A decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark victory for advocates of gun rights. The narrow majority found in the Second Amendment an individual right to bear arms for self-protection. The court also ruled the right is not absolute. Reasonable regulations can be applied.

What is reasonable?

Listen to the testimony of some gun rights advocates at the Statehouse last week, and the answer is practically nothing. For instance, Chris Dorr, the director of Ohio Gun Owners, didn’t just reject the sensible proposals put forward by Gov. John Kasich and a group of former lawmakers, now in the form of House Bill 585. He did so most harshly and defiantly.

Dorr described the governor as among the “radical gun-control militants.” He portrayed the proposed legislation as “destroying our Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendment rights,” along with a section of the Ohio Constitution.

When asked during a hearing on the bill whether he had met with legislative sponsors, Dorr responded: “No, we don’t sit down and negotiate our rights.”

At another point, Dorr declared: “We gun owners don’t plan to keep taking it in the teeth” from the governor and others supporting the legislation. He did so two days after an Ohio House committee approved a bill expanding the instances in which licensed gun owners can use lethal force in self-defense. The bill, among other things, shifts the burden of proof in self-defense cases from the defendant to the prosecutor.

Put another way, this is a legislature — and governor — with a long record of following the wishes of the gun lobby.

That didn’t discourage Dorr from issuing something of a threat. He told the story of Iowa lawmakers taking up gun regulations similar to what the governor has proposed. In response, gun owners mobilized “aggressively” and, according to Dorr, saw many faces change in the legislature.

What is it that the governor has proposed to stir such opposition?

Recall that the proposals reflect a consensus among those working with the governor, all supporters of individual gun rights.

These are reasonable ideas. For instance, the governor wants to see a process in which family members or law enforcement officials could ask a judge to remove temporarily a person’s guns from their possession. This would involve due process. The measure seeks to keep weapons from those who pose a threat to themselves or others.

To keep guns out of the wrong hands, the proposals would strengthen background checks, prohibit “strawman” purchases (buying for a third party who is banned from owning a gun) and bar those convicted of domestic violence or subject to a protection order from purchasing a gun. House Bill 585 also would prohibit the buying of armor-piercing bullets and devices that turn weapons into virtual machine guns.

The bill would not wreck gun rights. They are preserved in the context of enhancing public safety.