Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 2/7/2002 11:24:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/7/2002 2:20:34 PM EST by sulaco]
If you have ever sent a letter to your representatives then you probably go a reply that said somewhere in it that “…I am for sensible gun laws…” We are all pretty much in agreement that the current laws are nowhere near sensible. Now do you think that the firearms community would view the following as a sensible [b]alternative[/b] to the current firearms laws? 1) Firearm regulation is controlled on a federal level and not on a State or City level, so CCW will be dealt with on a federal level. 2) Federal screening of people that wants to purchase firearms to ensure that person is not a fugitive or that there right of owning a weapon has not been suspended, if the person is not a fugitive or had there rights not suspended then there should be no reason why the weapon would not be released that day. 3) All firearms transactions would be conducted though an FFL to ensure that the person can legitimately own a firearm. 4) A person’s choice of firearms and accessories will not be infringed, so no taxes/fees or limitations of types and quantity. 5) Only restrictions that apply is that the person must show that they can responsibly use that type of firearm, know when and when not to use it and show that they have proper storage for such a firearm. Proper storage would be considered a gun safe, or a metal container that qualifies as a gun safe. Proper use could be having a safety license, a $7~15 written test similar to what the DMV uses – and can be renewed on a 4-year basses. 6) Firearms that are seized due to a persons rights being suspended or not meting the requirements above will be kept at the local PD and stored properly until that persons right to bare firearms is restored. If the person’s rights to poses weapons will be suspended in defiantly due to serving a life/death prison sentence then the weapons must be sold off and profits returned to the individuals family.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 11:32:53 AM EST
Sounds good to me
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 11:49:38 AM EST
oh goody.... 1. shall not be infringed---no federales 2. fugitive or has been suspended---shall not be infringed---If a criminal actually wants to pay for a gun-let him----the definition of criminal implies that he is a law-breaker. Any law written does not apply to him. 3. see #1 4....right 5. goes against 4 doesn't it? 6. I will address this as entirely different from #2...and restate-When the person is in custody---He still has the right-BUT we don't allow guns in lock-up.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 11:56:29 AM EST
Here is the deal breaker: A program like you describe would require a bureaucracy to administer it. If you give a bureaucrat power, he will exercise that power as often as possible. If that power is the power to say no to private ownership of firearms... you do the math. Registration leads to confiscation.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 11:57:01 AM EST
No No No Yes No Possibly
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 12:00:50 PM EST
"Dose" should be spelled "Does" "perches" sb "purchase" No, it's a bad idea. These "laws" are as useless as the current 20k+ laws that do not prevent the wrong people from owning guns. No rules, and everyone owns one.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 12:06:19 PM EST
My reading of the BOR tells me that the Fed Gov't has ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to make even a single gun control law. The BOR is reasonable to me. So , NO, your proposal does NOT sound reasonable to me, as it is contrary to the BOR.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 1:47:57 PM EST
Hold on a sec … [soapbox] There much better… Well, I see that the majority rules that there should not be sensible firearms laws, just no firearm laws in general. Sensible = compromise, if your not willing to compromise then your not going to get anything done and you’ll be stuck with what we have. I’m sure most of our board members in other states than California could car less about us, just be warned that things spread. I’m sure it won’t be long till you start to see other states model there firearms control laws after ours. Need I also remind you that CA has a lot of influence in the House of Representatives. Is it wrong that we need to compromise, is it wrong that we are paying income tax and that there is no legal reason why we should? Of course it’s wrong, but face it you can’t get by the system – so bend it as far to your side as possible. I’d like to see the days when guns can be bought like any other tool, but I think those days are gone and I don’t think we can get them back. Ok now that’s out of the way, lets try to come to some kind of agreement of what would be considered ‘reasonable’ firearm control laws. Lets face the facts here, there are people out there that should not own weapons – and anyone that is currently a fugitive will not check that ‘I am a fugitive fleeing from justice’ box in the DROS application. Encouraging proper storage of a firearm will help to minimize accidental shootings from people that should not be handling the firearm in the first place. They make saves these days that let you have access to your weapons in seconds if need be, no reason why not to have such a thing instead of stashing that gun under your pillow. Firearm laws will make it more difficult for firearms to fall into the wrong hands, however it will not solve the problem entirely. Firearms can be modified to shoot in any style, that’s why there is no reason to restrict firearm types. Waiting periods have no barring because people that are aware of them can plan their crime ‘in advance’ if they chose to buy a firearm from a FFL, and why go though an FFL – you just left a paper trail for the local authorities. Going though an FFL for a private transfer might seam like a pain, however the FFL is a 3rd party that will not allow the firearm to be transferred unless the person receiving the firearm has a legal right to own one. Section [b]4[/b] is only applicable to properly licensed individuals, thus you have no right to have weapons unless you can demonstrate proper use and handling. Ok, off the soap box…
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 1:58:53 PM EST
Here's a big problem as I see your last message. Compromise on this "no touch" issue cannot be a compromise as only one side is giving anything up. US! Therefore, it won't work using your own words. The BOR is pretty specific, don't you think? Even if you believe in the "militia" aspect of the wording as important (militia, BTW, at the time of the wwriting was comprised of "free men" with their own arms old enough to shoot and defend...nothing to do with the Natl Guard that was created about 120 years later. So, my vote is NO NO NO [:(!]
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 2:04:41 PM EST
Not no, but....HELL NO!!!
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 2:10:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/7/2002 2:13:33 PM EST by Zak]
Sulaco, Compromise is what got us to where we are today. What you are describing is to go even further down the slippery slope, and most if not all of your suggestions are not constitutional for other than 2nd amendment reasons. 1) States cannot make firearms laws? Most state constitutions recognize the right to bear arms. More than a few allow some form of regulation (example, Tennessee allows the legislature to restrict the wearing (but NOT owning!) of arms "with a view to prevent crime.") Your suggestion, that the feds gain even more power, violates the 10th amendment, and is otherwise unconstitutional because the constitution does not grant the federal government the power to regulate arms. Period. 2) We have that already. It's called the Brady law. Supposedly it's stopped 700,000 felons and other prohibited persons from purchasing weapons. Less than a hundred of them were prosecuted, and less than twenty convictions were secured, proving its utter uselessness (1 in 35,000 pay the price for violating the law?) Personally, I'm looking forward to 2004 when this abomination goes away. 3) You have that in California already--sure seems like it works there. [rolleyes] 4) How many federal gun control laws have ever been repealed? Even when congress tried to do so (FOPA, 1986) the courts ignored it! Your wanting to trade away your rights for the PRIVLIDGE of "owning whatever you want" (why do I smell class 3 here?) is a deal with the devil. 5) You've got THAT in California, too. Let's see how it pans out before you try to force it down MY throat. 6) Restoration of rights? Ask Bob Stewart about that one. And, of course, ALL of your ideas are based on two false premises: That criminals obey the law, and that our enemies whom you wish to "compromise" with don't want to completely ban civillian firearms ownership. As proven in the past, when you compromise, they'll say "thanks!" and immediately come back trying to whittle you down further. [B]WE GAIN NOTHING FROM "COMPROMISE!"[/B] (edited to remove typos)
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 2:13:49 PM EST
Originally Posted By Chaingun: "Dose" should be spelled "Does" "perches" sb "purchase" No, it's a bad idea. These "laws" are as useless as the current 20k+ laws that do not prevent the wrong people from owning guns. No rules, and everyone owns one.
View Quote
Fallowing should be spelled Following...unless you are giving birth to a baby deer.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 2:14:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By ataDude: Here's a big problem as I see your last message. Compromise on this "no touch" issue cannot be a compromise as only one side is giving anything up. US! Therefore, it won't work using your own words. The BOR is pretty specific, don't you think? Even if you believe in the "militia" aspect of the wording as important (militia, BTW, at the time of the wwriting was comprised of "free men" with their own arms old enough to shoot and defend...nothing to do with the Natl Guard that was created about 120 years later. So, my vote is NO NO NO [:(!]
View Quote
Well, all or nothing… I guess that’s how it stands. Ok then, I’ll support that as much as I can – although you are making it much harder fight then just trying to compromise. Sorry for the spelling, I try my best to get it right and not have to put you guys though what I put my English teacher though [;)]
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 2:35:31 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/7/2002 3:36:10 PM EST by ataDude]
Sulaco - No foul, no harm. I'm much more of an activitist now than I used to be because with the erosion of rights, 26,000 + gun laws, etc., nothing has changed! In fact, now that a record number of folks have CCPs, seious crime has been going DOWN. Those nasty semi-autos that we own have been in existence since the early part of the 20th century. What changed? What changed was NOT guns. What changed was PEOPLE. Beginning with the Great Society BS in the 60's, we have raised a significant portion of at least two generations OK, OK, not all) who are NOT responsible for their own acts or their own livelihood. It's always someone else's fault. "They owe me 'cuz..." What changed was our judicial system that began to make laws rather than interpret them. What changed was that American History was no longer taught in school. What changed was a justice system that is no longer feared. What changed is a penal system that no longer punishes. What changed is a news reporting system that now tries to make news, not report it. What changed is a very liberal bias that the mainstream reporting media has gained (in the last forty years)that slants news primarily one way = \. For example, how many times did you hear that the east coast college shooter was stopped two weeks ago by two other students who went to their cars and got their own firearms. I heard it once - on FOX and then only three or four days later. Is the media biased in general? You betcha. Are there exceptions? You betcha but..... not very many. What changed was ..... and on and on and on. Remember that the BOR did not grant anything. It just documented the pre-existing inalienable rights. After a few of the colonies refused to sign on to the constitution because of important things that were missing, the BOR was created. The Second Amendment is, in fact, the sole guaranty that the others will continue to be honored. That was the Founding Fathers' intent. Every other time in constitution where the word "people" is used, there does not seem to be a disagreement on who the "people" are. Why here? A good study for you might be the Federalist Papers.................use yahoo to search and you'll find a bunch of info. Let me know when you're through and we'll have a test [:D]
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 2:45:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By Zak: ... 4) How many federal gun control laws have ever been repealed? Even when congress tried to do so (FOPA, 1986) the courts ignored it! Your wanting to trade away your rights for the PRIVLIDGE of "owning whatever you want" (why do I smell class 3 here?) is a deal with the devil. ...
View Quote
Partly true, I had the opportunity to own a NIB pre-1990 CZ75; turned out that they could not send the pistol to my FFL here due to a ‘handgun safety law’ we have. If I wanted the pistol I would have to take time off work and drive to Texas and back to get it so that was out of the question. I found a 1991 CZ85, not exactly what I wanted but I still had to drive 400 miles to pick it up. As far as Class III’s go, any person with the will to modify there existing semi-auto into a full-auto will find a way to do it. Thus there is no real reason to restrict Class III’s from the public. And what about that $200 tax stamp and those ‘premium prices’ for that 15+ year old MG? If I wanted to buy an M16, I would want to pay 800.00 for it, if I wanted an MP5 – I would not mind paying 1200 for it. IMHO, NFA should die along with all AW bans. I want my SPAS-12 dang it!
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 3:02:08 PM EST
at this point its ALL or NOTHING. the antis have been trying very hard to take our rights from us for the last 200 years. we need to try as hard or harder to TAKE OUR RIGHTS BACK now... the time is near, mark my words. you may laugh reading this, but you won't when i am proven right.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 3:19:19 PM EST
Sensible != compromise If I want to cut off your arm, why don't we compromise and I'll just cut off your hand?? Then next year we can compromise some more. I'll just cut at the elbow. Gun grabbers do nothing but take. Their idea of compomise it to nibble away our freedom until it is gone. Even if we replaced all current laws with your "sensible alternative", 5 minutes later they would be scheming to impose more restrictions.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 3:26:28 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 4:00:02 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/7/2002 4:02:19 PM EST by ataDude]
Sulaco - a little more for you: "[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse." --- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787 In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government -- the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary. The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration – or bill – of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only. The absence of a "bill of rights" turned out to be an obstacle to the Constitution's ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government's form would be resolved. The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one. INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS ARE THE OLDEST AND MOST TRADITIONAL OF AMERICAN VALUES In the end, popular sentiment was decisive. Recently freed from the despotic English monarchy, the American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution's framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued: "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference." The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution's first ten amendments became the law of the land. LIMITED GOVERNMENT Early American mistrust of government power came from the colonial experience itself. Most historians believe that the pivotal event was the Stamp Act, passed by the English Parliament in 1765. Taxes were imposed on every legal and business document. Newspapers, books and pamphlets were also taxed. Even more than the taxes themselves, the Americans resented the fact that they were imposed by a distant government in which they were not represented. And they were further enraged by the ways in which the Stamp Act was enforced. Armed with "writs of assistance" issued by Parliament, British customs inspectors entered people's homes even if they had no evidence of a Stamp Act violation, and ransacked the people's belongings in search of contraband. The colonialists came to hate these "warrantless" searches and they became a rallying point for opposition to British rule. From these experiences came a uniquely American view of power and liberty as natural enemies. The nation's founders believed that containing the government's power and protecting liberty was their most important task, and declared a new purpose for government: the protection of individual rights." Now, you'll never believe whose web site this came from! The ACLU...briefing paper #9.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 5:02:13 PM EST
ataDude - I would have to agree with you that the bill of rights and the second amendment are very clear as to what they represent. Only problem is that they have forgotten what the constitution is over here in CA, so until the Emerson case makes some more headway we are stuck working with what CA has given us. We have no Second Amendment as far as I’m concerned. That’s why I am trying to present arguments that do not need the Second Amendment to stand. Although it dose look dismal at first, there still might be a way. I am trying to get better firearm laws over here, have written to several reps and have gotten two responses back [:)]. The only problem is that so far every rep keeps saying the same thing. “We feel bad about taking guns away from our citizens, however we believe we need sensible gun laws…” So first come up with a plan that the firearms community can live and something that the Brady Campaign can not easy attack, or attack at all. The Brady Campaign is for ‘Sensible’ firearms laws, so lets make a set of sensible firearms laws that we can agree on and make them realistic enough that the Brady Camp could not go after them. After we have done that, then comes phase two – gathering support. Should we have another thread just for peoples ideas about what ‘Sensible’ gun control laws would look like?
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 5:12:16 PM EST
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 6:35:13 PM EST
[soapbox] A number of years ago, I used to be one of those kinds of people. I didn't own a gun, didn't really shoot outside of the Boy Scouts. I believed in 2A, but thought there had to be some....dare I say it....'common sense' gun laws to take care of things. The more I got involved in firearms, and the more I studied the pro-rights/pro-control issues, I came to realize one thing. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS COMPROMISE. When you take the people like Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, Blagojevich, etc.....compromise doesn't exist. All that exists is moving more towards their world of total disarmament and citizen subservience. Look at the great 'compromises' of the last century. We gave the NFA, GCA, Brady.....what did we get? We got weapons bans, registration schemes, taxes, oppressive laws, no knock raids, entrapment, SWAT snipers, and a ton of hostility. When has the gun control machine EVER compromised. Backing down from a proposed bill doesn't count. When have they conceded, and agreed to push for something that gun owners desired? I have also lost ANY faith that the highest echelons of gun control have ANY desire WHATSOEVER to prevent crime. As exemplified by Metzenbaum in 1994, "I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns". If they had any care about affecting crime, they would not promote legislation that, in almost 90% of cases only causes furor for the legal gun owners of this nation. They certainly would assault the government over it's prosecuting less than 10% of those who fail a NICS check due to previous felonious activity. Why is it that a report of a violent domestic dispute will bring maybe 2 or 3 officers, yet the POSSIBILITY of an unregistered (ie - tax not paid) machine gun warrants a paramilitary style no nock warrant response? In this arena compromise is, to quote from Shawshank, just a bullshit word. The control people have, time and again, stated their own aim...the complete and permanent disarmament of the american people. If you think they will stop short of this goal, or give ground, you are dead wrong. In NJ, they recently released proposed modifications to the Codes involving firearms, among which is a permanent ban of any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Nowhere in the prospective impact does it say 'reduce crime'. NOWHERE. What does it say?
The public at large will benefit from the readoption of this chapter through the continued regulation by the Superintendent of those persons and entities licensed to sell or acquire firearms
View Quote
Translation - the police apparently feel that LICENSED (ie - LAW ABIDING AND LEGAL) gun owners and gun dealers are, by their very trade, a threat to public safety. Apparently, exercising a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT is a threat to public safety. I have NO interest in any way of assisting them in their goals....which is exactly what compromise becomes.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 7:06:09 PM EST
Normally, sulaco, I would agree with you. However, remember the definition of "compromise" - essentially neither side gets completely screwed. Now, look back on what's been happening to us since NFA 1934... Scary, hm? If it would actually be "compromise" I would join your quest, as it would mean we would finally start making headway. We've been compromising since 1934, and it's got us the NFA, GCA, Crime Bills, the 1989 Ban, FFLs (remember being able to buy a .22 or a .30-30 at the ahrdware store?) and a whole slew of other things I'd sooner not mention. No, I can no longer compromise, and it just ain't happenin' my friend. We have to take a hard line just to tread water now... I just can't compromise any more... FFZ
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 7:58:00 PM EST
Very well then, I’ll draft a letter for our reps based on our discussion, [b]no compromises[/b]. Like I said before, you guys are really going to make my job harder than it should be [;)]. When it’s ready should I post the draft here in General, or should I post in General Firearms or Legal? I may only be one person, and a busy one at that – but if there’s anything we have is strength in numbers. There are about 18,000 registered ar15 board members; if we stick together then we will have power. I’ll prescreen that draft to fix any unwanted spelling errors [:)]
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 9:07:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/7/2002 10:06:13 PM EST by SomeGuyInAHat]
If you think your appeasement plan is a good idea, and will calm the antis, you need to use Google to research a guy named Neville Chamberlain. [url]http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=neville+chamberlain[/url] Chamberlain, British Prime Minister 1937-40, believed he had brought "Peace for our time" through his policy of appeasement to Hitler, allowing Germany to annex the Sudetenland in September of 1938. Very few were surpised when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia in March of 1939 and Poland the following September. The lesson here is obvious. When your enemy wants your entire block of cheese, giving him a slice doesn't appease him. It isn't even compromise. You're giving him a slice of cheese, and he's giving you nothing more than his word that he won't try to take the rest. All the while he is making plans to steal your cheese. The antis have been using the tactic of demanding reasonable, sensible gun control for years. This isn't that much different than Germany's claim to the Sudetenland in 1938. So, every time they are appeased in some way, we think that the battle has been avoided, that we have brought peace for [i]our[/i] time. Instead, we just slowly give up without a fight. So, before you write your letter, ask yourself if you want to be the Neville Chamberlain of gun owners.
Link Posted: 2/7/2002 9:44:06 PM EST
Well lets change a few words and see if it sounds as desireable. Now do you think that the media community would view the following as a sensible alternative to the current media laws? FCC regulation is controlled on a federal level and not on a State or City level, so news stories that are not "correct" will be dealt with on a federal level. All news reports would be conducted though an state liscensed media outlet to ensure that the person can legitimately make informed decisions. Only restrictions that apply is that the person must show that they can responsibly report the news in a factual non biased manner with all sides given equal time to rebut the others arguments. To know when Both sides must be represented and show that they have proper storage for such so that anyperson may view the story at tany time in the next 5 years. Proper storage would be considered a web access, or a private viewsing room alocated at the studio or any magazine rack in a walmart. Proper use could be having a truth meter installed in the head of the reporter so that all may view it and be able to tell when the reporter is lieing, a written test for grammer similar to what the 4th grade.Journalistic liscenses may be renewed on a 4 year basis provided there has been no abuse by the reporter. Lawyers and politicians are exempt from these statutes. Still like the idea? Any person whose First amendment rights are suspended due to a persons inability to tell truth from fiction, or not meeting the requirements above will be kept jailed until that persons right to report news is restored. If the person’s rights to report will be suspended in defiantly due to serving a life/death prison sentence then the word processor must be sold off and profits returned to the state. His family will loose all rights to own a word processor. Understand we have nothing to prove. When you negotiate with a person who only stands to gain at your loss and they have nothing to bargan with in the first placwe then you are extreemely ignorant and deserve what you will get which is taken and is the best case senario. Of course I could be wrong but history doesn't show it. Prior to 1960 there was not the reported level of violence in school that there is today. Kids were taught and not indoctrinated. We were taught that the individual can make a difference. Now in school they want to teach everything as little groups. That way they can reward group acheivement and not individual acheivement. In short schools are ignoring the kids while putting pressure on them to acheive higher and higher test scores and not teaching the material that would get the higher test scores. Can you say doulble bind? Leftists take over and tolerance is going out the window. Leftists take over and school violence increases. Leftists take over and government takes more of your money to pay someone else to vote for them. See any problems with compromise yet? Just my $ worth -- 2 cents aint what it used to be
Top Top