Anti gun legislation

[kmacafee]

I hate to burst your bubble

But the right to own and carry a firearm is not a birth right. Even this SCOTUS in the Heller case interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that you have a right to have a gun in your home for protection. It very clearly left it up to the states to pass their own gun laws as long as they are reasonable.

If incidents like the Gifford shooting continue and the court turns over, we could easily see states enact reasonable rules around gun ownership. IMHO, Arizona has probably set the stage for more work on those rules.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Every time this gun control issue comes up I like to reference this video. I keep putting off getting my CCW and I pray I don't regret not getting it as soon as possible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when in this entire thread have we discussed restricting where CCW holders are legally allowed to carry their weapons?

 

[BorregoWrangler]

But the right to own and carry a firearm is not a birth right. Even this SCOTUS in the Heller case interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that you have a right to have a gun in your home for protection. It very clearly left it up to the states to pass their own gun laws as long as they are reasonable.

If incidents like the Gifford shooting continue and the court turns over, we could easily see states enact reasonable rules around gun ownership. IMHO, Arizona has probably set the stage for more work on those rules.

I highlighted in bold the false statement that I've heard from many anti-gunners. You're ignoring the full statement here. They ruled that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.

Note what's underlined. Its not only, or just within the home, but "most notably". "Most notably in the home" (McDonald interpreting Heller) does not mean "only in the home." Heller was specifically taking issue with DC's ban on operable handguns in the home, so the court made a point of addressing that.

In the Majority Opinion, Justice Scalia wrote:

"c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment."

So as you can see, you didn't burst anyone's bubble.

 

[cnynrat]

But the right to own and carry a firearm is not a birth right. Even this SCOTUS in the Heller case interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that you have a right to have a gun in your home for protection. It very clearly left it up to the states to pass their own gun laws as long as they are reasonable.

I disagree with your birthright statement. The Bill of Rights was clearly intended by the authors to be a statement of rights that are a birthright to all humans. In their view, these are not rights "granted" by any government, but rights that all humans inherently possess at birth.

Second, your conclusion about the SCOTUS opinion in Heller is not quite correct. The exact language from the Heller opinion is:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Note the language is "such as in the home". That means that possession of a firearm in the home is an example, but not the only place where we have the right to possess a firearm.

I agree, however, that in Heller the SCOTUS found that the right to keep and bear arms is not a completely unfettered right, and therefore some restrictions would pass constitutional muster. In the wake of the later McDonald decision there are several cases working their way through the courts that will define the standard by which the reasonableness of these restrictions should be tested.

 

[kmacafee]

Defined

Birth right -- any right or privilege to which a person is entitled by birth.

The right to own a gun is a right conveyed by government, not natural law. One could argue that freedom is a birth right.

So lets all be honest about what the Constitution and the 2A is and is not. It is a set of principles that has guided our country for 200+ years and is subject to change and interpretation, thankfully.

As for Heller, were SCOTUS interpreting the 2A as some kind of birth right, it would have crafted far more absolute language in its ruling. It has definitely set a strong precedent in favor of the right to own a gun -- not an absolute one. There is nothing in it preventing the states or the Federal Government from enacting reasonable registration rules.

Gun rights advocates, including myself, fear that states like Arizona, ignore the fact that a majority of Americans favor some kind of reasonable regulation around gun ownership. Incidents like what happened last week are happening more frequently and if it continues, there may be a knee jerk reaction on rules that are tougher than they need to be.

I was a long time NRA member up to the point when the NRA came out against any regulations around the so called 'cop killer rounds". The expanded magazines, the ability to own a .50 calibre weapon -- at some point, the whole thing goes too far and there are consequences.

 

[Corey]

What a great video that was posted earlier.
That pretty much sums it up.

My permit should be showing up any day now in the mail :victory:

 

[kmacafee]

Not exactly

"The Bill of Rights was clearly intended by the authors to be a statement of rights that are a birthright to all humans." White males certainly. But it did not apply to non-whites, native Americans or in some cases women, at the time it was drafted.

 

[Wyowanderer]

The danger is not that a lunatic with a gun kills a few people.

The danger is that a lunatic with an army kills masses of unarmed people.

I'll take my chances with the former to insure against the latter.

6 million Jews taught me that.

Well said.

 

[Mr. Leary]

Gun rights advocates, including myself, fear that states like Arizona, ignore the fact that a majority of Americans favor some kind of reasonable regulation around gun ownership. Incidents like what happened last week are happening more frequently and if it continues, there may be a knee jerk reaction on rules that are tougher than they need to be.

That is what I fear as well, because the gun abolitionists always target the weapons instead of the folks who commit the crimes.

I was a long time NRA member up to the point when the NRA came out against any regulations around the so called 'cop killer rounds". The expanded magazines, the ability to own a .50 calibre weapon -- at some point, the whole thing goes too far and there are consequences.

There should be no reason why a person cannot obtain a permit to lawfully possess these... its not exactly something that (a) you want everyone on the street wo be walking around with and (b) you want to be made illegal to own. By requiring registration and training, we will have more protection against our weapons being taken away.

I am a lifetime member of the NRA. They will never get another dime from me until they become active, instead of reactive. They are a stick in the mud. At this point I see them as just another lobby... part of the new age corruption that is bringing our country down.

 

[ColoradoBill]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when in this entire thread have we discussed restricting where CCW holders are legally allowed to carry their weapons?

This entire thread has discussed everything from CCWs, to the right to own guns and where to carry legally. I just wanted to show a real world account of someone that was in a situation that could have turned out different if she was allowed to carry.

 

[Klierslc]

Yep. As Scott mentioned, ignorance breeds contempt. The problem is, whenever the topic of dicussion that pushes for additional training requirements, etc. the discussion is always drowned in the same tired rhetoric. One side is trying to discuss further training regimens, the other is preaching about second amendment rights and cold dead hands. The topic becomes unapproachable, and thats probably the biggest issue that ticks me off.



Yep. However, there are some of us who feel the need to further regulate gun ownership despite the lack of ignorance. I'm scared of crazy people with guns. I'm scared of criminals with guns. I want to make it easier for the cops to do their jobs... and BTW, will continue to concealed carry and submit willingly to any additional training mandates. As Tony said, you can never spend too much time training.
.

If you are afraid of crazy people with guns, you have three options:
1. Stay home
2. Live in fear
3. Allow yourself the option for self defense

Some good stuff in this thread so far....on both sides. I only have a couple of points to add.

1. Enforce the laws with extreme measures. Rules without teeth are not rules. This is the fundamental problem. All of these evaluations, training requirments, extra taxes, titles, and other junk is meaningless if we can't enforce the laws we have already. Those who care nothing for following the law with the current laws will care nothing for the additional laws unless they have to pay the piper for their disdain.

2a. Making law abiding citizens take a personality test to ensure that they have the necessary traits to rate firearm ownership......Really? Who decides on the list of traits? I know very little of the Psych eval you guys have mentioned, but it seems like whoever sets the parameters determines who "passes." Does the federal government set the parameters? If not them, then who? If the government sets the parameters then why bother with the test at all--the government is still saying who can and cannot own a gun.

2b. How is it ethical to restrict a person's ability to defend themself based on their personality traits? "All of you type B personalities can defend yourselves with guns, but you type As have to use sticks" Obviosly a gross generalization, but making a determination about what you THINK a person will or will not do in a situation is foolish. For example: I may have a natural propensity for confrontation, but I can make a decision at ANY time to not act on that impulse. On the other hand, I may posses all of the traits required by the government and still make a knucklheaded decision while under stress. You absolutely cannot tell the future and denying someone the ability to defend themselves based on what decision they might make is clearly "infringment."

2c. Criminals who illegaly purchase guns will likely not take the psych eval either. Net effect is that it is harder for a law abiding citizen to excercise his right to self defense. Net effect on criminals=0

3. I applaud your intentions and your demeanor (mr leary and xatik) but your methods do not stand up to logical scrutiny.

Cheers!

Dan

"The Bill of Rights was clearly intended by the authors to be a statement of rights that are a birthright to all humans." White males certainly. But it did not apply to non-whites, native Americans or in some cases women, at the time it was drafted.

Relevance?

 

[Mr. Leary]

We examine people to determine whether they are fit to stand trial for crimes. Why shouldn't we examine people to determine whether they are fit to carry portable weapons with a high degree of killing power?

I agree that all gun laws are meaningless if they have no teeth (and I applaud your choice of words as well), but resent the notion that there isn't a better way because we don't enforce what we have. It just seems like giving up to me, like saying the economy is in the tank, so I'm not going to go out and look for a job.

EDIT: I'm not worried about protecting myself. I'm worried about my loved ones or children who are unable to... the worst feeling is the helpless one. I can't be with them all the time to have the option to fight or die to protect them. Watching someone you love die before their time really sucks. Trust me.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

We examine people to determine whether they are fit to stand trial for crimes. Why shouldn't we examine people to determine whether they are fit to carry portable weapons with a high degree of killing power?

When we examine them to see if they are fit to be tried... they have already been caught..

Try to give someone an exam before they illegally purchase a firearm..

if you can get an exam to them when they buy the firearm illegally, just arrest them all for the illegal transfer.

an exam before you buy a gun will only further restrict law abiding citizens... just like every single other gun law.

the only solution would be to greatly increase the penalties for crimes.

 

[keezer37]

...They have a reasonable idea of how many differing types of people can simply obtain guns. They know all of these people will have differing demeanors. But, of all these things, what they know and believe with certainty is that some people will responsibly own and manage their guns, and some won't. It's the latter group they fear nearly as much as the criminal, and knowing we humans are fallible, I'm not qualified to say that this isn't an unrealistic fear.

Specifically: "and some won't. It's the later group..." And in previous posts others have used words like "most gun owners". So, I ask, is there a satisfactory percentage of safe gun owners society should find acceptable? Should society not expect all gun owners, especially CCW's to be well trained and responsible? I don't think zero tolerance is too much to ask here.

Overall, it sounds like you're not afraid of guns, but afraid of knuckleheads. If I read you right, then it's hard to argue with you on that. I don't like knuckleheaded, irresponsible, lazy people either who aren't willing to get the proper training and put in the practice time. In fact, no matter how much I might go to the range I have never felt like I've had too much practice.

Exactly and in a world full of strangers, how do I tell which ones are the knuckleheads?

Yep. As Scott mentioned, ignorance breeds contempt. The problem is, whenever the topic of dicussion that pushes for additional training requirements, etc. the discussion is always drowned in the same tired rhetoric. One side is trying to discuss further training regimens, the other is preaching about second amendment rights and cold dead hands. The topic becomes unapproachable, and thats probably the biggest issue that ticks me off.

There is no good argument against quality, verifiable training.

But the right to own and carry a firearm is not a birth right. Even this SCOTUS in the Heller case interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that you have a right to have a gun in your home for protection. It very clearly left it up to the states to pass their own gun laws as long as they are reasonable.

Gun possession is moving from the home to the streets. There are many things in the street that can kill us. Hit with a hammer, stabbed with a knife, staple gunned to death, suffocation by some crazed lunatic jamming cupcakes down your throat. Stuff happens. We can't stop it all. Being in your home does add a layer of protection from these things, a significant layer if you can afford it. The distinction here is a layer of protection is being removed by law. I say it is a fallacy that a layer of protection is being added with CCW laws. While this may be true to a point, as more people carry weapons in public does not the added protection to the individual become an increased danger to society as a whole?

If incidents like the Gifford shooting continue and the court turns over, we could easily see states enact reasonable rules around gun ownership. IMHO, Arizona has probably set the stage for more work on those rules.

I believe states may already be acting irresponsible. Just a cursory look at the CCW laws for the states and I noticed that in Florida where training is required, it can be waived by showing a military ID or DD214. I can testify that conservatively 35% of U.S. Navy personnel receive no weapons training. I would guess it would be at least that for the Air Force.

One other item that I heard but cannot substantiate, has anyone heard of states, namely Georgia outlawing the collection of statistics regarding incidents with CCWs?

 

[dwh]

We examine people to determine whether they are fit to stand trial for crimes. Why shouldn't we examine people to determine whether they are fit to carry portable weapons with a high degree of killing power?

Less killing power than an expo truck doing 60mph and ramming into...anything really.

Vehicles kill a hell of a lot more CHILDREN than guns. I can tell you which I would restrict more diligently. And yet, as has been pointed out in this thread - we ALREADY screen drivers.

Doesn't work though does it? CHILDREN STILL DIE.

We're talking about risk. Fine. FIRST deal with the problem that has the highest risk. Guns aren't nearly as serious a problem as idiots behind the wheel.

That's not politically correct though is it? Not popular. No one wants to tackle THAT problem. So let's argue guns, that's always a handy bandwagon to jump on.


"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson