Bye bye gun control - Page 6

I'm fully aware of the slippery slope that gun owners fear.

Perhaps better policing of the arms industry and their distribution channels, instead? Vociferous prosecution of dealers who sell 'under the table'?

You may want to drop the sarcastic tone. Quoting Ted Nugent doesn't particularly put your thoughts in a reasonable light, unless of course you're a proponent of having people suck on your machine gun because you disagree with them, at which point it all becomes clear.

It's actually very VERY easy when you compare homicide rates among modern, developed, economically advanced nations with gun bans in place and without.

Ahhh... the "car registration" paper tiger. Has car registration stopped traffic accidents? Has is prevented them from being used as getaway vehicles? Has the simple fact that the car is registered prevented it from being used in a dangerous, unauthorized way?

Oh, wait, no it didn't.

One thing does hold true... stolen cars are good for criminal use... just like stolen guns.

As far as what follows registration, look at the Canadians, who were promised that their registration would not lead to confiscation. In 1996, it led to exactly that with Canadian handguns. Not to be satisfied, they next went after long guns.

In California, they registered SKS rifles. Then they confiscated them.

In Germany, they registered guns. Then they confiscated them.

In Britain and Australia, they registered guns. Then they confiscated them.

Do you think it is so out-of-whack to think that this pattern will hold?

Comparing one country with another is useless, there are too many variables. You have to compare a country with itself (before and after changes in legislation), and even then there are problems when you have existing trends (like in the US where violence is on the downtrend).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control#Statistics

It's not like it was a surprise ... it was a campaign platform. Guess which party got elected.

You'll be happy to know that the Conservative Party of Canada are trying to repeal registration for non-restricted weapons.

How would you respond to posts stating that you get paid when people are killed, and that you are planning to kill your family, et al? I've tried having a real discussion, and it constantly ends in "you want people to die" and such idiocy.

As far as policing distribution channels, I'll return to an earlier post... what goal would be achieved by providing criminal access to guns? When a gun is misused, who do they come after? The gunmakers and law-abiding people. No one can solve this riddle for me. It has been demonstrated time and again that, as in the case of the Beltway Sniper, that not policing the channel is a costly risk. Even with the recent legislation, there exists no blanket immunity in cases of gross negligence re: dealers. I know for a fact of one gun maker who has a black-list of dealers that they will not do business with because of 4473 infractions. In my opinion, we should have very stiff punishments for people that break laws regarding firearms... go after the people causing the problem, not the law-abiding people. I support fully enforcing the law... and abhor fully the lazy and intellectually vacuous argument for complete disarmament of all law-abiding people.

I have personally been to meetings at SHOT Show with gun industry execs and the discussions continually revolve around following the law and instructing their distributors. They are rightfully scared of the ATF. Trust me. Especially with anti-gun bigots chairing the oversight committees. They know that the future of this right is based in NOT having Columbine headlines. You see, gun manufacturers do not sell to gun dealers. They sell to distributors, who then sell to dealers. At all three levels, the actions of said entities are governed by tens of thousands of pages of existing federal law.

I believe we need to target that 1-2% of dealers who are selling guns improperly. The ATF has put a huge boot down regarding paperwork and the penalties for not following the law are very, very stiff. I think there should be a zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers who do not follow the law. And the NRA agrees with that position. The problem comes when anti-gunners use the administrative arm of the ATF as their private police force, which has been done repeatedly, especially during the Clinton years.

Again, we're back to the same old thing. ENFORCE THE LAW before we lunge for more laws. We have serious punishments for bad gun dealers. Use them. We have punishments for felons in possession of guns. Use them. We have tens of thousands of laws on the book right now. Use them... before you crow about taking more freedom from law-abiding people who deserve equitable force in dealing with the criminal element.

But can you not see the trust issue is a problem with people like Allan Rock...


This is the same Allan Rock who told IANSA that he "would like to see a Canada where the only people with small arms are the police and military."

See, when there is never enough gun control to satisfy some people, what are the rest of us to think except that they want complete bans on possession?
This is why "compromise" is not longer in the vocabulary of many of us on the self-defense side of the argument. Every compromise it met with... more calls for bans.

The purpose of car registration isn't to stop traffic accidents, but I have no doubt that keeping track of who owns what vehicle has decreased their use in dangerous, unauthorized ways. Seems like common sense to me.

But you're changing your own question about what follows from registration to something else about the effectiveness of registration. The fact is, registration doesn't lead to confiscation.


So it doesn't lead to concentration camps? Phew.

I don't know if this is a pattern or not - you only provided one cell of the four necessary to evaluate for a pattern. In order to see any pattern, I'd need to see how many other places registered guns and didn't confiscate, how many places didn't register but confiscated anyway, and how many didn't register and didn't confiscate.

Friggin' scientists.

Go for it.


No, I didn't. I stated some support for what follows registration in the cases I cited. Nothing about effectiveness.


Perhaps, in some cases. But it does lead to confiscation in others. Confiscations are ALWAYS preceded by registrations, except in war zones. It follows basic logic that if you are going to take things up, you need a list of where they are, no?


...by law-abiding people, to be sure.

In the past, we have discussed, privately, the circumstances which you faced and I don't disagree with your position that responsible gun ownership is needed.

I suppose I have a hard time with the fact that gun ownership is considered a 'right'. If responsible gun ownership is the goal, I'm of the mind that it should be a privilege offered to those who can demonstrate that responsibility, whether it's by mandatory training, background checks with no 3-day maximum, etc.

I suppose if I had grown up in the US, I might see it differently. As it is, I grew up in England. Hell, the police didn't carry them before our family emigrated. It wasn't until I flew back into Manchester after the Arndale bombing that I saw one in the hands of an officer.

To that end, I, and 55,000 other NRA Instructors in the US like me, have devoted literally millions of hours in NRA First Steps instruction to gun owners new and old. The NRA and the industry work very hard at the point of sale to get people important information. I agree that we need to do even more to get information and education to gun owners. That's why I became an instructor.

The right of self-defense is one that I will support eternally as an inalienable right. I want people who use guns to do it responsibly, or I don't want them to touch them. It's better for everyone, especially those of us who are trying to maintain a means of self-defense. If I felt that a firearms owner ID would not be misused by the government, I might take a look at it. But that will not be until long after a solid individual-rights statement from the SCOTUS, perhaps in Heller v DC.

There should be limits on guns. Pure and simple. But there do not need to be any more limits until we enforce the laws we have already agreed on. Without enforcement, no law will have the desired effect, except on people who are predisposed to obey the law anyway.

Would you be in favour of removing the 3-day limit on background checks?

Jubelum, you've admitted in a past thread that the US would be a safer place if guns had never been legal, but that since there are guns in the US, we need to approach the situation differently that somewhere like say... Germany. By saying so it would not be difficult to conclude that if there are no guns out there (or fewer guns) then there would be less gun violence. In fact, out of simple common sense and observation of gun-controlled nations, it would be a stretch to deny that fact. Your only defense against such a common-sense approach is that the US is "different". I think that's a cop-out extraordinaire.

The question should be, how do we best transit to a situation where there are fewer guns out there? Maybe you and your NRA buddies should be debating that best course of action at your next meeting, if you honestly had the best interests of the nation on your mind.

Well, let me make sure we are talking about the same thing.

The current "3 day limit" is the period of time within which the FBI has to give a "yes" or "no" to a gun transaction in the NICS system. I believe that 3 days is more than enough time for the government to do a background check with the technology available. Removing that window would allow the government to never approve another transaction, effectively ending the NICS system and throwing the whole thing into court. Or it would be like another 1986 ban on machine guns, wherein the Treasury Dept stopped approving new tax stamps, and has not issued one since.

Is that what you were referring to, or were you referring to the previous 3-day waiting period of the original Brady Bill?

The best course of action, that we discuss every single time, is to protect law-abiding people's right to own guns for sport and defense, while encouraging the government to get tough on criminals with guns. Surely you read my post earlier on Project Exile. Enforcing the law and punishing criminals WORKS. Much better than blanket gun bans.

I never said the US would be safer if guns were never legal. I don't think that, and I never said that. What I did say is that if I could uninvent them, make them magically disappear from citizen and felon alike, that I would. And we'd all be better for it. It's a fantasy and the pursuit of the same would get a lot of decent, hard working people like me killed. Sorry, that's just how it is.

I reject your assertion that outright gun bans simplistically lead to less gun crime. Please check out that link I posted earlier. As someone stated earlier, this is WAY too complex an issue for such simplistic solutions. There is some evidence that more guns= less crime. There is also evidence to support your idea that presence of guns means a higher incidence of gun crime.

The question is not how we get fewer guns out there. It is how we get fewer guns out there in the wrong hands. You're tipping your hand there.
My solution is to punish people who are connected with guns in the wrong hands, not the people who need them in their law-abiding lives.

I'm talking about the 3 days after which the dealer can sell the gun without waiting further for the Gov't to give a 'clear'.

What if the window was moved to 10 days ... is that unreasonable?

This would remove your worry that the Gov't would simply stop issuing approvals and would also cater to the law-enforcement concerns about the lack of ready-access to the paperwork associated with some applicants records.

In clicking on links in this thread, I did read that a disproportionate amount of firearms that were handed over upon the expiry of the 3-day waiting period (without a 'yes' or 'no') were given to purchasers who would not have been approved given sufficient time. (Disproportionate, in that it was a lesser percentage of applicants denied within the 3-day window than discovered after the 3-day window had passed.)

I have no problem with 10 days if that suits you. Fine with me. But the government, with all of the technology available, really should need no more than 3 to figure things out. Goodness.

My beef comes when the NICS system becomes a tool to delay, harass, and generally obstruct the lawful transfer of firearms to eligible people. It defeats the entire point of an Instant Check system. It returns us to the day of the old Brady Bill, wherein eligible people who need access to self-defense firearms are prevented from a means of self-defense.

Also bear in mind that there is a system in place whereby a person can appeal a "no" from the NICS system. If there is a reasonable basis for taking 3, 10, however many days, then fine, so be it. I'd rather have a complete check. But if there is no basis, these delays are little more than harassment of an otherwise eligible purchaser. The FBI and NICS should have to produce a valid reason for extended delays. In these days of databases and SSNs, the vast majority of NICS checks are finished within 10-15 minutes.

And also, this fits with my oft-repeated sentiment... if a person is allowed to take possession of the gun, and is later found to be a prohibited person... does it not follow that the government should follow-up with a prohibited person who is now in possession and arrest them? I can find no case where this has been done. A stunning lack of enforcement. Not a law problem... an enforcement problem.

I think it's a bit of both, isn't it?

They are now in possession of their gun because of a law. They're not supposed to be in possession of a gun because of a law.

Frankly, the Gov't screwed itself on that one. I don't see what they could do, other than politely ask for the gun back. Obviously, for the greater good, you'd have to hope that some form of enforcement would take place.

Well, if they are pulled over, and found to be a felon in possession, all the instant checks in the world will not help them. I doubt it would be an affirmative defense to prosecution. I'm not sure that's been tried. Either way, they do not need to be in possession of the gun. (oops, I'm talking against my own "body count" commission here, aren't I...) If the IRS makes a mistake in your favor, it does not mean that you do not owe them the money back.

I'd be hesitant to say that they are in possession of the gun due to the law, rather, due to the inefficiencies in administering the law.

The NICS system was recently improved, with the help of NRA. Most felons know that they are felons with no right to own guns or vote. It's pretty much a given. People who have been disqualified from gun ownership due to mental illness will, because of the recent bill, be much more likely to be found in the NICS system.

Fundamentally this is about the allowing or disallowing an individual person from owning a particular thing. In this case, a gun. There is no reasonable, logical or moral justification for disallowing said ownership. None. Period. Furthermore, not only is this right enumerated in the bill of rights (#2), even if #2 does not allow it at an individual level, certainly #9 ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.") leaves it open anyway.

No one is arguing that the 2nd amendment forbids individuals to own guns; just that it protects from infringement a collective right rather than an individual right (which is the likely soon to be overturned current interpretation of that amendment). The 9th amendment merely says that the rights enumerated in the Constitution are not exhaustive. It allows reading additional rights into the document; not that it necessarily supports your particular reading of additional rights into the document.

Anyway, I suppose reading the briefs submitted on both sides would educate us quite a bit on the legal issues involved.

I never said it did or that anyone said it did. I simply said that even if you could not find an individual right of gun ownership in the 2nd, the surely the 9th would allow it.


Merely?

Yes, that's what it says. So when someone says "you don't have a constitutional right to X" they can only be saying that you don't have a right that happens to have been enumerated. This is vitally important because even if the 2nd can be (quite narrowly and inconsistent with the other rights listed) interpreted to apply only to "the people" (rather than individuals) then one should be able to easily say, well, even though the individual right isn't enumerated, it doesn't mean I don't have it (which is basically what the 9th is saying).

Why would the government even bother to put the 2nd amendment in if it was a collective right (i.e. "we, the government, declare that our militia is allowed to own guns"). It seems very unlikely that is what they meant - and saying that it is what they meant is pretty obviously distorting history.

Militia ≠ military.

There were lots of "militias" back then apparently.

But that's been the interpretation of that amendment for most of the last century.

But they were all under control of the state - it isn't like we had Al'Sadr in Alabama with 1000 men and a bunch of guns. The military (including any militia) is necessarily a purely governmentally controlled group.

I don't think it would have been there if it was a collective right, that is a re-interpretation that gun control advocates have pushed (and so what if they have been successful with that re-interpretation for quite a while).

So then it would not be unconstitutional according to the 9th amendment to ban individual gun sales. Which is exactly what Shawn is saying, that the 9th amendment doesn't give us the right to own a gun.

Surely!





They can say that easily, yes.

Whether it has much force as an argument in a particular case is dubious.


Well, I'm not an early American history expert.

Are you?

*franksargent research opp*


That's a good point.

Constitutional law isn't very concerned with precedent, much.

Wrong. It's far more likely to be unconstitutional to do such a thing, simply because since the 9th says that just because the right isn't listed doesn't mean that people don't have it. In fact it raises the bar significantly for those who claim that you don't have some particular right. You have to come up with some other constitutional basis to deny a given right (and, in this case, there is none). This means that I could (and probably do) have a right to own, sell and buy guns.

Furthermore, a reasonably logical implication of the 9th is that we probably do have more (probably many more) rights, they just didn't take the time to list them all.

Mind you, I don't expect the high court to find this way. But then they are never wrong.

That argument goes both ways.

It doesn't mean they do have it either.

In that sense, the 9th Amendment has nothing to do with the likelihood of upholding or striking down a particular law.


Well, now you're just making things up.

The 9th Amendment isn't even implicated in the vast majority of cases-- including this one.

Give it up.

Not really.



True, but now you have to come up with some actual, logical reason why I don't have X right. (Well, I suppose you don't really have to, that doesn't seem to matter anymore) I can easily claim it under the 9th. It isn't expressly denied. It doesn't infringe on someone else's. What's the logic and reasoning that denies me the right?



So?



Do you expect to win many cases with logic like that? Heck today, sadly, you probably would.

As do you.

"9th Amendment! Checkmate!" isn't a winning argument.

Here's an idea. Since you're so passionate and interested about Second Amendment law, why don't you educate yourself on the merits of both arguments before the court right now. Cases don't get to the Supreme Court because one side is so lopsidedly right. They get there because of compelling arguments on both sides of a tough constitutional issue or to resolve a split in the Circuit Courts. Read the oral arguments of the case before the court, and get back to us so you can educate us all.

But Shawn, the anti-gun people are just wrong. Why are they even bothering to argue about it?

My best friend from high school worked on the case... pro-bono of course for DC, also of course...


If all goes according to plan, she will be clerking for Breyer next year...

Just to tear this away for a moment from irrelevant things like "facts" and "laws" and "what the stupid country's owner's manual says," I want to take a second to point out that now we need to arm chefs: Paul Prudhomme, in a page directly out of Vonnegut's novel Deadeye Dick, got hit in the arm by a falling bullet.

Jubelum

Tell me this isn't you:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/fam...818470116.html

But then if it is

You dredged up a 9 month old thread, so that you could post an off topic article in it?

I think everyone with over 5000 posts should be required by forum rules to once a month dig up the oldest thread they can find and comment on it as if nothing had happened.

Seriously, WTF?

**poof**