Just FYI, the supreme court has said that the death penalty can never be an automatic sentence for any crime.

I understand...just my view of "How Things Should Be," which is also subject to change.

I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Full auto is not illegal Federally. Just incredibly expensive due to the NFA and subsequent decision to allow only those full auto firearms manufactured before 1986. Furthermore, their use in crime after the "gangster era" has been quite minimal. Only one instance and that was by an LEO.

I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
Others have already commented but I'll add that I agree that it is too broad of a brush. For example, if you are walking in a forest and pick up a feather on the ground, and that feather is from a Bald Eagle, you have just committed a felony.

I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
Again, a broad category that needs some defining before I'd agree. Subject, of course, to a judicial review that pinned the responsibility on the government to prove the case, not the other way around.

I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
OK, with enforceable limits placed on the Federal agencies charged with effecting this.

I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
Define "explosives." I believe gasoline is considered an explosive....

I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
Yep.

I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
Not reasonable and should be abolished and records destroyed where already in practice

I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
What requirements? Defined and developed by whom? Allow the government to promulgate rules and regulations and they will do so to the effect of making it nearly impossible to obtain. Look to DC's recent laws just to purchase a firearm.

A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
Again, who makes the requirements?

A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
Nope. Constitutional carry....

A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
Define "intoxicated." Is it one drink, or two? Or any alcohol? Why can I have a drink with dinner and drive my car, an instrument that kills far more folks than guns, but can't do the same if I carry my gun?

I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
I disagree.

I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
I agree.

I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
I agree, but the disorders need to be very clear.

I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
I agree, but the checks need to be very clear as to their goals and how far reaching they will be.

I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
I think this needs to be further clarified.  A cartridge could be classified as an "explosive," so can fireworks.  How about components to explosives such as a certain type of fertilizer, or gunpowder?  You can bet if this is legislated, then there will be people who want to expand the definition.  Some thing goes for people who want to legislate bullets towards illegality.

I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
I agree.

I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
I disagree with registration.  I do think it can help LEOs, however I am wary it can be used against citizens by overzealous government officials.

I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
  A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
  On a safety level I agree, however I do not think this should be a limiting factor.  If this is a requirement, then I think the State must provide free classes and classes that are offered with enough regularity that it does not exclude citizens.  Also I would say that it should not include a test.
  A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
  I disagree.  I see this as no different than making someone obtain permit to exercise any of their other Rights under the Constitution and Amendments

  A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
  I disagree.  For instance if you are at home and someone attacked you/family, you should not be prohibited from responding.

I will also add that suppressors should be 50 state & territory legal.

I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Disagree, I would like to have an equal playing field.  I would like to have access to the same weapons capabilities as the guy trying to shoot me.

I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
I agree.

I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
I agree to an extent.  They need to clarify what is a go and no go.

I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
I agree to an extent.  They need to clarify what is a go and no go.

I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
I agree to an extent.  They need to clarify what is a go and no go.  A friend of mine does cesspools.  They sometimes use some sort of dynamite to blast through solid rocks during some excavations.

I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
I agree.

I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
I disagree.  IMO they don't need to have a list of what I have/had/lost

I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
I agree.

  A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
I agree.

  A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
I disagree.  I would hate having to apply for a new permit every time I purchased a new firearm

  A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
I agree.  Luckily I don't drink anymore.  But everyone's own opinion on level of being intoxicated will differ.


I also agree on having the chance to own class 3 stuff like suppressors, SBR, full auto, etc... in this state.

Huge No to the mental disorders. That realm is full of dangers. If people accept such things as valid, it will not be long before the anti-gun politicians point to everyone who desires to own a firearm, and claim they have a mental disorder for being too violent or fearful.

I think past actions are all you can go by. If someone has been convicted of crimes of violence, then it is unlikely they would own a firearm responsibly. Outside of that, we have no right to subjectively assess the minds of people whom have never committed a crime, and claim that we think they will commit a crime in the future then deny them gun ownership.

I should be able to own these in Hawaii is my level of discomfort...

Hi guys!

This is a good thread! I agree with most of the current laws.

I think a cap on handgun mag capacities are kinda stupid.

I also do not like the current mental health statutes in place. This is where I know more than a lot of people. Because I am one of those who is prohibited to purchase or own a firearm. I am currently trying to reverse this issue. In the law it says that if you can get a note from your doctor saying you are no longer affected by the disorder they will allow me to get a permit to acquire. Easy enough huh? Haha nope. My current health care provider will not provide any document in relation to firearms. It's the company policy. (Kaiser). Strangely though, the lady in the records department told me that there have been people who HAVE gotten notes from their doctors. Private psychiatrists won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole. So, what's a guy to do? I have found a solution. I have met with my doctor and "talked" about my not being on meds anymore. I then request my records that have all of her notes. Which includes all the "talked" about stuff. Hopefully those records are good enough to get my permit. We'll see!

There is one thing that kinda peeves me about the way this law works. In my case the lady in the records department is the judge and jury. I have no criminal record. I only have 1 speeding ticket! lol. Unlike a lot of the mental health shooters that have been in the news, I have no previous run in with authority. This to me is like being a criminal without ever doing a crime. I'm not a full citizen even though I've never even remotely been in trouble. It's kinda like the movie minority report. lol.

Oh, I should mention that the disorder I suffered from is anxiety. In my opinion Anxiety based disorders are fundamentally different from mood and behavior disorders.

Is there anyone who is like me and been successful at obtaining a permit?

 

.

Hi guys!

This is a good thread! I agree with most of the current laws.

I think a cap on handgun mag capacities are kinda stupid.

I also do not like the current mental health statutes in place. This is where I know more than a lot of people. Because I am one of those who is prohibited to purchase or own a firearm. I am currently trying to reverse this issue. In the law it says that if you can get a note from your doctor saying you are no longer affected by the disorder they will allow me to get a permit to acquire. Easy enough huh? Haha nope. My current health care provider will not provide any document in relation to firearms. It's the company policy. (Kaiser). Strangely though, the lady in the records department told me that there have been people who HAVE gotten notes from their doctors. Private psychiatrists won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole. So, what's a guy to do? I have found a solution. I have met with my doctor and "talked" about my not being on meds anymore. I then request my records that have all of her notes. Which includes all the "talked" about stuff. Hopefully those records are good enough to get my permit. We'll see!

There is one thing that kinda peeves me about the way this law works. In my case the lady in the records department is the judge and jury. I have no criminal record. I only have 1 speeding ticket! lol. Unlike a lot of the mental health shooters that have been in the news, I have no previous run in with authority. This to me is like being a criminal without ever doing a crime. I'm not a full citizen even though I've never even remotely been in trouble. It's kinda like the movie minority report. lol.

Oh, I should mention that the disorder I suffered from is anxiety. In my opinion Anxiety based disorders are fundamentally different from mood and behavior disorders.

Is there anyone who is like me and been successful at obtaining a permit?

mauidood I think that's an important topic you should start a seperate thread about

[i agree
mauidood, start a new thread and maybe some people will share their experiences

quote author=dirsh link=topic=11322.msg112679#msg112679 date=1382392546]
mauidood I think that's an important topic you should start a seperate thread about
[/quote]

As per the lack of definition presented by Uncle Thomas and Uncle George,

I should be able to own one of these:

I say, if you can afford the ammo to feed it and find a place to shoot, why the hell not?

.

How about the same restrictions as the bad guys have - none.  There, now the playing field is level.

.

LOL!!!  Forgot about that rubber pellet claymore thing on Jack Ass.  Would be nice to have some bouncing betties with rubber pellets as well to put around the perimeter.

Prohibiting Full auto  - Agree.  Full auto has no real life usage except war.  Only makes accuracy plummet.  Maybe heavily regulate this.
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree.  Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree.  I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree.  Criminals never learn.  Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit.  Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree.  Current law for this is satisfactory.  Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree.  Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed.  As an American right, it shouldnt require registration.  I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho.  It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that.  Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner.  I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
  A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
  A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof.  It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
  A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree.  Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
Allow Open Carry - Disagree.  Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs.  Just causes unwanted public attention.  I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID.  I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me.  Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree.  Just because of the nature of their job.


Bottom line... I think capable and model citizens have the right to own firearms and protect themselves. which is why i support background checks.   But those capable/model citizens should also be trained to some extent to help prevent certain incidents, as some people are naturally clumsy and irresponsible.  Too bad they dont make it this hard to drive/own a car...

I disagree with about 98.8 percent of what 'Water' just said.

Please give me one good reason why a suppressor should be an NFA item.

Prohibiting Full auto  - Agree.  Full auto has no real life usage except war.  Only makes accuracy plummet.  Maybe heavily regulate this.
There is no real reason for owning a 600HP automobile except to race either, but they're not illegal. And, FYI, full auto is legal on the Federal level, just not our state. In states that allow full auto ownership, none are used in crimes....
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree.  Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Why? The benefits, even if they don't make the firearm totally silent, it does reduce the decibel levels dramatically which could help with hearing loss. In some European countries, they are required for hunting so as not to disturb the other wildlife.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree.  I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree.  Criminals never learn.  Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Do you agree with the Lautenberg Amendment that makes those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence ineligible to own firearms? Should non-violent felons be allowed to own firearms?
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Which ones?
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit.  Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
What other core Constitutional rights do you advocate a permitting process for?
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree.  Current law for this is satisfactory.  Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Should that include reactive targets like Tannerite?
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree.  Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Uhhh, no. You wake up in the middle of the night to noise in your house and grab your self-defense handgun. You are quickly confronted by three home invaders. I don't know about you, but I want maximum capacity in the magazine I have in that gun because the likelihood of me (or you) being able to grab additional magazines is pretty low....
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed.  As an American right, it shouldnt require registration.  I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho.  It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that.  Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner.  I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
So what are the penalties for not reporting it and what time frame must you report it missing? As for the liability issue, why should the owners be responsible if a criminal breaks into their house and steals their gun and then uses it criminally? Does the car owner who has his car stolen get charged with a crime if he didn't have his vehicle in a secure and locked garage when it was stolen?
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
  A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
What would that training consist of? Who gets to decide? Does the legal training have to be by a lawyer? How long does the training have to be?
  A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof.  It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
So you should have to show proficiency with any firearm you may want to carry? What if the gun you "tested with" breaks and you want to carry another one but haven't "tested out" on it yet? Can you do an "emergency" qualification so you don't have to be unarmed while you wait to schedule your proficiency test?
  A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree.  Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
So I can have a few beers and still be legal to drive my car, which kills many more people each year than guns, but I cannot carry my firearm?
Allow Open Carry - Disagree.  Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs.  Just causes unwanted public attention.  I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID.  I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me.  Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Speaking your mind on your proverbial soapbox on the corner of the street or in a park often draws unwanted public attention, should that be illegal? Loud preaching on a sidewalk is also bound to garner unwanted public attention, should that also be illegal? As for the felon, you're comfortable with him carrying concealed? You may not "like" open carry, or agree with it, but it is, especially where no permit is required, one of the purest means by which to express your Second Amendment rights.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree.  Just because of the nature of their job.
Why? As any LEO will tell you, they automatically assume that anyone they stop is carrying. Try and find that video of the Ohio guy who was berated and threatened to be shot by the cop arresting him because he didn't tell the cop he was carrying "quick" enough. And that is the problem. If there is a mandatory disclosure to law enforcement, there will always be the ability of a "bad apple" making a case out of you not telling him "soon enough." And, is a disclosure mandatory on an non-consensual stop, or is it mandated for a consensual stop, meaning that anytime an LEO said anything to you, including "good morning" as you passed on the street, you'd be mandated to disclose you were carrying a firearm....


Bottom line... I think capable and model citizens have the right to own firearms and protect themselves. which is why i support background checks.   But those capable/model citizens should also be trained to some extent to help prevent certain incidents, as some people are naturally clumsy and irresponsible.  Too bad they dont make it this hard to drive/own a car...

Sorry man, I don't mean to bust your chops, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I just find your logic for supporting some of these restrictions confusing and contradictory. I mention them only to stimulate discussion and explore the basis for some of your conclusions. 

Too bad they don't make it this hard to drive/own a car...

I'm guessing that's at least partly facetious, but based upon the rest of your answers... As it's said, "It's not about gun control, it's about control". Bloomberg and the nanny state/ police state are just one step behind you. I suppose you want to control what substances people consume in the privacy of their own homes, too? I suppose you saw (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/chris-dumm/23500-award-co-open-carry-wrongful-arrest/) that the  Colorado guy stopped and arrested for legally open carrying won a $23,500 settlement from the cops? Why should "unwanted public attention" from hoplophobes be a consideration, much less a criterion, for the legality of acting according to a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental individual right?

Prohibiting Full auto  - Agree.  Full auto has no real life usage except war.  Only makes accuracy plummet.  Maybe heavily regulate this.
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree.  Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree.  I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree.  Criminals never learn.  Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit.  Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree.  Current law for this is satisfactory.  Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree.  Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed.  As an American right, it shouldnt require registration.  I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho.  It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that.  Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner.  I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
  A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
  A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof.  It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
  A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree.  Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
Allow Open Carry - Disagree.  Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs.  Just causes unwanted public attention.  I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID.  I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me.  Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree.  Just because of the nature of their job.


Bottom line... I think capable and model citizens have the right to own firearms and protect themselves. which is why i support background checks.   But those capable/model citizens should also be trained to some extent to help prevent certain incidents, as some people are naturally clumsy and irresponsible.  Too bad they dont make it this hard to drive/own a car...

You sound a lot like your anti-gun in some of your respsonses