Common sense gun laws

[jimbo]

that brain dead Democrat party twit thought that once a magazine's ammo was expended, the magazine could no longer be used again and thus banning normal capacity magazines would mean they would all disappear in the near future

people like that should not hold public office

The entire banneroid movement is built on emotion with few facts thrown into the mix. The twit responsible for much of California's new restrictive laws thinks that .30 caliber clip magazines can empty themselves in half a second. Banners think a Ruger 10/22 becomes an assault rifle if you just change the stock.

 

[jimbo]

Yup, and all these further restrictions are increased uses of force outside the bounds of the court. There's no oversight. If the government wishes to continue to apply force, it needs to be the one to demonstrate that the continued use of force is necessary and justified.

I believe, sir, that often the judge lays out the restrictions as part of the sentence. Others are there as a result of mandatory sentencing guidelines.

 

[Ikari]

I believe, sir, that often the judge lays out the restrictions as part of the sentence. Others are there as a result of mandatory sentencing guidelines.

It does not mean that those go beyond the nominal punishment cycle. That which is finite must be finite. If the government wishes to continue the application of force, it needs to supply proof and reason for it.

Currently we have it backwards.

 

[Henrin]

That's only partially correct. Incarceration is only part of the sentence. Society and judges sometimes imposes restrictions over and above the jail time. Convicted felons generally cannot vote or carry weapons. Sexual violators get put on lists and are not permitted within proximity of a school.

And there is no reason whatsoever for nonsense like not allowing felons to vote. Oh no, they might do worse than people that never went to prison. Oh wait...look at our choices. Well, ummm...

 

[Crimefree]

If you can justify life without parole, OK then. But anything with a finite punishment time is finite.

I have no problem with a court determining that legal access should be denied on a case by case basis. I do have to ask of those who are driven by fear rather than common sense what is hoped to be achieved by such denial.

We seem hell bent on creating more useless laws when a thinking person can see the more useless laws the less time cops have to investigate crime and solve it bring criminals to book. It's just a spin off of being stupid.

Yeah, those lists cause more problems than they fix, they should be nixed.

Fear drives such things though sex offenders have the highest rate of repeat offending because the problem never gets treated. I really don't see how these lists help. A list cannot safeguard anyone. I'm never surprised what people who are afraid will ask for.

There is a very scary message in that that firearm owners should take special note of. Never let the public fear you or what you are or own.

 

[Crimefree]

Nationwide stop and frisk with a long mandatory prison sentence for those caught with illegal guns would solve our gun violence problems in a year or two.

Is it so hard to figure out that when the bad guys are in prison the rest of us are safe?

I get it only bad guys carry guns..... I decline to comment on that kind of thinking.

You mean like putting moonshiners out of business.

Why do you equate guns with crime? Is there some kind of causal relationship?

 

[Crimefree]

1. I know, but we are infringing on the prisoner's right to bear arms. Of course, this makes perfect sense. Hence, it is a common sense gun law.

A prisoner is not denied the right only the PRACTICE of the right. At no stage is this right removed and if it was it is no trivial thing, so quote any law that denies a right.

2. Would you want John Hinkley to be allowed to buy a gun?

Would I deny people who ask emotional question the right to drive, gather in any numbers, have means of communication.... Yes we cannot have them infecting the public with their brand of insanity.

3. So, someone who used a gun to kill his spouse, serves 15 years and gets out can own another gun? I disagree. Common sense gun law says. "No gun for this guy." Same with an armed robber who is let out.

So you have a penis lets put you in prison for rape. How do we know you will never rape somebody.....

4. Why would you give another gun to someone who proved they are too stupid or careless to be a responsible gun owner. Again, common sense gun law says, "No gun for this guy or gal."

Upon what does your judgement of "too stupid or careless" rest and what qualification do you have to make that judgement? Who can make this judgement? What is the accuracy for this judgement?

5. Same deal. If someone proves they are not responsible with guns, it's foolish to then allow them to have another one.

What do you mean if somebody proves you incompetent? When you drive home next look at each vehicle you see and consider nobody can prove they are competent beyond a basic minimum. Before you suggest it firearm owners don't shoot on public roads or the equivalent.

 

[Lutherf]

A prisoner is not denied the right only the PRACTICE of the right. At no stage is this right removed and if it was it is no trivial thing, so quote any law that denies a right.

With all due respect, denial of exercising a right is denial of the right.

A felon's rights may be reinstated after incarceration but they are definitely suspended while incarcerated.

 

[navy vet]

I,m a Navy veteran and was a part of a very substantial part of the military.... I was/am comfortable with any and all weapons I was entrusted to have and many of them would be considered extremely formidable by anyone with common sense. I now own a few as a civilian and yes, most of them are formidable and capable of extreme damage.

In no way would I ever agree to or support disarming Americans.....ever! The " cold hand " statement holds very true to me...... Having said this, I will also tell you I support more in depth background checks as not everyone should have weapons that are capable of extensive damage....to anyone. This includes a crossbow to an AK 47.

I live in a state where it is truly too easy to buy a deadly weapon and obtaining a CWP is easier that taking a class to learn how to sew! If background checks were conducted legitimately by impartial departments, and for genuine reasons to prevent persons with mental issues or negative backgrounds that indicate they could pose a threat to the public, from buying a deadly weapon, I feel they need to be expanded upon.

Ample time needs to be allowed for to do as thorough a job as possible. I cannot see a reason someone needs to pick up a weapon over the counter or at most in a few days. If a complete and thorough background could be performed in that amount of time, fine but I don't see that as being feasible.

"No Fly no Buy" seems to be a no brainer as long as the data used to designate someone as a "no fly" applicant is accurate and applicable...

Obviously this concept is based on the assumption authorities truly are only interested in keeping guns from bad guys' or sick guys' ( male/female ) hands....not anyone they simply choose in hopes of disarming society ultimately..... This opens up a lot of dialogue I know but you can see what my thought is here.

I don't believe in magazine limits either as regardless of the damage potential, a weapon is only as dangerous as the shooter....never more! Not condoning EO devices ( explosive ordnance ) being legal here as few are truly qualified to transport, store and handle anything North of a case of .223 ammo.......let alone a flash bang grenade...... I might question someone purchasing 15,000 rounds of assault ammo.......but then again.....who knows....maybe they like to shoot like I still do. If he's solid and not deemed to be a threat, I don't have an issue with it at this point.

One thing I would like to see considered perhaps is a certification course for basic weapons handling....I took a Hunter safety course when I was very young and it wouldn't hurt anyone. Ive been around some that truly are dangerous in how they handle a weapon and I am aware many people are injured and killed every year from gun related " accidents ". I personally have a very good friend of mine that almost lost his beautiful daughter who was shot " accidentally " by her girlfriend who for some reason elected to bring out and handle her fathers loaded 357 magnum........

I realize this went a little off subject but this is a topic that I am rather passionate about. I will post a poll following to see what everyone thinks about the idea of simply thorough background checks and certification requirements.

 

[Vox]

Is it so hard to figure out that Free is not Safe nor will it ever be Safe?

I'm not looking for "safe", I'm looking for free.

Your solution is exactly what we need to be warning against, some big brother police state.

Nothing "Big Brother" about stop and frisk. It's good policing to get the thugs off our streets and behind bars where they belong.

We'll be "safe" and "free" when all the thugs are locked up. Being free of thugs is being safe.

Who's side are you on, anyway?

 

[Ikari]

Nothing "Big Brother" about stop and frisk.

That's pretty much EXACTLY Big Brother. It's the ol "paper's please". Random searches of the population by armed government goons.

I'm on the side of Freedom and Liberty, just whose side are you on?

 

[Vox]

That's pretty much EXACTLY Big Brother. It's the ol "paper's please". Random searches of the population by armed government goons.

I'm on the side of Freedom and Liberty, just whose side are you on?

Where did you get the idea that stop and frisk is random?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

 

[Ikari]

Where did you get the idea that stop and frisk is random?

You don't seem to know what you're talking about.

So you're going to profile the people and only get the unsavories, eh?

I don't think YOU know what you're talking about. Enabling the government to stop and frisk whom they want doesn't end well. A big brother police state is a very stupid idea.

 

[Vox]

So you're going to profile the people and only get the unsavories, eh?

I don't think YOU know what you're talking about. Enabling the government to stop and frisk whom they want doesn't end well. A big brother police state is a very stupid idea.

Yes, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop and frisk is a perfectly valid police procedure. Better Google it and learn about it before you find yourself looking stupid. Yes, it DOES weed out the thugs, because they give themselves away with suspicious behaviors, dress and actions.......quite legal to nail them.

 

[Ikari]

Yes, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop and frisk is a perfectly valid police procedure. Better Google it and learn about it before you find yourself looking stupid. Yes, it DOES weed out the thugs, because they give themselves away with suspicious behaviors, dress and actions.......quite legal to nail them.

It's not "perfectly valid". It's just police state nonsense allowing for unreasonable searches of the public at the whim of the government with no proof or warrant.

 

[BretJ]

Yes, you don't know what you're talking about. Stop and frisk is a perfectly valid police procedure. Better Google it and learn about it before you find yourself looking stupid. Yes, it DOES weed out the thugs, because they give themselves away with suspicious behaviors, dress and actions.......quite legal to nail them.

You might want to google it as well. It was found to be unconstitutional by the courts....here....did your work for you...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97B0FK20130812&ved=0ahUKEwie8KmjrqHOAhVLLyYKHfkZAwUQFgggMAE&usg=AFQjCNEfP56b07pe0_V15ApFJtSSXpfxDw&sig2=cJ3Ia6dAblkLf8WEDP2DgQ

 

[Crimefree]

With all due respect, denial of exercising a right is denial of the right..

A prisoner may excise that right anytime. The prisoner may not take delivery of it. The prisoner is subject to the rules of incarceration as punishment for the duration of punishment

A felon's rights may be reinstated after incarceration but they are definitely suspended while incarcerated

No right can be for any reason removed. I defy you to show me where anyone is given this power including government. A prisoner may not exercise certain rights for obvious reasons. Freedom of movement being one of them. Free speech another.

 

[Vox]

You might want to google it as well. It was found to be unconstitutional by the courts....here....did your work for you...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97B0FK20130812&ved=0ahUKEwie8KmjrqHOAhVLLyYKHfkZAwUQFgggMAE&usg=AFQjCNEfP56b07pe0_V15ApFJtSSXpfxDw&sig2=cJ3Ia6dAblkLf8WEDP2DgQ

Bret, you are horribly uninformed.

Try reading and remembering this:

Stopped By The Cops: What You Need To Know - Remington & Dixon

 

[BretJ]

Bret, you are horribly uninformed.

Try reading and remembering this:

Stopped By The Cops: What You Need To Know - Remington & Dixon

Big difference between a Terry Stop and a "Stop and Frisk". A Terry Stop needs a reasonable, articulatable suspicion that someone is armed and a crime is or is about to be committed. A stop and frisk is illegal.

 

[TurtleDude]

Big difference between a Terry Stop and a "Stop and Frisk". A Terry Stop needs a reasonable, articulatable suspicion that someone is armed and a crime is or is about to be committed. A stop and frisk is illegal.

Turtledude, Esq., agrees with you

 

[Vox]

Big difference between a Terry Stop and a "Stop and Frisk". A Terry Stop needs a reasonable, articulatable suspicion that someone is armed and a crime is or is about to be committed. A stop and frisk is illegal.

That was always needed for stop and frisk and still is......nothing has changed. The terms are used interchangeably.

You only have to watch a thug for about 30 seconds to see suspicious behavior.

 

[NonoBadDog]

What exactly is common sense gun laws? Laws that are open to interpretation and re-interpretation I would think.

Lets say we all agree to this idea and we pass universal background checks, ban "Assault Rifles" and any magazines over 10 rounds. Would this be common sense gun laws?

Now after we enact these common sense gun laws let's assume all the law abiding citizens comply, even though criminals wont, .... but lets just pretend that they will too.

Now what happens when mass murders are still committed only now they are with hunting rifles with only 10 round magazines? Of course the 99% of murders that were committed with non-Assault weapons are still occurring as well.

So now what, I suppose it would be common sense to maybe ban all removable magazines and put more restrictions on hand guns, finger print locks? a longer waiting list? A gun registry? Stop CCW permits?

When that doesn't work what does common sense tell us then?

It depends on the definition of "common sense". To interpret that one would first have to know the intent of the 2nd Amendment. None of those things would fall in line with the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[BretJ]

That was always needed for stop and frisk and still is......nothing has changed. The terms are used interchangeably.

You only have to watch a thug for about 30 seconds to see suspicious behavior.

All Terry stops may be a stop and frisk, but all stop and frisk are not Terry stops. If it were that easy, all stop and frisk would be legal. Not as simple as you are making it out to be. Most of my friends are law enforcement. You have to be very careful and selective with Terry stops. You do a few without finding anything and you are setting yourself up for problems and risk getting done for any number of charges.

 

[Vox]

All Terry stops may be a stop and frisk, but all stop and frisk are not Terry stops. If it were that easy, all stop and frisk would be legal. Not as simple as you are making it out to be. Most of my friends are law enforcement. You have to be very careful and selective with Terry stops. You do a few without finding anything and you are setting yourself up for problems and risk getting done for any number of charges.

No, it's all the same thing. All you have to do (called by either name) is have suspicion based on attitude or behavior.

That's easy with thugs.

 

[BretJ]

No, it's all the same thing. All you have to do (called by either name) is have suspicion based on attitude or behavior.

That's easy with thugs.

So it's all the same thing. What exactly makes one stop and frisk illegal and another one perfectly acceptable? The courts found stop and frisk as implemented by some police departments a violation of the 4th Amendment and illegal. Why... if they are one and the same as you say?