Reasonable Restrictions on the Right to Bear Arms

[jordan179]

With the current case before the Supreme Court, I've been led to consider the question of "reasonable" restrictions on the right to bear arms. For instance, I may choose to restrict the right of people to bear arms on my property, and those holding public gatherings may demand that those wishing to attend them leave their weapons at the door. This

Comments

I'll just copy over my comment, then...

[prester_scott]

those holding public gatherings may demand that those wishing to attend them leave their weapons at the door

Don't you mean "private," not "public"?

The distinction between those two terms is one of the difficulties that Libertopia would need to work through. If everything is "privately owned" and there are no "commons," then private property rights could easily hold all civil liberties hostage.

[stremph]

Well, I for one am all in favor of restrictions on the shoulder thing that goes up. Because that thing is scary.

[jordan179]

Well, I for one am all in favor of restrictions on the shoulder thing that goes up. Because that thing is scary.

Especially if it can fire a Macross Missile Crossfire! :)

[brianblackberry]

Well I am a radical, I believe all adults who are mentally competent have the right to bear arms, have as many as they like in their homes and on their land, and have the right to conceal carry unless in privately owned places that prohibit such things (like the mall, or store, or someone's home who chooses to have no guns around). I believe they should have semi-automatics or automatics if they so choose, after all it is proven that laws against such weaponry does not prevent criminal elements from obtaining them, just law-abiding citizens.

[princejvstin]

Seriously?

With no restrictions whatsoever? If I wanted to mount an AA gun on my lawn, you would be okay with that?

[brianblackberry]

Honestly, why do people use absurd examples as a counter to this? Really now, how many individuals you honestly believe would put forth the effort, money, supply, and maintenance of an AA battery, even if I meant all manners of weapons (AA battery is really artillery) and not just guns? Perhaps I should have been more clear, I speak of hand held firearms such as the following: handguns, semi-autos, autos, long guns (your shotguns or rifles), and for good fun, matchlocks and flintlocks.

[princejvstin]

Absurd examples are sometimes in the eye of the beholder. I consider automatic firearms absurd to be allowed for private ownership. An Ak-47 is NOT a home defense tool, its a weapon of war.

[kitten_goddess]

Any establishment that serves alcohol, public or not, should have the right to tell people to leave their guns behind the bar. Drunk + firearms + crowded space = tragedy waiting to happen.

[brianblackberry]

Any privately owned establishment period should have that right.

[kishiriadgr]

In Arizona, you can carry a sidearm as long as it's visible in some fashion. However, if a place serves alcohol you have to leave it outside. I had just moved from Montreal to the US and we attended a funeral in Arizona. It was in an Elks Lodge, and there was a large sign saying that you had to leave your guns (of any description) in the car. I asked the bartender why this was and she said that a lot of times people came in from hunting and wanted to bring in their rifles, but the state didn't allow it.

[headnoises]

I'd like to add that they should have the right to allow smoking, profanity-laced music and open viewing of porn, assuming that warnings are posted.

But I'm the same sort of weirdo who also doesn't like state-monopoly on package stores, helmet laws, seat belt laws and any other nanny-state actions. (Before someone asks: yes, I'd usually wear a seatbelt. I probably wouldn't wear a helmet because I go slow enough on a bike that anything that would cause harm would do so with or without a helmet. And I'm afraid we have to trust people to take care of their children unless there's actual abuse.)

[kishiriadgr]

"The Founders were pretty clear that one of the purposes of an armed populace was to make tyranny difficult, so the argument that the police can provide personal defense and hence citizens can't legitimately claim the right to wield guns for that purpose is specious. This would be true even if the police didn't specfically disclaim any responsibility for the protection of individuals, and is even the more obviously true given that they do."

Aha, this is an argument I've been looking for. I support "right to bear arms as individual right" and nobody ever seems to consider that often the police *just don't come*. That and they're the government we're supposed to be able to defend ourselves against.

[eric_hinkle]

Or they don't come in time. The cops are just as human as the rest of us; they can't teleport to your side when you call for help.