Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
6/21/2017 8:25:40 PM
Posted: 5/16/2001 7:33:27 PM EDT
There has been some flack at Bush's anti-crime legislation in the Discussion boards and how now Bush is anti-gun, a traitor, those lying republicans, blah blah blah. I thought I'd bring it here in the Legal Section. First, before you think wrong of me, I am definitely against any licensing or registration of firearms or banning of any type of firearm. But why all the huff and puff when someone says let's make a requirement that manufacturers include some type of trigger lock with the firearm. "Hey man!! Making firearm manufacturers put safety locks with firearms is against our 2nd amendment rights!!", some overzealous supporter screams. Or something like, "Making me go through a background check makes me look like criminal!!" Let me at my best try to rationally explain why these arguments are so stupid. As far as the trigger locks, most manufacturers include them these days anyways. They are inexpensive. If you can afford a $500 firearm, you can afford the extra $3 the manufacturer may of added to the price. No one says that you have to use these trigger locks, so toss them or use them to lock up your toolbox or something. And as far as beefing up background checks. If you are truly a law-abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about. Everytime you apply for a job, join the military, apply for credit, or work at any high security place requires you to go through a background check. These background checks take few days. So tell me why no one is offended when some human resources lady at a place you applied for a job at does a background check on you before she hires you, but buying a dangerous instrument like a firearm should not need a background check?? If your life is in that much danger on a daily basis that you can't wait a couple of days to pick up your first firearm at the FFL, then you may want to call the police and have them protect you until you get your gun. It's not like someone is mugging you and you say to him, "Excuse me Mr. Mugger, can I be excused to buy a gun right this second so I can protect myself from you. They have instant background checks now, so it won't be too long.". In other words, if you been living for the last 30 years without the protection of a gun, what is an extra couple of days? Our right to bear arms is precious and should be protected, but buying and owning a firearm should require many safety precautions even if it may be tad burdensome to the buyer. Heck!! I had an easier time and less paperwork to fill out buying my AR15, than the computer I'm on right now with all the credit checks, warranty, and other crap I had to sign my name to. If there is any law that pisses me off it is politicians making it hard for gun ranges to be built and the lack of them where I live. If I have nowhere to practice shooting my gun, I pretty much don't care how long I have to wait to buy a gun, because I will take me longer to find a place just to shoot it.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 8:00:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 8:17:17 PM EDT
I agree that safety locks are not worth fighting over. In fact, it would be a good move offensively to have pro-rights initiate this. It sounds less impressive to me hearing people argue against safety locks since I don't hear them argue against safety triggers and such either.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 9:05:47 PM EDT
It is precisely because these regulations appear to be so harmless and innocuous that they are so dangerous. In and of themselves, it's easy to say, "Gee, that's not so bad. What's the big deal about gun locks? Why are you getting upset over background checks?" The point is that none of these have much to do with controlling crime, and that [b]any law that in any way controls how a citizen of this country can [i]lawfully[/i] own and use a firearm erodes everyone's Constitutional right to do so.[/b] The liberals know that they can't possibly come up with a sweeping piece of legislation to outlaw all firearms and call for total confiscation - the American public would not stand for it. So it happens a little bit at a time to make it more easily acceptable, and they always mask it in the 'stars and stripes' of "crime control" or "public safety" (e.g. "It's for the children."). I mean, who is going to argue against something that supposedly controls or reduces crime or helps keep kids safe? It's insidious, and it works. Your post demonstrates that it's working. Your rationale, while understandable, is in the same vein that ultimately resulted in the utterly stupid law outlawing "assault weapons" because of the way they [i]looked[/i]. The arguments were that there could be no legitimate 'sporting' purpose for "assault weapons" that 'looked like a military rifle'. Bingo! They were outlawed. Well, the last time I read the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment didn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear [i]sporting[/i] arms shall not be infringed." By the same token, I don't recall seeing anything referring to forced purchase of a gun lock or first having to stand around while some dimwit ran a criminal background check on me using data that was entered by some other dimwit who barely made it out of high school and managed to land a job with the government. Maybe gun locks could prevent an accidental death or two - but so would properly storing a firearm where children couldn't get to it, and that's free. I was raised around guns and have been around them all my life and never had a mishap (just like millions of other Americans), simply because I was educated by my father very early about firearms safety. I don't have children in my house and never will, and I don't appreciate being forced to pay for something that is utterly worthless to me, and I don't care how little it costs. It's already been shown that background checks have no effect whatsoever on reducing violent crime since criminals do not routinely obtain firearms through legitimate purchases, but the expense of requiring these background checks is huge and I have to pay for it directly (fees) and indirectly (taxes) whether I want to or not. I was a cop for 20 years - why in the hell should I need (and pay) to have a background check run on me? In short, it isn't about gun locks or background checks - it's about freedom and YOUR rights as an American that are being gently but steadily taken away from you. To borrow from Robert Frost: This is the way your rights disappear: Not with a bang, but a whisper.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 9:34:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By InTheBlack: Let me at my best try to rationally explain why these arguments are so stupid.
View Quote
Right back at ya!
As far as the trigger locks, most manufacturers include them these days anyways.
View Quote
Then why do we need a law requiring them? It just takes away our ability to say "the gun industry is concerned about safety, that is why most new guns come with a *free* trigger lock." Instead, *they* can say, "WE care about safety, that's why WE passed a law requiring trigger locks with all new guns." THINK MAN!
They are inexpensive. If you can afford a $500 firearm, you can afford the extra $3 the manufacturer may of added to the price.
View Quote
Totally irrelevant. Cost is not the issue here, freedom is.
And as far as beefing up background checks. If you are truly a law-abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about.
View Quote
I personally believe background checks are unconstitutional period. They DO infringe on your right to keep and bear arms. A delay in the excercise of a right is an infringement (even if you would argue a small one). Implicit in granting a government agency power to conduct the background check is granting them the power to *DENY* a citizen their right to keep and bear arms altogether, by simply sending an answer of "no" to the dealer making the inquiry. Also, in order to do a background check you have to send a government agency the personal information on the potential buyer. If you send them the info, you have absolutely *NO* way to ensure they dont keep it in a database. Therefore you also have a VERY real risk of an illegal registry of gun purchasers (owners). Most intelligent gun owners are justifiably uncomfortable with that.
So tell me why no one is offended when some human resources lady at a place you applied for a job at does a background check on you before she hires you, but buying a dangerous instrument like a firearm should not need a background check??
View Quote
Ok, I will. First, the *OWNER* of the company you are applying at has a right to put conditions on your emplyement there. Just as the owner of a resturaunt has the right to put conditions on what you can do on his property. This concept is pretty basic to the operation of a free nation. Second, tell me why I DONT need to undergo a background check to buy a chainsaw? or a car? or a black powder rifle? These are all at least as dangerous as the "dangerous instrument" you are talking about.
Link Posted: 5/16/2001 9:35:13 PM EDT
Too long! had to split it up.
If your life is in that much danger on a daily basis that you can't wait a couple of days to pick up your first firearm at the FFL, then you may want to call the police and have them protect you until you get your gun.
View Quote
Alright, are you a "plant" from HCI? I thought everyone knew by now, that the supreme court has ruled that the police have NO RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT YOU FROM VIOLENT CRIME. Sorry to burst your bubble.
It's not like someone is mugging you and you say to him, "Excuse me Mr. Mugger, can I be excused to buy a gun right this second so I can protect myself from you. They have instant background checks now, so it won't be too long.". In other words, if you been living for the last 30 years without the protection of a gun, what is an extra couple of days?
View Quote
You assume an awful lot!! No, in your hypothetical situation the lack of a background check/waiting period would not make a difference. BUT, as someone else pointed out, there are other times when a potential victim WILL have time to make a firearm purchase and use their new gun to defend themselves or their loved ones. Which really isnt the point anyway. NO ONE has the right to make you wait to excercise your right to self defense. Even if you were foolish enough to put off taking the necesary steps until the danger was imminent.
Our right to bear arms is precious and should be protected
View Quote
Finally! I can agree with you!
buying and owning a firearm should require many safety precautions even if it may be tad burdensome to the buyer.
View Quote
The drafters of our Constitution/Bill of Rights disagreed with this philosophy. (see Bill of Rights ammendment #2 "...shall not be infringed." Now, look up "infringe" in the dictionary)
Heck!! I had an easier time and less paperwork to fill out buying my AR15, than the computer I'm on right now with all the credit checks, warranty, and other crap I had to sign my name to.
View Quote
NONE of which was for permission from the government to allow you buy the computer. [u]Credit check:[/u] so someone would feel comfortable LENDING you money. (I paid cash, so I was able to avoid a background check for this - an important point to make in this discussion. ie this was not a mandatory background check to get a computer) [u]warranty:[/u] There is no background check to register a warranty card! You walk a VERY dangerous line when you start allowing your rights to be regulated by a government. Were are swimming perilous waters as it is now. Louis
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 7:44:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By InTheBlack: And as far as beefing up background checks. If you are truly a law-abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about.
View Quote
That is a most dangerous statement. Guess you wouldn’t mind having the authorities search your person, house or car any time they feel like it. If you are are truly a law-abiding citizen, then you should have nothing to worry about. You have nothing to hide, do you? I’ll spare everyone my normally long replies. Let me just say this. Most of the above, and most gun laws today are open to abuse by the system. Furthermore, they often abuse the citizens who are trying to comply with the law. Project exile will become the backbone to disarm the public. Own a gun? That will be 10 years mandatory prison time. Take your pick. Guns need to be kept out of the criminal element. However, it doesn’t need to be done at the expense of the law abiding. RK
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 7:46:50 AM EDT
ok the so called "instanT" background check i turned 18 on Dec. 23 1999 i went in on my birthday to buy my first gun. the god damn F*cking so called "instant" background check took over a WEEK!.
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 1:26:30 PM EDT
Well, I think the stand on trigger locks is made for two [b]real[/b] reasons. First, it's a stand against the domino effect. You know, once one domino falls down it knocks them all down. Another way to put it is that it’s better to fight them on the beaches then in you hometown streets. Second, once “the law” requires that locks be provided with each firearm, it then increases liability if something happens and you don't have one on the firearm. I don't have much of a problem with instant background checks; rather, it's what's done with the records of the transaction after the check is completed. It's registration that concerns me. Now in California, when you have a background check on a handgun, it's also registered at the same time. As for long guns, I'm not sure if they keep the records of the transaction. I think they do, but the record only indicates "long gun." Nonetheless, the government now knows you own one, two, three or... That's a form of registration. Now here is where I part ways a bit with many of my fellow gun enthusiasts. Gloftoe writes about the single woman whose ex threatens her. So, she needs to then run and buy her first handgun right then. SHE is now a real danger, and not necessarily to he ex. She’s a danger to herself, her kids (if any) and to bystanders. After watching people during my 49 years of life, I believe they should have training or prove proficiency with a firearm before being able to "take delivery" of one. I say no to registration and no to waiting periods, but I say yes some sort of certificate of safe handling of firearm. Something like California has (or had), i.e., if you have a hunter safety course certificate, DD214, law enforcement credentials, etc., you're exempt. Otherwise, you have to take a course or a test. The only thing was that the test was an absolute joke (at least it was when I lived out there a few years ago). Sorry, my fellow gun lovers, but I've seen just too many Yahoos buying and using firearms to feel otherwise. TT
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 1:34:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 2:31:12 PM EDT
Even though most of you made excellent theories of why a person should own a firearm and that some people may need a quicker way of buying a firearm than others, you failed to understand that even though owning a firearm is a right, just like any other freedom we have there are restrictions for safety purposes. We have the right to free speech, but we can't scream, "Bomb!!" as a joke aboard an airplane. can we? We have the right to practice religion, but we can't practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals or human beings. We have the freedom to obtain a drivers license, buy a car and travel the nation, but we are limited on how fast we can drive that car. No one complains about the everyday rules we have to abide buy within our freedoms. But when it comes to guns, it seems like many people think gun rights is the supreme right of all others and bears no need for having slight restrictions for safety purposes. Here's a scenerio: Gun Rights Guy applies for a job at a major airlines. Personal tells him they have to do a background check on him before they can hire him and will call him back in a few days. Gun Rights Guy says, "Sure, no problem, I'll be looking forward to working for you." Same Gun Rights Guy goes to buy a firearm. Just like the airlines, the FFL tells him they have to do a background check and can come back in 3 days to pick up the firearm. But this time the Gun Rights Guy yells, "That's an invasion of my privacy!! I'm not a criminal!!" Tell me, why should an employer do a background check on a guy who's job will be serving drinks or loading luggage, but a FFL shouldn't do a background check on the same guy they are selling a dangerous weapon to? To argue the post where a woman needs to get a gun instantly to protect herself from an abusive boyfriend. The scenerio of this being where the police refused to protect and her inability to obtain a gun in time is surely rare. Yes, it may happen. But should these rare occasions pass the right for no background checks? Am I missing something? Does everyone in the U.S. have someone after them to kill them. Did all of a sudden everyone forget to pay some mafia loan shark and now have Guido after them? Does every woman have a crack-head boyfriend after her? The small minority of people who have immediate death threats upon them should not cause us not to check the majority of other people we are giving semi-automatic weapons to. I may sound like a guy who's anti-gun. I assure you I am not. I am a huge supporter and contributor to the NRA(FYI..at the time of writing this, I am listening to Fox News. The NRA is the #1 lobbyist group is the U.S.) and the Illinois State Rifle Association and love the shooting sports dearly. Of all the gun laws there are, a thorough background check and a safety lock to keep a child from accidently discharging a gun are the only laws that I agree with and makes sense to me I am not here to say that anyone here shouldn't have the right to protect themselves. Because we do. But gun ownership is a right that bears responsiblity as guns are made to kill and requires cautious examination of who is actually a person who is mentally able to use a firearm responsibly and lawfully for protection or sport, compared to a person who wants one for crime.
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 3:07:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2001 3:06:47 PM EDT by Texas Tea]
Paul! You got it! That's the point. I love the tax credit for gun safes idea. I have one and I think every serious gun owner should also have one. The gun show loophole is what we have here in Texas. All firearm sales at a gun show through a dealer has the instant background check. But, a [b]private party[/b] can sell a firearm to another individual with no check or wait. By law they are required to be sure they are selling to a Texas resident, but even that is winked at. Interestingly, I did some horse trading of my own. Gave the State of Texas two sets of fingerprints, a complete history for the last 10 years of my life and took a 10-hour course and obtained a Concealed Handgun License. An added benefit to the CHL is that with it, I am exempt from the background checks. I'm guaranteed to take my firearm home as soon as I buy it, each and every time. TT
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 3:56:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2001 3:56:29 PM EDT by Texas Tea]
InTheBlack: You simply cannot equate firearms ownership with a job at an airline. The private ownership of firearms is a [b]RIGHT[/b]. And, although some liberal Democrats believe otherwise, having a job, even at an airline, is [b]NOT[/b]. Moreover, firearms ownership is a Constitutionally protected right. So, the state must show a "compelling state interest" in order to restrict it in anyway. I really believe that what bothers my fellow gun owners is not the actual background check, but that by keeping paperwork, data bases, and forms, the gun and owner are registered. Once you determine that the person is "OK" to own the firearm, then the fact that the check was run should be purged. The government should not know which of its citizens [b]lawfully[/b] own firearms. Here's the deal. Without any registration, if a firearm is used in a crime, the police with the serial number can get the manufacturer to tell them to whom they sold it (probably a distributor). The distributor can tell them to which dealer he sold it. The dealer can pull his records and tell the police to which individual he sold it. If they feel compelled at that point, the police can find the individual and question the hell out of him and see what he did with it. Point is that if there is a distributor, dealer or individual illegally dealing in firearms, they can find out. Of course, they must then enforce the thousands of firearm laws already on the books. Why does the government need to know the location and ownership information of millions of firearms that are [b]legally[/b] owned by its citizens? They don't need it for crime control. It seems the only reason would be to know where to come and confiscate them. At least that's the way it appears. TT
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 8:08:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2001 8:13:33 PM EDT by drlouis]
Texas Tea: Excellent post! I agree with all except that I think the background check in and of itself is a bad idea. Even if we could be sure the records were being destroyed/purged (of course there is NO WAY to ever have that assurance). Criminals dont get their guns from dealers who do background checks anyway, so what exactly is the point? InTheBlack: Since you failed to refute even ONE of my points I have to assume you concede them all.
We have the right to free speech, but we can't scream, "Bomb!!" as a joke aboard an airplane. can we?
View Quote
You are not being consistent. No, we cant yell bomb as a joke. But to use a consistent example would be to say you have the right to own a gun, but are not allowed to open fire in a crowd of innocent people as a joke. It is NOT consistent to compare yelling "bomb" on a plane with simply buying a gun. Your example of not being allowed to yell bomb is simply saying that we are not allowed to abuse a right simply because we have the ability to. This is obvious. All of your other examples are similarly flawed.
Am I missing something? Does everyone in the U.S. have someone after them to kill them.
View Quote
yes, i think you [b]are[/b] missing quite a bit, but no, EVERYONE in the U.S. is not being targeted for death by a criminal. Again you miss the point. [b]Some[/b] americans [b]are[/b] targeted and have a right to the best means of defense of self possible. [b]ANY[/b] infringement of that right violates the second ammendment, and "...the laws of nature and nature's God."
I am not here to say that anyone here shouldn't have the right to protect themselves. Because we do. But gun ownership is a right that bears responsiblity as guns are made to kill
View Quote
Yes gun ownership is a right that bears responsibility, and we should all use our guns responsibly. Your desire to keep them from criminals is altogether understandable and rational, BUT it [b]can't[/b] be done [b]period[/b], ever. That is why I am unwilling to give up some of my freedom in an effort to do so. It is up to parents to keep guns away from children, the government cant do it, so why give them the authority to attempt it? (btw, guns are made to fire a projectile, they are NOT made to kill, people sometimes use them to kill. This is an important distinction.) Later, Louis
Link Posted: 5/17/2001 9:06:12 PM EDT
well if your agianst banning anything then look at what bush is going to do Ban High compacity mags, then it will be owning AK47's because there not right to own. then it will be AR15's because its the same damn gun the Army use's then hanguns there way to easily to hide. then sniper rifle's any rifle thats would dress has a sniper rifle would deem "EVIL", when will this assult on gun owner's stop; well when we won't have any right's left! period. look at the assult on 50BMG NEW weapon of choice for criminals. i get so SICK and tired of being labeled a murder and a hard core killer for just enjoying firearms.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 6:43:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2001 6:49:54 PM EDT by InTheBlack]
drlouis and Texas Tea... You both made some excellent arguments against my views and now I have to say that in the most part I agree with you. I guess my acceptance of some gun laws is from living in Illinois, one of the 6 states in the U.S. where gun rights have been infringed as far as having no right to carry and requiring a firearms owner identification card(FOID) So I guess I am actually not used to the feeling of the true gun freedoms you have. This has caused some ignorance in my part and I am thankful to have people like yourselves to discuss this with to give me a better view of things. One question, kind of off topic,just out of curiosity. If you had to choose, would you rather live in llinois where there is absolutely no right to carry,but there is little restrictions and no registration of firearms OR would you rather live in California and have a restricted right to carry, but had to register certain firearms? I know you wouldn't want to choose either, but if you had to.
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 7:44:54 PM EDT
Hello original poster of this string! Well, I think it's real simple. It all boils down to personal responsibilty. There is a MUCH bigger picture as well. You have an elitist group of politicians with varying degrees of personal agendas that ALL center around "what is best for you." Any freaking excuse in order to promote some "blame the object" and forget about personal responsibility aspect.They make the issue so complicated so you think you are so.. stupid that only the politicians can know how to handle your personal affairs. Any fucking retard worth his salt knows to keep firearms out of the hands of his/her kids when those guns are in the home(anywhere for that matter). It is his/her personal responsiblity to dictate the proper way to do this. Now, that said, common sense prevails. Keep it in your belt or locked up! It still bewilders me when some dip shit claims,"Well, I kept it hidden in the closet."..after his /her kid shoots their playmate. Duh? Next to the Christmas presents? Look, IT's a god given right. If you want to do a background check, you better do it while I pay for the gun because I am not waiting around. Any space you give gun grabbers..they want more...remember Kalifornia? Jezz...that's occupied territory man! What better example do you need? Starts with.... 1)ok, you can have what you have, but no more can come into the state... 2)ok, you can have what you have, ..oh,and no more big handguns either. 3)ok, you can have what you have, but no more of ,"those big clip thingys" either. 4)ok, well we need you need to register what you have by this date otherwise you have to ship it out of state. 5)ok, we changed our mind and turn it in or ship it out of state... 6) ???? HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? WHAT more do you need? It all starts with some "for the children", or "it's just a gunlock that you HAVE to have." Sorry guys, but this rant was coming. I'm sure you are familiar with,"The painting is on the wall." Well, "It's blazing across your TV screens and the media is stuffing it down your throat." -rigid
Link Posted: 5/18/2001 8:57:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By InTheBlack: drlouis and Texas Tea... You both made some excellent arguments against my views and now I have to say that in the most part I agree with you.
View Quote
Wow! I have to say I am surprised. I dont see many people who *actually* have an open mind these days! I live in Nebraska, and we have no right-to-carry either. So I can most certainly identify with your plight.
If you had to choose, would you rather live in llinois where there is absolutely no right to carry,but there is little restrictions and no registration of firearms OR would you rather live in California and have a restricted right to carry, but had to register certain firearms? I know you wouldn't want to choose either, but if you had to.
View Quote
I would choose the state that had little restriction, and NO registration. Look at it this way, if you feel you [u]NEED[/u] to, you could always carry illegally ([u]not[/u] saying I advocate breaking the law, but it is better to be fighting in court than dead - just a thought). Also, registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation, and then we [u]DO[/u] have us a problem! (cuz I aint givin' em up). So, how about you? How would you answer your question? Louis
Link Posted: 5/19/2001 4:04:30 AM EDT
I would choose a state that definitely had no registration also. It would be alot easier to get a right to carry law passed in a state like Illinois, than it would be to revoke a registration law as in California. Another question. If mandatory registration would be infringing on our rights, do you believe that everyone has the right to go into a gun store and buy a firearm no matter what his criminal history is and hope, just hope that the buyer isn't going to buy that firearm for criminal use?
Link Posted: 5/19/2001 4:25:49 AM EDT
I believe as gun owners, we have already given up to much to the anti's.How about we roll back the laws to 68'? Every time we turn around, we have a new gun law to deal with.Look back 30 years what we have lost as gun owners.
Link Posted: 5/19/2001 8:04:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2001 8:08:19 PM EDT by drlouis]
Originally Posted By InTheBlack: Another question. If mandatory registration would be infringing on our rights, do you believe that everyone has the right to go into a gun store and buy a firearm no matter what his criminal history is and hope, just hope that the buyer isn't going to buy that firearm for criminal use?
View Quote
I think my views on this are rather unpopular, even amongst gun owners. I hope I'm wrong of course (cuz I think I'm right - else I would change my view [;)]) I think if a person is so dangerous that we as a society can no longer trust him with the most effective means of self defense, then we can no longer trust him period, and he should not be free. Guns are not the only way to kill/maim/injure a victim. I also think that just because someone is guilty of say felony theft, he should not lose his ability to defend himself. The founders stated that it is self evident that all men are created equal, and born with certain inalienable rights. [u]SOME[/u] of these [u]inalienable[/u] rights are spelled out in the bill of rights (but not all) - the right to keep and bear arms is one. If these are inalienable rights, what business do we have denying some of our citizens those rights? I am [b]NOT[/b] saying we should allow violent felons to purchase and own guns. Violent felons should never get out of prison (at least not until they have been deemed no longer a threat to others - **very rare**), so we should have no need to monitor who buys guns (I will leave it to another discussion whether they should be executed, or die of old age in 'the can'). That is my view, like I said, in my experience this is a rather unpopular view. I am interested to know what some of you think of this. (?) Agree? disagree? Why? Louis
Link Posted: 5/19/2001 8:06:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By InTheBlack: Another question. If mandatory registration would be infringing on our rights, do you believe that everyone has the right to go into a gun store and buy a firearm no matter what his criminal history is and hope, just hope that the buyer isn't going to buy that firearm for criminal use?
View Quote
This is one of the most controversial and painful aspects of the Second Amendment. If it is a [b]right[/b], it is an [i]unconditional[/i] right. As soon as you start putting qualifiers on it, it ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege. The difference? Privileges can be revoked by those who grant them - rights are inalienable and can not. I personally shudder at the scenario you describe, but look at it this way - up until fairly recently, that's the way things were anyway. Does the advent of new technology somehow change the application of a 200 year-old Constitutional right? I would think not. A right is all-encompassing, and if it is restricted for some, no matter how rational the restriction, it has in effect eroded the right for everyone. If you are an advocate of the Second Amendment, then you MUST advocate its universal application to [i]all[/i] Americans - including the few who may ultimately use the firearm in a crime. Nobody said that freedom was free.
Link Posted: 5/19/2001 8:11:53 PM EDT
luvmyar: some excellent points! I like the way you think, I'm not alone after all! [:D]
Link Posted: 5/19/2001 9:15:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2001 9:18:48 PM EDT by dissipator556]
{{{{{"If you are an advocate of the Second Amendment, then you MUST advocate its universal application to [i]all[/i] Americans - including the few who may ultimately use the firearm in a crime. Nobody said that freedom was free."}}}}} You are correct, there are no "free lunches," when it comes to Freedom. But, you are sorely mistaken if you interpret your Constitutional Rights to be absolute and universally applicable to everyone (Read my next sentence before hyper-ventilating). Everyone is BORN with the basic Constitutional Rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Property (in addition to all others)-we all start out the same. From this point, however, these Rights may be taken away as punishment for criminal activity. Indeed, even our Right to Life (the most basic of all Rights) may be taken away as punishment for Capital Offenses (ask Tim McVeigh). It is very sloppy thinking to imply that your Rights are immutable. Remember, if you fail to play by society's major rules, you risk losing some of the Rights that our society offers. Convicted violent felons have proven that they are not capable of responsibly exercising their Rights without infringing upon others' Rights. By intentionally infringing upon others' Rights, the felon has voluntarily risked losing some of his own freedom. I am as pro 2nd Amendment as anybody on Earth, but please quit spouting off this crock about your "absolute Rights." Also, please don't send any replies referring to the "poor felons." Semper Fi
Link Posted: 5/19/2001 9:31:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/19/2001 9:30:09 PM EDT by dissipator556]
By the way, I don't believe in the waiting period bologna either- wasn't the waiting period designed primarily as a window for performing the background check? Now that we have the technology for it to be instant, the waiting period is obsolete. Also, Uncle Sam keeping records on law abiding private citizens' gun purchases really bothers me. If the NICS can be used without maintaining a logbook (which it CAN be, contrary to what the Reno/Freeh goon squad previously claimed), then it is indeed no impediment to the exercise of our precious 2nd Amendment. This is the Alamo for me, however, and I believe that the only downside to NICS is that the next foot to drop may be registration. NICS should be where every 2nd Amendment advocate draws the line and says "that's it, no more." Trying to draw the line at: "Anybody that wants a gun should have one, convicted felon or not" is like doing brain surgery with a sledge hammer. Semper Fi
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 12:43:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 12:57:00 AM EDT
inthe black: "We have the right to practice religion, but we can't practice a religion that involves sacrificing animals" Ummm, you ever been to Cajon country? The Supreme Court has ruled that animal sacrifices are allowed during certain religous cerimonies. Snake worshipers, heck, even some Christian religions allow the sacrifice of a goat or two.
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 5:51:16 AM EDT
dissipator556: I am most assuredly not advocating that we arbitrarily start issuing firearms to felons. That isn't what my post said. I was a police officer for 20 years, and if you think for a moment that I personally want to see convicted rapists, murderers, etc. walking around armed, you are totally mistaken. IMHO, they shouldn't be let back out into society anyway, and therefore the point would be moot. You are correct in saying that the conferring of a right carries responsibilities to the individual citizen, and that if those responsibilities are ignored or abused, society has the right to restrict or remove those rights [i]after the fact[/i]. My point is that it is improper to restrict those rights for ALL citizens as some sort of misguided prophylactic measure. The framers of the Constitution provided that no rights may be restricted or removed except by "due process of law" - and there has been none of that involved in background checks, waiting periods, mandatory gun locks, restricted ownership of certain kinds of weapons, etc. ad nauseam. My point is once you start hanging all kinds of stipulations on a Constitutional right, you erode the right. Yes, there are sanctions against convicted felons and they should be strictly and uniformly applied. But asking me to give up some portion of MY rights on the low probability that it might deter or prevent a convicted felon from possessing a firearm or some other crime is not only onerous, the underlying assumption is naive and furthermore [i]unConstitutional[/i]. These things are the 'camel's nose under the tent'. They are circuitous and unlawful methods to ultimately restrict or remove my rights to lawfully own a firearm in the name of "safety". Now, go back and read my post and the post that it was in reply to. If you do so objectively, you will see that nowhere in my message am I "spouting" a "crock" about "poor felons".
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 6:36:10 PM EDT
Troy, I said "violent convicted felons," and then referred to them as "the felon(s)," because I share your point of view regarding the system's inadequacies. For instance, bouncing several checks is considered a felony here in sunny FL. I don't think that this should warrant a loss of 2nd Amendment Rights. There needs to be more clarification in the law to ensure that the Framers' idea of "felon" can not legally purchase firearms. As for the check bouncers, I say let them have their guns! -Rich
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 7:02:55 PM EDT
Hey luvmyAR, Good point about locking up some of those animals for life. However, you're preaching to the choir about erosion of Rights. I don't feel that an instant background check (emphasis on INSTANT), is an onerous burden upon our 2nd Amendment Rights (as long as we hold the line right there). I won't go on rant mode about this... My emphasis on FELONS was used to expose your false statement which said something to this effect: "rights cannot be revoked by those who grant them (as priviledges can be)." I'm sure you hate those bastards as much as I do. [:)] Refer to my second post on this board, regarding waiting periods and other crap that are actually restrictions upon this right. Please do not compare a waiting period (which is a REAL restriction), with an instant check. Also, the check is great PR for gun owners, and makes us look responsible to the nervous "mushy middle." The benefits far outweigh the small monetary price and insignificant nuisance. I think that we can keep a legitimate NICS without the slippery-slope argument about firearm prohibition. However, let me again emphasize that anything MORE than an INSTANT check would be a restriction upon the application of the 2nd Amendment. For the record, I DO believe that registration of all firearms WOULD lead to eventual confiscation. However, the NICS is a differnt animal. Semper Fi -Rich
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 7:46:55 PM EDT
Well, you have your personal take on the matter and so do I...they're only a couple of degrees out relative to each other, so on that small amount since we agree on all the 'big chunks' I'd suggest we agree to disagree and walk on as friends. Had the pro-gun lobby originally suggested and devised instant background checks (which contrary to popular belief, we didn't - it was a response/knee-jerk to Brady's waiting period) perhaps it could have been handled in a different way and I would have some assurance and confidence that every time I endure a background check, that information is not being held in the bowels of some government building somewhere. As it is, I do not trust the NICS or the people who have access to it (lawfully or otherwise), nor has the government given me any reason to.
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 7:55:10 PM EDT
Point well taken, I don't trust the current system that is in place, and hope to God that Bush and Ashcroft will fix NICS and make it Constitutional.
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 8:57:07 PM EDT
only way to makes NICS contsituninal is to nuke it ie get rid of it sorry for the typos
Link Posted: 5/20/2001 9:39:01 PM EDT
NICS would be Constitutional if: 1.) No federal records were kept for purchases made. 2.) The check was actually instant and required no wait between purchase and acquisition. 3.) The fee remains very small. If the gov't could get these things accomplished on NICS, I would sleep a little better.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 4:36:57 AM EDT
There used to only be four felonies: murder, rape, robbery & arson. Now you can be charged with a felony for filling out paperwork incorrectly, read the bottom of a 4473. Here's a question: If a convicted felon can't be trusted with a gun once he finishes his (or her) sentence, why are we letting him out in the first place? Norm
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 4:43:04 AM EDT
If you think they keep no records on gun purchases you are SADLY mistaken... When I picked up my SIGNED Form 1 at the CLEO, she said' We ran your background check, and found you had NO criminal record AND already own quite a few firearms'... I was stunned at what I already KNEW in my heart they did. I wanted to ask her for a list, but between their signing and the revelation, I was (first time in my life) too shocked to spak...
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 8:54:14 AM EDT
Norm: Because locking most of the felons up for life would be considered cruel and unusual punishment. The Gov. is saying their crime is BAD by giving it a felony status , just not bad enoughy to qualify for life imprisonment. I agree that theres been a trend towards making everything a felony. I'd be happier having a few more levels of misdemeanors if they want to tweak the penal code a bit.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 9:25:14 AM EDT
There are only two gun laws in the country that are in agreement with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: Virgin, Utah and Kennesaw, Georgia both have laws that require the head of every household to own at least one gun. Those are the only 'gun laws that arent that bad'. Kharn
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 11:41:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By dissipator556: . . . Also, the check is great PR for gun owners, and makes us look responsible to the nervous "mushy middle." The benefits far outweigh the small monetary price and insignificant nuisance. -Rich
View Quote
Good point- I also agree 100% that there needs to be a "grading" of felonies that merit loss of RKBA. Norm: To answer your question, a good amount of felons are career criminals and repeat. I think the restoration process needs to be streamlined for all states and based on merit, regardless of the previous conviction.
Link Posted: 5/21/2001 6:56:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Norm G: Here's a question: If a convicted felon can't be trusted with a gun once he finishes his (or her) sentence, why are we letting him out in the first place?
View Quote
As I understand it, a person convicted of a felony in effect [i]involuntarily[/i] waives his/her right to keep and bear firearms (among other things) as a consequence of having [i]voluntarily[/i] decided to commit a felony, at least that's how it was explained to me by my prof. in constitutional law. There is evidently some variance from state to state. The legal theory and contemporary court holdings behind this actually have to do with the "militia" wording of the 2nd Amendment itself: "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." In [i][b]United States v. Miller[/i][/b] 307 US 174, 178 (1939), the Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear arms that doesn't have some "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". The militia had been held through various lower court decisions to include every able-bodied law-abiding male (and later, citizen). Therefore, the Court reasoned, using several states cases and lower federal court cases as reference points, that a felon could not be a member of the militia as the felony conviction [i]in se[/i] dictated the forfeiture of several civil rights, among them service or membership in the militia. This was affirmed for all points and purposes in [i][b]United States v. Synnes[/i][/b] 438 F.2d 772 (1971) wherein the Court saw no conflict between the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment and the disarmament of felons "since there is no showing that prohibiting possession by felons obstructs the maintenance of a 'well regulated militia'." The connection then is a little more round-about than you might think.
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 4:50:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Texas Tea: Well, I think the stand on trigger locks is made for two [b]real[/b] reasons.......snip......Second, once “the law” requires that locks be provided with each firearm, it then increases liability if something happens and you don't have one on the firearm.
View Quote
Of course! It means that if you don't use the gun lock, you fail the reasonable person test since "most" firearms owners use them. They will have defacto passed a trigger lock requirement and one more "reasonable" gun laws. We do not need ANY more firearms regulation. If you need a trigger lock they are available at the gun shop and as you have kindly pointed out, cheap enough that anybody can afford one if they want it. PigPen
Link Posted: 5/22/2001 6:52:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PigPen: . . . It means that if you don't use the gun lock, you fail the reasonable person test since "most" firearms owners use them. They will have defacto passed a trigger lock requirement and one more "reasonable" gun laws. We do not need ANY more firearms regulation. If you need a trigger lock they are available at the gun shop and as you have kindly pointed out, cheap enough that anybody can afford one if they want it. PigPen
View Quote
Right, this is a huge potential problem in the legal arena. The raising of the standard of care for gun owners. It will have this effect if made mandatory- I've seen it in the automobile industry in personal injury caselaw. Good point.
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 1:56:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/23/2001 2:01:54 PM EDT by Texas Tea]
The Second Amendment provides for an individual's right to keep and bear arms. In 1787, the militia meant all able-bodied white males. Of course, given the Fourteenth Amendment, “militia” now would mean all able-bodied Americans. Of course, the liberal Democrats would love to revise history and insert the word "national guard" in place of militia, but it does not work that way. That said, the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is not "unconditional." Although the First Amendment provides for freedom of speech, because of the state's "compelling interest" in preventing crime, it may ban the solicitation of murder, robbery, theft, etc. And, of course, there is the famous quote that freedom of speech does not allow someone to yell "fire' in a crowded theater. However, because the individual's right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional one, the burden falls on the state to show a "compelling interest" in restricting or limiting the exercise of it. I believe the state [b]might[/b] be able to show a need for background checks, but I think it would fail to meet its burden regarding waiting periods longer than to run the check and registration (for the reasons I pointed out in an earlier post). Moreover, any outright ban like that of assault weapons in California would fail to meet the test. Now, I'm not saying that the state doesn't have an interest in all these areas. It certainly does. Even the death of one school child is important to the state. But, it does not rise to the level of a "compelling" state interest calling for a blanket ban of thousand of firearms involving thousand of citizens. Any regulation by the state in area of a constitutionally protect right must be carefully tailored to be the least intrusive method of control. It's been estimated that if all the gun laws in this country were subjected to that kind of scrutiny, over half of them would fail to past muster. That's why the gun control crowd is so afraid that a case is going to come before the Supreme Court providing it with an opportunity to address head on the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment provides for the private ownership of firearms. Because, if it holds that it does, then all the restrictions on the private ownership of firearms would be subject to the compelling state interest test. NOT A PRETTY THOUGHT FROM HCI's POINT OF VIEW. TT
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 5:32:04 PM EDT
InTheBlack - Are you in-the-Red? Or have you just succumbed to the liberal media telling you that gun laws are "okay" since law abiding citizens ought not to mind "good laws"? Your most certainly NOT in good company here with your opinions. Unconstitutional gun laws, no matter how "good" they may seem, erode everyone's rights. It's not about trigger locks (which don't work) or background checks (which don't work either), but about the basic human right to keep and bear arms without infringement of ANY type. Having to even explain this makes me really wonder about your handle. JBT?
Link Posted: 5/23/2001 7:39:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Texas Tea: It's been estimated that if all the gun laws in this country were subjected to that kind of scrutiny, over half of them would fail to past muster. That's why the gun control crowd is so afraid that a case is going to come before the Supreme Court providing it with an opportunity to address head on the issue of whether or not the Second Amendment provides for the private ownership of firearms. Because, if it holds that it does, then all the restrictions on the private ownership of firearms would be subject to the compelling state interest test. NOT A PRETTY THOUGHT FROM HCI's POINT OF VIEW. TT
View Quote
Absolutely correct. Pay [i]very[/i] close attention to [b][i]United States v. Emerson[/b][/i], currently pending before the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
Top Top