Looks like gun owners dodged a bullet. 5 to 4 decision in favor of DC citizens being able to own guns. Won't know the full details until Scalia gives the written opinion.
People may not like Bush as president, but would we have had the same decision if Gore or Kerry had put their people on the Supreme Court? Thank goodness for Bush.
I'm happy about this decision, but I am sick and tired of most of the Supreme Court decisions over the past few years being sharply divided and polarized - either 5-4 or the occasional 6-3.
What that tells me is that there are people sitting on the high court that are not being intellectually honest - and they are injecting to much politics and personal opinion into their rulings.
The Supreme upheld the individual's right to "bear arms", which, historically and categorically include any weapon for use as a defensive tool. The term, language and the spirit in which it was written is irrelevant to "guns", though firearms can be considered as arms.
Unfortunately, it has not been discovered and ruled that the Second Ammendment, to be upheld, would include the "shall not be infringed" part as well.
Honestly, I'm not certain even the judges who ruled acknowledge that contingency. Fortunately, the Bush Administration's brief did not seem to make any significant impact on the ruling.
Ultimately, the only real 'ruling' that has been presented, is that law abiding citizens of DC can posses firearms/handguns on their private property.
Upholding the individual's right, though primarily significant, will have little impact until the infringement on that right is determined.
Even though, in my opinion, it has been clear these past couple of centuries.
Yes, I adamantly believe any citizen should be able to possess any arm (as in the spirit from whence it was conceived) that government has available. Provided by the clear dialogue which regards the Second Ammendment as a protection of the People against a tyrannical government.
Were this actually upheld in its clarity, this in itself, may give quite the cautionary approach to chemical, biological, nuclear, etc. arms.
Of course, this does present precedent where actions can (suits filed, etc.) be taken to challenge most any attribute of arms infringement.
It is my understanding that the NRA is already gearing up to present such challenges.
I just read one Supreme Court Justice opinion. He said handguns are an accepted weapon due to the fact that you can point and shoot with one hand as you use use other hand to call police on phone. No kidding!! I think it was justice Scalia.
Of course Dianne Feinstein(Frankenstein), stated that America will be much more dangerous because of this ruling. Of course she would say that.
I love this ruling, it was way overdue. This ruling will give the United Nations something more to complain about. 8) 8) 8) :D :D :D 8) 8). :) :)
I'll throw this one in for the anti-gunners :'( :'( :'( :'( may your shallow theories R.I.P
How I read the opinions was basically that the amendment did not say you can't possess a handgun for protection while the other opinion stated that it did not say you can. Probably when it was written the amendment was pretty clear and consise and there was little in the way of open interpretation. With the legal system and crafty word benders we have now it s entire possible that that short phrase could be rearranged, twisted and contorted to say what ever.
On a side note there are only 2 registered firearms dealers in the DC area...can you say, payday?
Owners with unregistered firearms must fill out an application to apply to have a legal firearm registered. ??? ::)
I have a feeling in 5 years we will be hearing a very reluctant report from the media that crime in the DC area is down, like to see the media make a bad thing out of that.
8) 8) 8) When will fully automatics be legal again? ;D
If'n ya need full auto you ain't a very good shot. ;D
8) 8) 8)
Outlawing guns will just cause a lot more people to become gunsmiths. Which will be more dangerous? the way it is now of after people start using ink pens ::)
Imagine if Newley had a milling machine .
Finally.....a bit of common sense out of that cesspool I work near.
Quote from: thedeeredude on June 26, 2008, 04:35:02 PM
8) 8) 8) When will fully automatics be legal again? ;D
They are legal right now, subject to the laws of the state that you reside in. What was changed in 1986 was the further manufacture of full auto's for civilian ownership; the inventory that was in existance prior to then is still lawful to own - again subject to the laws of your state.
As I recall, something like 37 states allow private ownership of full autos, as long as you go through the state and federal approval process.
Quote from: Cedarman on June 26, 2008, 11:48:06 AM
Looks like gun owners dodged a bullet. 5 to 4 decision in favor of DC citizens being able to own guns. Won't know the full details until Scalia gives the written opinion.
People may not like Bush as president, but would we have had the same decision if Gore or Kerry had put their people on the Supreme Court? Thank goodness for Bush.
Kind of makes you think about the upcoming presidential election and what's at stake. One vote kept the second amendment. And he often votes with the four liberal judges.
Quote from: Lanier_Lurker on June 26, 2008, 12:08:07 PM
I'm happy about this decision, but I am sick and tired of most of the Supreme Court decisions over the past few years being sharply divided and polarized - either 5-4 or the occasional 6-3.
What that tells me is that there are people sitting on the high court that are not being intellectually honest - and they are injecting to much politics and personal opinion into their rulings.
My thoughts exactly. The Black Robes are overstepping their bounds.
Mark
This brings to mind a post I saw on a Grants Pass, Oregon, forum, this week, where a question was posed to the Sheriff about why it took like an hour for them to respond to a potential shooting location.
Regardless of the reason, that post reminded me of something I read about police being "historians" and that something like 5 minutes is the average time for police to respond to an emergency where someone is in grave danger.
And considering that a good knife fighter can get someone in about 5 seconds from 100 feet away, I think that this issue about gun ownership is a bit rediculous at times.
I am pleased with the decision 8)
Now to extend that to national parks and we will be all set.
I think all the people involved with the Bill of Rights were laugh if they were told they couldn't carry a knife over 3", a handgun, or had to register a firearm for any reason.
It's a good day in America . Now if we can get rid of the infrigment of gun /arms ownership law in the state of Illinois. The one they call a FOID( firearms owner i d )card . That goofy law claims an air gun is a fire arm if it is of 22 cal. or more and/or has a muzzel volocity of 700 fps. It has to be renewed every five years ,and the citizens have to pay to exercise their second amendment rights.
It sounds like y'all need to change elected officials, Don. :)
We need to somehow sink Chicago and all the leftwing liberals in the lake . They have so much power now that they are fighting amongst themselvs and the state congress can't get anything done. Yes we need a change
Quote from: Bibbyman on June 26, 2008, 05:51:36 PMKind of makes you think about the upcoming presidential election and what's at stake. One vote kept the second amendment. And he often votes with the four liberal judges.
That is what I thought, Bibby. I believe what the Founding Fathers meant in their documents is pretty cut n' dried (especially when you read all of their letters). It is so sad to see what we have done and are doing to this country.
Thinking of the original intent...
Back in that time a militia was a group of volunteers who could
be called upon to defend a community. The group came to that
call with their own weapons, food, and transportation, such as it
was. In light of this setting, the wording is absolutely clear. To say
it simply, a militia could not function without arms and its arms were
owned by the voluteers, rather than being provided by big government.
Since it is useful to refer to the original documents, here are the
words of those very wise men:
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Have you ever noticed that those who debate the Constitution seldom quote it and
seldom provide it for you to consider as any discussion of it proceeds?
the sad thing IMO is that the issue was even up before the supreme court. if the world was right to begin with the issue would have been quelled 27 or 32 years ago when they banned the guns in DC.
There are also two grammatical constructions of the amendment. The original, and a "corrected" one that is used when a different meaning is needed to promote controversy. Why a "corrected" version? Because some folks think that the founders didn't know enough Engish to write what they intended.
A comma here and there can sure change the meaning of a sentence. So, the arguement is, was the amendment corrected or changed?
Thank goodness that the Supreme Court's purpose is to interpret the constitution, not correct it. Some of members might not understand that. :)
I do solemnly swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America...
I wish our elected and appointed official would take that as seriously as I do...
I'm pleased with the decision, but I do not believe it goes far enough...Shall not be infringed..there needs to be some definition,
ie..mortar rounds, nuclear devices..whatever..but for a law abiding citizen to have to register a weapon..nahh..I'll invite your attention to Poland in the late 1930's...
It's a good thing that Justice Scalia does not suffer from dyslexia..I don't think a bear would know what to make of a Glock. lol
Quote from: zopi on June 27, 2008, 09:42:24 AMIt's a good thing that Justice Scalia does not suffer from dyslexia..I don't think a bear would know what to make of a Glock. lol
HAH!! Now that's funny. :D :D
Congratulations on the ruling re: your 2nd amendment, you guys up there deffinately have it good.
I can recall the good old days in my state down under, you reached 18yrs went to the police paid $9 and got a paper lic, name age and address, no dramas......... :)Now days its nearly to much hassle to hold a firearms licence, if I didn't have the farm and need them for my job I wouldn't bother, I am going through the renewal process now, (every 5 years). I have to fill out the application form accompanied with 2 page forms for every "reason to obtain" my reasons are "Animal Welfare Govt Agency" "Pest Animal Govt Agency", Primary Producer", Recreational Hunter" plus i have a "D" classification for semi autos for work this is more forms. To buy a FA you need to pay $30 and send off a permit to aquire wait 6 to 10 weeks for permission, now if you want a hand gun thats a whole different thing altogether.
In the past at work us Rangers have carried our own personal firearms, this way we can pull up to a livestock vehice accident, autopsies, cattle sale, or pest animal job confident the rifle is still accurate and hasn't been tampered with etc. Now the department has a MOU with the firearms registry stating there is to be 1 Lic holder authorised to issue and service firearms and that no personal weapons are to be used. I will be the Lic holder which has mean't a stack more forms most identical to the ones for my personal Lic, the other guys will still need personal Lic's.
As the department has to purchase firearms the cost will be substantial, we will probably need unscoped .22cal, 12 gauge and Scopped .223, .308, the scoped rifles won't be shared and we will all need one of each. All our firearms need to be registered and there is strict carrying rules....The carriage I have no probs with.
Our lic system is incredible when I was a Prison Officer involved in transport and response we were trained in .40cal Glocks, .38rev .223semi auto, pump action 12 gauges, .40 cal semi auto cabines, the training was excellent and thorough, for my unit the glock alone was 1500rounds with all but 2shots scored and we were cleared through interpol, what I'm getting at is in order to shoot or own a firearm outside of work we still had to hold the personal Lic. ??? No way does the mandatory approx 2hr Gun safety Awareness questionair involving no actual firearms come close to our training, military and some police would be the same.
My appologies for rambling, unfortunaley I am a real stickler for the law and rarely bend rules so the chance to have a whinge is the extent of my stance.
Not attempting to turn this into a "religious" discussion, but of course when you discuss "original intent", one thing that stands out even amongst the agnostic/athiest/non-fundamental and even the federalist of the founders, was that nearly to a man, they acklowedged that right came from God not the US Constitution. Of course this is part and parcel of where and how the waters have been effectively muddied over the years.
When the court inpterprets the limitations of the central government,m as clearly defined by the Bill of Rights, as not coming from God but from the central government itslef, then that makes the central government become the giver of the law, and able and willing to erode those rights.
The US Constituiton was not written by our founders to delineate rights of the citizens of the several states. It was written to establish "type" of government they gave us (a republic not a democracy), and to prescribe the duties of that central government and the several states;the mechanical workings.
The founders said - it ain't enough to protect the God given rights that are inherent to man. Common Sense and The Federalists Papers alone will illuminate the fact that the thnking of the day was that rights came form God himslef, not from ploitical entities.
Of course, it don't work that way now, and never has but we did come closer than any other nation in history. We still enjoy more liberty than any other society I know of. But we must be ever vigilent and always suspicous of government.
I like the ruling on the surface. But I am suspicious. :)
It may be a little early to celebrate, unless you live in DC. I hear that the NRA is suing Illinois and California, based on the DC precedent. If that makes it back to the Supreme Court, they're going to have to choose between gun rights and State's Rights. That difference didn't come into play in this last case, because DC isn't a State, and is under Federal control. There may be worms in this can. :o
We owe one guy a big debt for bringing this case to the Supreme court. Robert Levy is his name and he has never owned a gun and this is the only case he ever litigated. He didn't become a lawyer until his 50's and he financed the case out of his own pocket.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/29/sunday/main4217235.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/29/sunday/main4217235.shtml)
One person can definitely make a difference. Joe
Hidden within all this is that only the right to own a weapon is said to be protected.
The ability to carry said weapon outside of your home can and will be regulated.
Total registration of all firearms is probably not that far away. The argument will be that the right to own a gun has been upheld and the door left open for states to regulate that right as they regulate all others.
A small victory for the gun rights crowd at the moment. The jury is still out on the reg part.
OWW, I disagree on the 'having to keep your guns at your house' line. The entire idea of a "Militia" is that they are armed and are able to gather with their armament. It does not make much sense if they all get together to defend neighborhood, State, or Nation, but they have to leave their guns at home. They would be left to yell at the enemy/Bad Guy. I am reminded of a line from Monty Python & The Holy Grail: "I fart in your general direction!" That'd be about all they were good for, no? But maybe that is the whole point...?
We, the People, are the Militia.
If I find myself in a situation that requires I am armed, I do not want to have to tell everyone, "Hey, could you hang on jus' a second? I need to run home and grab the appropriate equipment for this situation. Thanks!"
As for registering stuff... hey, I can fill out paperwork with the best of 'em. And trees grow back. Bring it on. :)
I think if we are in the position that we have to malitia up, we are in deep trouble and it ain't gonna matter much who is carrying what or where.
Unless you have the little pink slip that says you can carry or a transport permit, I have to agree with OWW, there is no reason people should be running around with guns just because.
Quotethere is no reason people should be running around with guns just because.
In this case, get ALL the bad guys that HAVE guns, to abide by the same rules.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
There are a lot of Freedoms to be enjoyed in this country, both big and small. You wouldn't miss them until they are gone. There is a lot more action in the Taking Away than the Giving of Freedoms. One should not treat even the smallest of them lightly.
This would be a sad place if we had to live our lives based on what a third party had determined we needed and took away our ability to have what we want.
post 30 and 31 says everything that needs to said about this.IMO
It's not only the right to bear arms as a militia that is important in this day and age. It's the knowledge that behind any door there could be a well armed person prepared to defend his life and property.
It reminds me of the warning poster I once saw that had a picture of a huge revolver with you looking at the business end and a caption that said "It's not my dog you need to worry about." ;D
What is the first thing you think when you see someone carrying a gun-law abiding citizen exercising their rights or hmmm, what are they up to. See where this is going. If there are not some laws in place to dictate to those that have no common sense we would be living in the wild west again. I have my conceal carry permit that let's me do two things, buy a gun when I want and two carry if I want, there are some people out there, that I know I don't want with the same priviledge that aren't deemed "criminals". Where does it start and stop and where does common sense come into play?
In my great state, i'm not allowed to get a concealed carry permit. That doesn't stop the lowlifes in Baltimore from doing it.
flip, with all due respect, you said it all with where does it start or stop at. i do not aggree that we as a nation need anyone at all telling us (the ones with common sense) that we need to jump thru this hoop or that hoop in order to carry a firearm of any type. when i buy a gun i already answer the questions that are relevant that lets me own a gun, some questions imo are ignorant others may be more useful in determining the capacity of someone owning a gun.
as far as criminals not being able to own a firearm, a person needs to investigate the definition of a felon these days before you go to casting stones.
i believe many people who are indeed felons should not be allowed that right among many others, but in this day and time many people are labeled as felons because they are deadbeat dads. some of the charges of the day do not fit the crime yet if you are so labeled it is just too bad.
but i know one thing for certain, i am very outspoken when it comes to me owning firearms and obtaining them. i do not wish to have this thread sent to the woodshed so i am going to hush up.
I just want to get this straight. You are OK with anyone owning a fire arm and carrying it at all times ???
I said criminals-not felons, a criminal is convicted, felony is a charge.
The laws are made because of lack of common sense, that is why we have to fill out papers and get premits.
I have to agree with you, I think a person should be able to own and posess a fire arm within the laws of the state and country. I hate to see the day when or if they pass mandatory registration laws, it is none of their business what is in my arsenal collection. They already know what I have when I buy from a dealer, so why the need to know about my other stuff. I strongly believe in gun owners rights and privacy, but I also believe that there need to be some measures or laws in place that keep any yahoo from going in and buying a gun. What your state finds necessary may not be what mine does, I can't do much about that, that is what elections are for.
i guess i misinterpreted your initial post , for that i am sorry. here in okla. we have alot of questions on the form that we have to fill out in order to buy a gun. that is besides the waiting period of 7 days in which i think they are supposed to do a background check. who knows what they do.
i feel if a person needs a gun they need it now not in seven days. if you answer 1 question wrong it is a no-sale on that gun.
i also happen to believe an armed society is a tame society. if everyone has a gun and knows how to use it chances are johnny criminal is not going to prey on anyone. and if he does justice is swift and certain.
i am not saying i am a mastermind at all this stuff either it is just my opinion.
after all i also think you should put all gang members in a football stadium and issue hand grenades to them. darwinism just may work then.
but seriously i do not think anyone should be allowed to have a firearm, i am just saying we here in okla. already have laws that determine if you are fit to own a gun.
i will go as far as saying if you are quailifed to own one you should be required to be within arms reach of it at all times.
I deleted a post that I couldn't make sound right.
Well, some folks had already read the post and asked me why I'd deleted it and if I would consider reposting it. I guess a couple of people would like to take a stab at answering the question I posed. So here it is:
Quote from: flip on July 01, 2008, 02:04:02 PM...there is no reason people should be running around with guns just because.
Why not?
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" - Thomas Jefferson
I believe the rabid anti-gun folks, at heart, want a public that is timid and a public that they ultimately control. I believe they want to control what is said, thought, and done... all without fear of being shot.
As the Constitution of this country is written, we all have the right to bear arms. No matter if we think someone is 'different', or 'scary', or 'just doesn't agree with our way of thinking', they still have the same basic rights we do. I will grant you that criminals should not be allowed to carry guns but you know what? They are already carrying way more than most of the rest of the populace. So why don't we focus all this energy on getting the guns out of the hands of the criminals, instead of wasting it on policing law abiding citizens?
I used to think Australia sounded pretty good till I heard they killed Crocodile Dundee for not giving up his guns. I think if I lived there I would be trying to organize a group of farmers to go to the capital with their pitch forks.
Yes, and they should transport themselves to Canberra on their tractors!! 8)
QuoteSo why don't we focus all this energy on getting the guns out of the hands of the criminals, instead of wasting it on policing law abiding citizens?
That is the difference between laws and lawlesness. What if there were no laws regulating guns? If someone robbed a store while armed? Can't prosecute them for the gun crime because they have the
right to carry a gun while stealing ??? If we had no laws we would have no criminals.
I know what you are getting at but it is not 1850, we are not in the wild west. Take a look at some of the African and mid east areas where everyone is carrying around an AK 47 from kids to old men and women. Think you would like to live there or in that environment where you feel you have to gun to survive?
Moderation is the key with everything.
We need to respect the second amendment but not get carried away with the literal writing of it. This is where common sense and a law based civilized county are made.
Quote from: flip on July 02, 2008, 07:22:41 AM
Think you would like to live there or in that environment where you feel you have to gun to survive?
Flip - what about Washington DC - the "Murder capitol of the world"? (the stats vary per year - some years they're in the top 5 or so instead of being number 1). Seems to me that folks there might feel that they would need a gun in order to survive, and I don't blame them.
Almost twenty years ago I was in Texas when the tragedy at Luby's occurred. I can totally relate to the comments by Susan Gratia Hupp, who saw her parents murdered in front of her eyes while Texas State Law prevented her from being in a position to prevent it. A firearm is a tool - nothing more and nothing less, and just as it does no good to have a flat tire on a stretch of vacant highway - with your spare locked up at home in the garage; if there is ever a situation when you needed a firearm if it's locked up in your car or wherever you cannot use it to protect your life or the lives of your loved ones.
We should not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens of the US to obtain, possess, and carry firearms in order to protect their lives and property, or to band together to protect themselves from a government run awry. Our country was founded upon those principles, and citizen ownership of firearms is one way that we have of guaranteeing that the citizens can always protect their own self interests. We were also founded under the principle that individuals had the right to throw off a tyrannical government, by violent and deadly means if necessary. When law abiding citizens are disarmed, they lose their ultimate ability to back up words (or votes) with actions, and this is a recipe for the downfall of a nation.
Re extensive firearms ownership, I would draw your attention to Switzerland, where EVERY household has weapons and ammunition in it (because of the citizen militia). And we're talking full bore military assault weapons too - not a hunting rifles.
The Supreme Court ruling did not do away with reasonable regulation of firearms - it ruled against unreasonable governmental bans on ownership of firearms. Personally I am ok with the "shall issue" concealed carry permits - it provides a good system that combines proof of firearms proficiency and an understanding of applicable laws (ie responsible gun ownership), with a vehicle to prevent governments from unreasonably preventing firearms ownership. If someone can pass the test, and does not have a history of violent crime or mental illness, I fully support their right to own and possess firearms.
Having a firearm with you - and being proficient in its use - provides you with an "option" should you ever find yourself in a situation where your life is threatened. It's up to the individual to determine if that's the best option to use (and if they even want that option available), but at the end of the argument this fundamental right of being able to defend oneself should be the individuals choice - not the governments.
Wow. I will never understand how anyone can believe guns have the power to make someone go nuts.
No offense flip, but the examples you cite are indefensible. Calm down and ask yourself why America hasn't fallen into the same pattern as the other societies you cite? It surely hasn't been gun regualtion laws that has saved us. It is our culture. It is simply different. Sure we have had lawslessness. Always will. We are born criminals if you will.
But those societies you mention have been efficiently exterminating each other since recorded time. Guns make it a little more efficient, but not much really. Tribes have and always will kill each other because that is their culture. Arabs have and always will fight and hate each other because that is their culture. They are taught from child birth who to hate. If they were not given an AK-47 with which to exterminate the infidels they would be given a sword, a club, whatever. Theyt are going to kill with something.
The "laws" in this country apply to the government as much as to the people. We the people have been in a struggle to hold the government to the laws it is bound by since the BOR was written. This notion that crime will somehow decrease once private ownership of guns are banned is so fallacious I am suprised anyone ever brings it up.
Do the proponents of this illegal scheme (to basically nulllify the 2nd Amendment) truly believe that criminals will abide by the laws? Do they truly believe that guns will become impossible, even difficult to get?
I know it is popular for even some of my fellow gun-toters to lament "Oh, they will get our guns eventually", but I am not so sure. I think there exists, and always will exist in this country a core group of Americans who understand that the most important Amendment in the BOR is the second one (which used to be the first!) and they will never so much as register a gun or apply for a CC permit.
Some of us believe we already have a CC permit. I have had one since birth, have had many occassions where I had to ignore a road-rager, and had a 45ACP within arms reach. I have never thought about using it once in a situation like that, but this particular example is cited all the time by gun-haters.
The guy that was recently killed in jail didn't need a gun to kill a cop either. He ran over him. Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens is one of the most illogical solutions to fight crime the liberals have ever advanced. In fact, it is proven to increase crime.
We cannot know the tone of the "speaker" on these forums. Mine is very calm. Like a buddhist monk . . . . aummmmmmm. JKust a friendly reminder that let's keep it civil - these gun threads have a way of taking on a sudden woodshed mentality. In fact, discussing gun laws often provokes far more ill will than does carrying them around. ;D
Edit: Scott you posted while I cogitated (got that word from you DanG) so of course my "wow" was not aimed at you. Heck we are in the same Brigade anyway. ;)
I'm not refering to what you have in your home or how you use it. I'm talking about everyone toting in public. If you want to carry, most states have channels to go throught to permit conc. carry. The ones that don't should. I think every city should have a public gun range but too many lawyers and anti gunners would prevent that (not to mention the EPA ::) ). I hope the NRA sues the heck out of the cities and states that have hobbled private ownership. I don't believe everyone should be allowed to carry in public, this is my contenetion. In Indiana, as long as you are not a convicted felon and at least 18 you can apply for a personal protection permit (conceal carry) and be issued a license. Now you can get a lifetime, all you do is finger print, and send in a noterized form with $35 and in 3 months you get a permit. Every state should have this same program, it is up to the state to filter who is elegible. As long as you are a good boy or girl it should be a non issue issue. I just don't want the law to say, since gun ownership in the home is legal (which we already know it should be) you can also carry where and when you want. What you do in your home is your business, when you bring it (gun) out in public it is another.
flip you would probably be shocked to know how many people are "carrying guns around in public", without permits, and they go to their graves without having ever "pulled it out".
I see where you're coming from, but it's the old unfortunate slippery slope syndrome. The regulations simply do not, have not, and will not ever apply to criminals. They are simply not going to abide by them. There is an unfortunate minority of crazies that do get their hands on guns, but even screening will not ever prevent them from their goals with, or without a gun. It might prevent a law abiding citizen from protecting his or her self or family though while waiting for approval, and as I am sure you know, that has already happened more than once.
Soooo since the criminals do not respect the rule of law, we should not either because they don't?
This discussion is not raising my dander either, I think we could have a good discussion if we were face to face. Computer kinda let's the reader choose the amount of or lack of emotion in the reading :)
Just for discussion sake, say all bans on all guns and owner ship are lifted on some crazy supreme court decision. How do you see post desision? Will the crime rate go up or down? More "accidental" shootings? More vigilantism (sp)? More black market?
I am playing devi's advocate here, not trying to start a mele, just provoke some thought about what ifs and then whats. :)
Give an example of a ban on ownership please.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 sets the standards for gun ownership. The paperwork you fill out when you purchase a gun comes from this law. The law on who can own a gun is not in question.
Quote from: flip on July 02, 2008, 07:22:41 AMI know what you are getting at but it is not 1850, we are not in the wild west. Take a look at some of the African and mid east areas where everyone is carrying around an AK 47 from kids to old men and women. Think you would like to live there or in that environment where you feel you have to gun to survive?
I know what the current date is and, living in the true Last Frontier of this country, I am well aware that this is not the Wild West. ;) I like living where I am and I bleed red, white, and blue. Africa is a completely different set of rules and circumstances; however, if I did live there, I certainly would not carry an AK 47. AK's are fun to shoot but IMO, they suck for protection. In that country, I would likely carry 2 guns: For medium to long range protection, a .308 semi-auto with a decent scope so I could use it for sniping, and for close up protection, a Springfield Armory .45 XD (the full size version, no need for concealment there).
Thanks for asking. :)
QuoteGive an example of a ban on ownership please.
Certain states you are not permitted to own/possess a class 2 or class 3 weapon, destructive device or silencer. My state, you can but you have to jump through a few hoops and pay for a stamp and allow the ATF to inspect the site the class 2 or 3 weapon/device is kept at their convenience. The ATF can choose to allow the ownership based on how you fill the form out.
Guys, this is a state issue, not federal any more. The supreme court said DC couldn't deny private ownership, they may as well said NO city, district or state. But they also said as long as it is a legal fire arm and the person is elegible to own one, obviously a criminal is NOT elegible, nor should they be. If the laws stink in your state, I feel for you. Right now I don't feel like my 2nd amendment rights have been or are compromised in the state I live. BUT I also feel like there have to be some controls to the system and not on the federal level.
The class 2 or 3 weapons are covered in the GCA. (States can't block them). Anyone eligible to own a gun can apply for a license for class 2 or 3 weapons (doesn't mean it will be granted). As a former FFL holder, I can say all forms of ownership, use, etc.. are covered by this act.
Quote from: flip on July 02, 2008, 11:05:45 AM
The ATF can choose to allow the ownership based on how you fill the form out.
Based on how you fill the form out, determines what type of background check and the depth of the check you go through.
Quote from: flip on July 02, 2008, 11:05:45 AM
Guys, this is a state issue, not federal any more. The supreme court said DC couldn't deny private ownership, they may as well said NO city, district or state. But they also said as long as it is a legal fire arm and the person is elegible to own one, obviously a criminal is NOT elegible, nor should they be.
This is not a state issue. The Supreme Court uphelp the individual's right to bear arms. DC was limiting that right by not allowing handguns. And, they (the Supreme Court) did basically say NO city, state, or district can deny ownership of firearms.
Again, the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 covers all forms and fashion of gun ownership while not infringing on the induvidual right to own one. States are free to add to that, as long as they don't take anything away from it, which DC did.
Please don't mistake my tone as angered. I am calm as I type this out, just wanted to point out some of the facts.
Quote from: Radar67 on July 02, 2008, 12:16:23 PM
The class 2 or 3 weapons are covered in the GCA. (States can't block them). Anyone eligible to own a gun can apply for a license for class 2 or 3 weapons (doesn't mean it will be granted). As a former FFL holder, I can say all forms of ownership, use, etc.. are covered by this act.
Quote from: flip on July 02, 2008, 11:05:45 AM
The ATF can choose to allow the ownership based on how you fill the form out.
Based on how you fill the form out, determines what type of background check and the depth of the check you go through.
Actually, depending on the answers given to specific questions on form 4473, determines whether the Federal Firearms Licensee is allowed to transfer the firearm, without the FBI background check. (just being more specific) ;)
Right before Christmas, I had ATF throughout my orifices for a week. Being in compliance considered a great many more details than in the past.
Though I am generally considered to keep well above average compliance, and my volumes of transactions are always easy and effective to follow, I did get one, genuine, permanent record, certified disciplinary action.
Anytime any one entity purchases (or otherwise transfers) more than one handgun in any 5 day (working days) period, it is required to fill out and submit the "Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers" form 3310 to ATF and local law enforcement jurisdiction. Well, a holiday and a weekend coming together at one period, and I misfigured the 'five business day' on one of my multiple handgun sales.
There were a couple of the 4473's on which it had been found a PO Box address given that had gotten by me. I was able to 'dodge the bullet' on those by tracking down the transferees and getting them to come in with proof of physical address. Of course, that wasn't too difficult, as their alternative to that option was ATF coming to find them. :D
In the past, very little scrutiny was given to the repair shop. This time, every old junk firearm/parts I had ever gathered had to be recorded. I spent many long hours going through old parts piles. Some of which had not even been touched for many years.
Now, of course, the GCA of '68 has been ammended by the Brady Act, and later the Lautenberg Act. Which have ultimately added more restrictions.
The more recent concerns have brought significantly more administrative restrictions and regulations. Changes in mental health determination has brought yet another ammended 4473 form.
For several months now, it has been a federal felony for a Federal Firearms Licensee not to provide a locking device for any transferred handgun.
And the list goes on.
I'm not sure yet what has changed today. ::)
Thanks for the clarification tcsmpsi. I dropped my FFL back in 91 before all this new stuff came about. Didn't part of Brady expire? I know the computer background checks started with Brady and was one of the parts that continued, and I think the background checks were a good addition.
I'm glad we can agree to disagree and be civil. I feel like this would be a better 'round the poker table discussion than through a computer. I think we agree on most of the same things maybe even all but I think, between my incomple and chopped up thoughts, I may be leading this in the wrong direction. So as it is, I am happy that those that were denied the right to own a gun now can. I also think that the justices left some wiggle room on certain points that need further clarification to shore up the ruling so we are not revisiting this in another 35 years.
Quote from: Radar67 on July 02, 2008, 01:42:09 PM
Thanks for the clarification tcsmpsi. I dropped my FFL back in 91 before all this new stuff came about. Didn't part of Brady expire? I know the computer background checks started with Brady and was one of the parts that continued, and I think the background checks were a good addition.
There are still some lingering attributes of the Brady Act, dismissive of the 'over 10 rnd. magazines' etc.. Some of the firearms are still prohibited, changes in the 4473 questioning and a lot of dealer hulabaloo.
When the Brady Act passed, one of its mandates is that there would be a National Instant Background Check within 5 yrs. of its passing, and would sunset (come to an end) in 10 yrs (unless reinstated). Of course the FBI implements the NICS (National Instant Check System). Actually, it is a pretty amazing networking accomplishment. Unfortunately, they still don't have it able to work with Win. Vista, so I've had to go back to the phone for the time being. Actually, it is quicker to do the checks by phone.
The 4473 is a 3 page white form now. (paperwork reduction act, you know) ;D
The Lautenberg Act is what made it a federal felony (up to 10 yrs in the federal pen and/or a fine up to $250,000) for anyone who has ever been convicted of any domestic violence misdemeanor to own, transfer, transport or possess a firearm and/or ammunition. (felony punishment for an otherwise misdemeanor crime)
Quote from: Radar67 on July 02, 2008, 12:16:23 PM
The class 2 or 3 weapons are covered in the GCA. (States can't block them). Anyone eligible to own a gun can apply for a license for class 2 or 3 weapons (doesn't mean it will be granted). As a former FFL holder, I can say all forms of ownership, use, etc.. are covered by this act.
Stew, I think that I'm not understanding your answer on this, as I recall 13 states prevent private ownership of title 2 firearms.
Usually the class 3 rules come into effect "if" your state allows private possession. If it doesn't, then ATF will not approve the application.
Now, you can still have a Class 2 or 3 dealers license in those states, just not be a civilian in possession of title 2 arms.
Scott
You are correct Scott, there are 17 states that don't allow private ownership of Class 2 or 3 weapons. I'm not sure of each states rules though.
Those rules do not violate the second amendment, the people are not prevented from owning guns, just the restricted guns. (Machine guns are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1938)
Even in those states, a person could be a dealer or manufacturer, as you stated. It has been a while since I have been involved in all this, but Class 2 and 3 dealers can still transfer the weapons to each other for the $200 tax/fee (is that still the right amount?) Or has this changed drastically since the early 90s? I do know anything manufactured after sometime in 1986 has special rules for transfer or sale, only the earlier weapons can still be owned by qualified individuals.
Somebody correct me if I'm way off base.
Quote from: flip on July 02, 2008, 09:27:27 AM
Soooo since the criminals do not respect the rule of law, we should not either because they don't?
I'm saying we should hold government accountable as much as we hold ourselves and criminals. I am one of those strict constitutionalists. I am for no bans at all
for those of us with clean records. I do believe crime tends to be lower in a community/region/state where there is unrestricted gun ownership in the hands of law abiding citizens.
I have no problem with instant baqckground checks but I don't view that as a a ban.
Joe Horn here in Texas may have benefited by the SC ruling, he shot and killed two burglars that had just robbed his neighbors house, and he shot them down in escape mode. Grand Jury no billed, using new Texas Castle doctrine as a base, but it was a very narrow view of the right to keep and bear, and the castle doctrine.
I'm just tickled to death for the people in D.C., the people of Florida, and any others who have been the recipients of recent easing of gun laws. I view it as a great step forward in the restoration of our personal rights. HOWEVER, I have seen the scary side of this movement, too. There is a certain element hereabouts who see these new rulings as a license to kill. They are mostly alcoholics who wouldn't hurt a flea when they're sober, but get all these wild ideas when they're about half schnockered. I know one guy who celebrated when the Fla. Supreme Court OK'd the easing of the self defense guidelines in our State. He took it as a RIGHT to shoot anyone who set foot on his property. Of course, his eyes were glassy and he was slurring his words at the time, and he was snoring in his recliner a few minutes later, but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if a jogger had come by at the wrong moment. :o On another occasion, the same guy was riding with me when some guy cut me off in traffic. I tooted the horn in protest, and the other driver flipped me off. I laughed about it, but my passenger pulled out his weapon and said, "Aren't you going to catch him?" I turned around and took the drunken bastard back home, and he didn't speak to me for a month. :'( :'( ;D :D
Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm fervently in favor of easing the gun laws in all parts of this Country, but we must also insist upon a higher standard of behavior for those who avail themselves of "The Right to Bear Arms." Currently, the courses that qualify people to carry concealed weapons mostly concentrate on proficiency and safe handling rules. I think they should emphasize responsibility and the legal ramifications for the lack thereof.
DanG, the NC CC class that I took primarily focused on the legal issues, and the message that it left you with was don't shoot unless you have to, and only as a last resort, as you would have to endure extensive legal action afterward. They really did a good job of encouraging responsible behavior.
Stew - the class 3 transfer fee is still $200.00 per transaction, but the tax only applies to transfers to individuals. Dealers can still transfer items between them w/o paying the tax. If I remember correctly the Class 2 or Class 3 license costs are either $500.00 per year or $1000 per year - can't remember which.
Off the top of my head, there are several categories of firearms under the NFA act of 1934. Pre-'86 fully transferable, pre-86 dealer samples, post '86 dealer samples, post 86 firearms (military and LE only), Curios and relics, destructive devices (grenades, mortar rounds, etc, $200.00 each item!), suppressors, and AOW's (any other weapons). Certain factory produced short barrel shotguns fall under the AOW classification, and the fee is $5.00
With out going back through all the post has anyone brought up the other decision made by the court on the death penalty? It seems they went one way on one decision and the other on the next. I think there should be more judges sitting at the bench so there could be a wider margin in the out come of their decisions. One vote either way is too close for me.
Would the drunk with the gun think twice if his life hung in the balance? Maybe, Maybe not. I would hope so though. No death row for years on end either, just get it over with. Harsher punishment should be the deterrent. Prisons seem to be too cushy. Tim
I too understand the seeming dilemma of the Drunk With a Gun Doctrine (hey I just coined . . . . something ). You have the concern of preventive law if you will, to protect the many from the few, and still balance it on the scales of liberty and law.
I think the crazies, drunk or sober, are going to cause harm and desrtuction with or without guns. I also agree guns in those crazy hands are far more dangerous than a Ash Bat or a razor knife. But we as a society struggle to maintain as much liberty for the 98% of law-abiders as we can, while attempting to impose enough reasonable, yet effective regulations so as to give our society the necessary tools, to prevent those crazies from having a field day when they decide to go nuts.
It is not as cut-n-dry as it seems, but we must have a guidepost. A lantern, something to use as a basis by which all those laws are measured and tied to. That is the Constitution. If we don't keep our evolving laws bound by those fundamental precepts in the constitution then we drift further and further away from our lantern and get lost in the night.
The constitution gave us the greatest form of government in history, and the BOR gave the central government and the several states, the clearest prohibitions against tyranny ever set forth by any nation.
The concerns we all have here are quite similiar I think. Flip, you and I are not really all that far apart on our view of Liberty I believe. We just use different routes to get there maybe.
We live in such a great country even today, even though our rights have been eroded more than most of us realize, this decision is growing on me DanG. You and I were the first to print our concerns, but I have read alot of opinions online and this decision may be as good under the surface as it is on it.
This is a great discussion of the ruling here and I am glad to be a part of it. :)
Quote from: TexasTimbers on July 03, 2008, 10:16:38 AM
We live in such a great country even today, even though our rights have been eroded more than most of us realize, this decision is growing on me DanG. You and I were the first to print our concerns, but I have read alot of opinions online and this decision may be as good under the surface as it is on it.
This is a great discussion of the ruling here and I am glad to be a part of it. :)
A great discussion indeed!
TT has raised a point that is very much on my mind as I read this thread. Many folks who scream the loudest about the infringement of personal rights guaranteed by the BOR have veheminantly defended the eroding of those same rights in the name of combating terrorism or the sanctity of marriage or upholding certain religious beliefs over other faiths.
How do you square standing up for one right while systematically denying so many others?
I am not trying to be argumentive. It is a fair question and I would appreciate reasoned answers on how this occurs.
Quote from: OneWithWood on July 03, 2008, 10:52:14 AMHow do you square standing up for one right while systematically denying so many others?
Common sense goes a long way. ;D
But as Voltaire said, it is not so common. :-\
Would you be saying that it is only common sense that if you have a gun in your pocket you get to dictate how everyone else lives? ::)
Quote from: OneWithWood on July 03, 2008, 11:38:18 AM
Would you be saying that it is only common sense that if you have a gun in your pocket you get to dictate how everyone else lives? ::)
Nah. I have had a gun in my pocket or at the ready many times and have never tried to dictate how someone lives.
I think you are referring to issues I really don't want to get into here but would be happy to discuss in PMs. But just to touch on it lightly, gun ownership is not something being "forced" on someone. Anyone has the right not to own a gun.
For me, this all heads back to Ephesians 6:12 - for me, there is simply no way around it. And I know Jeff and many others here don't want me espousing my spiritual beliefs (and I understand why it opens a can of worms) but I can go no further with my answer to your question without explaining my views that way, so I will repsect everyones right not to have to hear them, thus my PM invite. :)
OWW, I can give you my answer without referring to anything. I am upset about the erosion of many of our rights, just as much as I would be if the gun issue were going the other way. I think I made my feelings plain in the thread about the flood victims. There are certain things the Gov't has done since 9/11 that I strongly disagree with, and some that I agree with. Strip searching airline passengers is absurd, and involving Homeland Security in natural disaster has been a disaster itself. I don't however, have a problem with the monitoring of International calls to certain areas, but that is probably because I'm so familiar with the phone system. In reality, anything you say on the phone has a chance to be heard by someone else anyway. The folks at the phone company hear so many things that they don't even care what is said. This paranoia over "privacy" is just silly. Within this Country, wiretaps are extremely rare, and are handled with utmost care. It is much more common for 2 lines to get crossed and things to be heard by someone else just trying to use their phone. In short, don't tell your closest secrets over the phone, and let the Gov't do their job.
One freedom I'd like to see reined in a little bit is "Freedom of the Press." The news needs to be told, but it also needs to be true, and told in a responsible manner. In this day of instant communication, it is all too easy for it to become a competition to get the most sensational story. Don't even get me started on the "Paparazzi!" Those morons are using the Bill of Rights as a shield to justify tromping all over the rights of others. We seem to have lost the premise that your rights stop where mine begin.
I agree with DanG
If
my neighbor or anybody is talking on the phone with a known terrorist/organization I expect and demand that our government is listening in and doing everything in it's power to apprehend and/or deter any aggressive actions against our citizens. As far as gay marriage, I don't agree with it, but, I would'nt have a problem with it. It's none of my business. If it does'nt infringe on my daily freedoms, I don't care. Hell, go marry a dog if you want, just stay out of my business.
It's ironic though, alot of people who want gay marriage rights want to step on our Constitutional right to own a firearm. I'll cite Rosie O'Donnel as one of MANY examples.
As far as religion, pray to whoever you choose, just don't rub my nose in it. If your Muslin, Jewish, Catholic, Buddist or whatever, I say practice away. Keep it out of politics and don't judge me for being a protestant. If you are an religious extremist and try to force your views and opinions on me with threats and violence, refer to 2nd ammendment. Our society has no welcome mat out for those type of people.
People need to mind their own business. Practice your religion, get married to whoever, use your constitutional rights responsibly. We have too many people who try to force their views down other peoples throats. That's not acceptable. That includes Federal Govt. who want force their programs down the throats of those who don't want it. Where is your freedom of choice when you are forced into rip off programs like Social Security, and possibly the proven failure of National healthcare. The government needs to concentrate on National Security, Justice System, balanced budget and strengthening of the dollar. That's it. Stop infringing on our freedom of choice.