase, gift, or receive) firearms in a manner that does not include undue cots (taxes/fees), delays, or inconvenience. It is also reasonable that the pro 2nd Amendment side would want something in return for giving the government so much control over a basic, civil right. The gun-control side claims that universal background checks will make everyone safer, and want them to be performed in all firearms transactions, in order to advance the public good. Current laws vary from state to state, and some include waiting periods, and purchase limits, as well as background checks. I would say that, as a minimum, in order to meet the reasonable expectations of both sides, the universal background check must meet the following criteria: 1 Must be free to the buyer, and funded by the public – since it is a public safety measure. While a small fee (no more than the state Driver’s License or ID card fee) could be charged to first time buyers, no other fees or special taxes would apply. 2 Must be conducted by/through a reputable organization, such as the FBI, ATF, or other federal organization. For the purpose of transfers between two private parties, any local law enforcement office would be required to conduct the check at no cost to the private parties. Such checks would be conducted at any time during normal department business hours. If appointments are not available within three business days (or one calendar week), the LEA would be forced to pay a fine of $5,000 each to the buyer and seller for the inconvenience and for violating their civil rights. 3 Gun shops (FFLs) would be able to access the database through computer, telephone, or other communications system in order to process background checks on customers. 4 Database checks for flags must include felonies, disqualifying misdemeanors (i.e. domestic violence), citizenship status, and psychiatric information that would disqualify a potential purchaser. Since all of these conditions other than misdemeanor offenses disallow voting, the same database could also be used to screen potential voters to eliminate voter fraud, creating a cost savings to the taxpayer, since it would serve two purposes. 5 Buyers would have to provide federal or state photo ID, SSN, and biometric data (example: thumbprint or fingerprints) in order to prove identity. This would be the same requirement for positive voter ID, and could use the same system – again creating cost savings for the taxpayer. 6 Must be “instant” meaning that the entire process should take 30 minutes or less to verify or flag a potential purchaser. While a “waiting period” may be appropriate for the first purchase, allowing investigators to follow up on any irregularities or questions arising from the instant check, no state would be allowed to force such a period on people who had already successfully purchased one firearm using the system. 7 All persons flagged would be investigated by the appropriate agency, and any prohibited persons who were illegally attempting to purchase a firearm would be prosecuted. 8 Gun show organizers would be required to set up a background check booth with communications linked to the appropriate database to facilitate transfers at the show. Cost for such equipment, personnel, and connection fees would be tax deductible as a business expense. 9 Once entered into the system, returning purchasers would be able to purchase firearms via face to face transactions in any US state or territory. Such persons could be issued a special license (with photo ID and biometric information) at a cost not to exceed that of a state DL, or SSN and biometric information in the database could be used. 10 Any federal, state, or local registration requirements would be at no cost to the buyer or seller, since registration is claimed to be a “public safety” measure, it will be paid for using public funds. 11 If a firearms owner enters into the class of prohibited person, they shall be allowed to arrange the sale of their firearms (except any used in the commission of violent crimes) through a third party. 12 Names, addresses, and other personal information about gun buyers or those who register firearms would be protected under all available privacy laws, and would not be released to the public (or press) without a compelling public interest. Agencies doing so would be fined $50,000 per person whose privacy was invaded, and the officials responsible would be tried for willful violation of civil rights, with a felony term of 2 years per violation. 13 Reciprocity: Any firearm or accessory (i.e. magazine, stock, etc.) that has been legally purchased in one US state or territory may legally be possessed in any other US state or territory.

What is a "reasonable" policy to prevent prohibited people from buying ammunition?

The parallel to the idea of registration of ammunition sales is to ask how you would feel about similar restrictions being placed on the sale of gasoline. Many traffic accidents and fatalities are caused by unlicensed, unregistered, uninsured drivers ("prohibited persons"). The DMV has not been able to keep those people off the road. Since over 30,000 Americans die in traffic accidents each year, surely the "public safety" need there is much greater than the public safety need to restrict ammunition sales. That means: Only purchase from licensed dealers. ID and documents (DL, registration, insurance papers) shown to employee at time of purchase. Fingerprint at time of purchase. Limits on the amount of gasoline you can buy in a given period (2 gallons a day? 10 gallons a week?). Is this reasonable? If it is not reasonable to enact such rules to prevent prohibited persons from purchasing gasoline, then why would they be reasonable for ammunition?