New Gun Regulations

[MaggieD]

There are plenty of solutions, I've given quite a few out just over the last 6mo. alone.

1) CCW permits are fine, but must be reasonably priced and the class should be voluntary IF an applicant can show proficiency. I am okay with the CCW only because most violent criminals conceal and it gives officers a tool to intervene and arrest for that type of carry, possibly before they hurt someone.
2) Automatics should be legal if someone is willing to get a license. It should be the FFLIII but that should be a 5 or 10 year license with similar requirements to the CCW, no "per gun stamp", no 1986 and after ban, just a license to own them.
3) Only efficient laws dealing with criminal activity and due process. Using a gun in commission of a crime should triple penalties if not more.
4) Once released on a violent felony at least five years individual prohibition on firearms ownership, but with a chance for clemency after that.
5) An affadavit system in place for people who see "off putting" behaviors, IOW a person can contact authorities and red flag individuals if certain criteria are met, the individual then must either be prohibited from ability to purchase OR clear their name. Filing a false affadavit would be punishable by law.

I think these are steps in the right direction. There MUST be steps in the right direction that don't completely destroy our gun rights. There MUST be a way to "make it better."

 

[CalGun]

MaggieD

Your agenda for gun regulation is a utopia for those who'd like to repeal the 2nd and ban private gun ownership; no it doesn't do that but it lays the ground work for it;

Registration - three important facts are that criminals won't register them, you will create criminals out of libertarian 2nd amendment types that won't register them,
and registration won't stop the likes of ANY of the mass shooters we had. Why then? So it can lead to taxation, regulation and then confiscation.

Permits required for a right not a privaledge? We have permits to drive because that is a privaledge, but you want rights to be permitted - again you create
criminals out of those who will refuse, you have criminals that will ignore, and ultimately it won't stop any of the last shootings,

Monthly back ground checks, and I assume you will need to impose a fee to pay for that, and do you want to be the cops that go out and tell someone
they failed we are here for their guns, and what constitutes "failure?" The real dream of the anti gun community here is the ability to impose a tax
because non gun owners aren't going to want to pay for that - making gun ownership more regulated, more burdened = less gun ownership.

The three day wait would not have stopped a single mass shooting we've just encountered and while I have no trouble for a wait on a person
who doesn't already own a gun why bother on you, me or anyone else that does - other then to disuade the sale.

Three years in prison for not conforming to regulations that are not written in the constitution governing a constitutional right? You don't
have enough prison space.

Violent offenders do now lose their gun rights in my state - thought they did in all.

Whoa there so if a soon to be "ex" gets mad and claims she's (or he) is at risk you want the other guy to lose their
weapons for life? BS

So now instead of getting a presecription people will not so they won't lose their guns, and or they will become
criminals and not say they have the guns.

Anyone caught with an "automatic weapon" is gong to show a bit of ignorance, did you now there are only
about 200,000 automatic weapons out there (I'll assume you mean semi automatic since NOT ONE
of the legal 200,000 fully automatic weapons has ever been used in a crime). So you suggest 3 years
in prison for not carrying my gun the way I want?

Disclaimer: I own a gun. I've taken formal training in home protection. I shoot occasionally. I believe in the right to own guns. I come from a family who reveres gun ownership.

Having said that. Is it not possible that gun owners could lead us toward more responsible gun ownership? Could we not become part of the solution instead of being perceived as most of the problem? "How could they do that," you ask:

• All guns registered.
• Permits required in all states.
• Monthly background checks. If failed, permit revoked; guns collected.
• Mandatory 3-day waiting period to purchase.
• Automatic sentence of 3 years in prison for being caught with an unregistered gun or w/o a permit. Loses privileges for life.
• Anyone who is convicted of a violent crime loses their gun privileges for life.
• Anyone who has had a Protection Order put on them loses their gun privileges for life.
• Anyone on prescription medication for depression or mood problems loses their gun privileges for five years after they've stopped such medication. (Nor can anyone in their household.) (Drugs like Prozac, Lithium, etc.)
• Anyone caught in public with an automatic weapon in public not locked in a gun case sentenced to an automatic 3 years in prison. Loses privileges for life. (Not at home...not at a gun range.)

The objective of my suggestions is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, to put teeth in the laws we currently have on the books, and give law enforcement the tools it needs to get guns off the streets that are owned by crooks.

I know everyone will object to registering guns. But other than our own government turning against us, can you think of any other good reason?

Are these so horrible? There has to be a way to balance our right to own guns against public safety. I think the inexorable tide is moving toward more restrictions. Which, if any, of these suggestions could you support? What restrictions might you add?

Please do not send me through the wood chipper.

 

[LaMidRighter]

it certainly couldnt hurt.

Oh how wrong you are. Government killed over 100million people last century alone.

 

[CalGun]

Yes,

1) Instant check with a reasonable fee,
in this era of data bases we should be able to get every state on board with an instant
back ground check to prevent criminals from buying guns.

2) Mental health standard - to protect rights
We can't just let "mental health experts" decide you can't own guns, but we should
enable them to add someone to a list that shouldn't if they believe strongly the
person is truly ill and must be barred. This standard should be high so as not to
let the liberal mental health community starting adding any anit government libertarian
to the list and a simple and viable appeal process needs to be in place.

3) A 3 or 5 day wait for a new gun owner isn't a big deal, but none to existing
gun owners as defined by those with a reciept of purchase for a previous gun or
show of posession of a legal gun.

4) Reduce the standard and set a nationwide standard for concealed weapons
permits and make "gun free" public zones void for these permits.

I think these are steps in the right direction. There MUST be steps in the right direction that don't completely destroy our gun rights. There MUST be a way to "make it better."

 

[OscarB63]

shocking I know...but the problem with gun control laws is that criminals don't obey laws...that's why we call them criminals. stricter laws might reduce the number of accidental shootings where some kid finds a gun someone left unsecure but as far as reducing actual gun crime...they are virtually useless.

with this most recent incident...even if there were no guns in existance, this guy could've broken into the school wielding a knife or a club and killed just as many kids as he did with a gun.

 

[clownboy]

Originally Posted by clownboy
That's just silly partisanship on your part. There are two ideas underpinning the reaction to the irrational gun control narrative going on now:
1) the knowledge that none of the proposed solutions will solve one damn thing.
2) The Second Amendment to the Constitution.

It is fact and has been stated here scores of times.

Tell you what - how about you put up ten bucks for even instance I can find of such a thing? And If I cannot find at least twenty today, I owe you the money?

What are you talking about? Did you quote the wrong post? Every instance of what?

 

[LaMidRighter]

I think these are steps in the right direction. There MUST be steps in the right direction that don't completely destroy our gun rights. There MUST be a way to "make it better."

Here's the thing, your initial list was based off prior restraint which is prohibited by the constitution according to previous SCOTUS decisions. However due process is always the way to look at limits of rights, due process is how we can tell an individual who broke laws or endangered that they are beyond the scope of their rights so they lose part of them, such as; Liberty(incarceration), firearms(can lose that right by forfeit through criminal act), censure(if one uses their words to harm or if certain processes can be tainted they may be "gag ordered).

If through due process we only affect those abusing their rights and make certain things equitable(automatics, legal concealment) we have accomplished 95% of what we need without oppressively large lawbooks.

 

[PirateMk1]

I agree, but the reason children are getting medicated, is that so many parents can't face being a tough parent, and teaching their children to control themselves. When you and I were children, our parents exerted their will over us. They made us behave and control ourselves with force if necessary. Societal attitudes toward parenting have changed dramatically. Parents want to be *nice* rather than instilling negative reinforcement on their children. Children are not being told NO. They are being chemically restrained these days.

I got ass handed to me on a silver plater if I got out of line. They would just look at me with thier dont **** with me look and if I didnt comply, next thing I knew my ass would be beet red and I am screaming bloody murder. My parents sence of homour was very limited. It was one and done. I practice the same thing myself now, it works very well. I find in fact that I dont have to beat the chitlins very often, any more because they have learned quite quickly that we dont budge. They dont like it, but they sure as hell respect it.
Fear is a ligetimate child rearing tool. The only thing I dont do that my parents did is show anger, and sometimes I dont punish immeadiatly but after I have had time to relfect on their transgresion. Consitansy more than anything works well with children.

 

[mr4anarchy]

Please show me the Constitutionally guaranteed Right to a Motor Vehicle.

How is that related to public records or reasonable safety measures?

You still have to get a permit to hold a rally.

What is most regularly not reported to NICS are mental health issues. This is largely due to individual practitioners and institutions feeling that the doctor-patient privilege is more important than the Government's need to know.

Do you have a link to studies showing that doctors are regularly not reporting because they are afraid that psychotics will lose their right to arms?

Yes, the lack of reporting is a problem.

No. What you keep hearing is that some of us put more faith in the Constitution than in the Government.

The Constitution is FAQ for how we run our government. When Government overreaches, that law is reviewed by SCOTUS.

Checks and balances. Trust the process.

That some of us believe that it is our duty and right to defend ourselves, not to wait for the police to come and bail us out if things get bad. That some of us would rather die on our feet than live on our knees.

It is your right to own guns. It is government's duty to protect all of us.

Public Safety.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Utah, on the other hand, does background checks on permit holders every thirty days. I like that.

I don't have a problem with a 30 BG check but I honestly think there is a more efficient way to do that. Allow police instant access to the database, they already have the right to check someone during a stop. If someone who has a CCW permit becomes dangerous to someone(very rare that CCW holders go criminal BTW) then a judge could order a status check on their carry license, that way we don't have to use tax dollars constantly checking for .0000000001 percent change.

 

[CalGun]

The 2nd amendment wasn't aimed at defending hunting rights or target shooting, but
peple - from their government - and with GOOD reason.

How is that related to public records or reasonable safety measures?

You still have to get a permit to hold a rally.





Do you have a link to studies showing that doctors are regularly not reporting because they are afraid that psychotics will lose their right to arms?

Yes, the lack of reporting is a problem.





The Constitution is FAQ for how we run our government. When Government overreaches, that law is reviewed by SCOTUS.

Checks and balances. Trust the process.



It is your right to own guns. It is government's duty to protect all of us.

Public Safety.

 

[PirateMk1]

How is that related to public records or reasonable safety measures?

You still have to get a permit to hold a rally.





Do you have a link to studies showing that doctors are regularly not reporting because they are afraid that psychotics will lose their right to arms?

Yes, the lack of reporting is a problem.





The Constitution is FAQ for how we run our government. When Government overreaches, that law is reviewed by SCOTUS.

Checks and balances. Trust the process.



It is your right to own guns. It is government's duty to protect all of us.

Public Safety.

The government has absolutely NO obligation to protect you. NONE. SCOTUS is quite clear on this matter.

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).


(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

 

[clownboy]

I think these are steps in the right direction. There MUST be steps in the right direction that don't completely destroy our gun rights. There MUST be a way to "make it better."

I'm feeling stung by the recent shooting as we all are. But some things you cannot "make better". And the wrong time to go looking for solutions is when the nation is mourning. Yeah, I know, people's attention span is short these days and you want to catch them while they're still involved, but nothing useful will come of it.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I've been reading page after page of people suggesting guns be registered and buyers going thru background checks. Evidently most of the people looking for this have no idea what laws we already have. When you purchase a firearm you are required to fill out a 4473 form, which is a federal registration. When you apply for a carry permit you are subjected to state and federal background checks and fingerprinting. If you have a criminal background or a history of mental illness you can not buy a firearm or get a permit. So if such a person still wants a firearm they have to obtain one illegally.

The real question here is what has caused this many people to lose their minds? It's not a gun problem, it's a crazy problem.

The feds are required to destroy their copy of the record after 30 days by law though. The dealer is required to keep his copy indefinitely and only must produce during a check or warrant. There is no legal requirement to update it on a database as other countries did pre-bans, that's the difference maker.

 

[iliveonramen]

I think these are steps in the right direction. There MUST be steps in the right direction that don't completely destroy our gun rights. There MUST be a way to "make it better."

Exactly....not every proposed measure needs to be met with "you'll take my weapon from my cold dead fingers".

 

[Henrin]

Exactly....not every proposed measure needs to be met with "you'll take my weapon from my cold dead fingers".

If you are a follower of the law it does.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

It is your right to own guns. It is government's duty to protect all of us.

Wrong, its their sworn duty to defend the constitution (our rights.) It is your responsibility to protect yourself, the police are not legally required to protect you (see Warren vs DC)

 

[iliveonramen]

If you are a follower of the law it does.

True...I guess we could always pass a law allowing individuals to sue gun makers for murders with their products. That's a pretty quick way to bypass the expansive view of the 2nd Amendment that apparently doesn't allow for restrictions based on weapons that are purely used to outgun others with guns.

 

[mr4anarchy]

Show me the right to safety Maggie, show me anywhere that the founders said there is a general right to safety, show me any philosophers of note that claim safety is guaranteed. You are only ever as safe as your next heartbeat, that is just an unfortunate fact of life. Now, there is ONE mention of security in the U.S. constitution, that is to "be secure" in our own homes, which basically means "safe from undue government interference".

Would you be willing to give me $10 for every phrase in the constitution and bill of rights that has been interpreted (directly or indirectly) by SCOTUS as relating to a legal and legitimate public safety/security issue and/or the governments power and obligation to insure safety and security?

We'll start with Commander-in-Chief.

The often used phrase "show me where it says" or "show me the right" only indicates a speakers total ignorance of legal precedent, constitutional law, and the basic functions of federal legislature and the courts. You talk about the constitution as if Supreme Court decisions don't exist to tell us what it means and what the federal government can and should do.

"Where is the menu for the U.S. Capitol cafeteria outlined in our founding documents. So you mean someone just made that up. Well, there is no right to eat!!"

 

[mr4anarchy]

Wrong, its their sworn duty to defend the constitution (our rights.) It is your responsibility to protect yourself, the police are not legally required to protect you (see Warren vs DC)

So, all those successful cases of police negligence are.... what? Fantasies?

See my other post re: I'll be you $10.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

So, all those successful cases of police negligence are.... what? Fantasies?

I'm not sure what cases you speak of.

See my other post re: I'll be you $10.

Post #? Bet me is it? Whats the bet? That Warren vs DC isn't legal precedent? Sure. Ill take that bet, you can order me some bulk ammo w/ that $10 and ill even give you my shipping address.

EDIT: Oh thats your bet from post #119. No thanks, the general welfare clause is vauge enough for that one. But that bet doesn't in any way validate your incorrect statement that, "It is government's duty to protect all of us" rather than the constitution and our rights.

 

[Tigger]

How is that related to public records or reasonable safety measures? You still have to get a permit to hold a rally.

"....Shall Not Be Infringed". Now, I don't know what that means to you, but when I look at the historical evidence as to what sort of arms the Colonists themselves privately owned at the time of the Revolutionary War, it tells me that we should be allowed to own just about any damn thing that we can safely store.

Do you have a link to studies showing that doctors are regularly not reporting because they are afraid that psychotics will lose their right to arms? Yes, the lack of reporting is a problem.

No I do not have a link. I have the anecdotal evidence of what goes on in the Communistwealth of Taxachusetts relative to our Criminal History Records Bureau and these files, along with my personal knowledge of several members of the mental health profession in this state and what they have told me about the issue. What you have isn't necessarily doctors who care anything about guns; but rather doctors who do not want the Government's nose under the tent of the mental health profession any more than absolutely necessary. You also have doctors who understand that the moment seeing them makes a gun owner more likely to lose their license is the same moment they don't likely see another gun owner in their office for the rest of their time in practice.

The Constitution is FAQ for how we run our government. When Government overreaches, that law is reviewed by SCOTUS. Checks and balances. Trust the process.

Considering the last century and a half of this nation's history I have no faith in the Government nor in the process. The Government has been overreaching since the 1860's, and it's only gotten worse with each successive administration, regardless of party affiliation; and the SCOTUS has proven to be of no significant value in restraining that Government in any meaningful way.

It is your right to own guns. It is government's duty to protect all of us. Public Safety.

It is the duty of the Federal Government, as laid out in the aforementioned Constitution to defend the NATION, not the People. Call up the police and tell them that they need to come and defend your home/protect your family while you're away on a business trip. They won't do it. It's not their job, and the courts have upheld that stance. The only person who is truly responsible for your own Safety and Wellbeing is YOU. I'm the only person responsible for MY safety. But I'm more than willing to let you stand there and wait for the cops to show up and protect you from that knife-wielding intruder in your living room. I wouldn't, but if that's what you want to do, that's fine with me. Just don't tell me that I don't have Right to defend myself, my family, and my property from that intruder by whatever means I believe to be most appropriate.

 

[mr4anarchy]

The government has absolutely NO obligation to protect you. NONE. SCOTUS is quite clear on this matter.

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).


(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
"...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)

New York Times, Washington DC
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005
The ruling applies even for a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Would you be willing to put your money where your mouth is -- see my post about a $10.

You cling to the phrase "constitutional right" as if that's the be all / end all of what the constitution says government can and should do.

Hell, the supreme court ordered the EPA to regulated CO2 gas back in 2007 (I think that's the correct year).

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. “

I just tipped my hand. That alone is worth a few thousand if I have any takers.

 

[Henrin]

Would you be willing to give me $10 for every phrase in the constitution and bill of rights that has been interpreted (directly or indirectly) by SCOTUS as relating to a legal and legitimate public safety/security issue and/or the governments power and obligation to insure safety and security?

We'll start with Commander-in-Chief.

The often used phrase "show me where it says" or "show me the right" only indicates a speakers total ignorance of legal precedent, constitutional law, and the basic functions of federal legislature and the courts. You talk about the constitution as if Supreme Court decisions don't exist to tell us what it means and what the federal government can and should do.

If you wish to talk of supreme court cases then you will need to give warrant to their rulings. How do you think you would do that?

 

[jimbo]

Again, as with many posts here, I don't necessarily disagree. But surely keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unbalanced people is a good thing. Surely keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is a good thing. Why is the NRA not drumming those truths home?

Are we really saying our gun laws vis a vis registration etc. are perfect?? I haven't seen one pro-gun poster say anything about . . . we could/should do this/that/the other. Just saying that nothing will make any difference. And the laws are restrictive enough as they are. Really?

The problem with this argument and some of your others is that we protect the rights of the mentally unbalanced and those taking medications, while demanding that the tool that some use, and those possessing and using those tools legally, register them with those who would demand that all weapons be banned,

Over the past, there have been many mass murders committed, by no means all were with firearms, and some of the worst were the direct results of actions taken by our government. Weapons used range from fertilizer and soft drinks to IED and include guns. Yet the response is to make legal and responsible owners pay the price, while leaving those committing the acts alone.

I would not be opposed to a database of the mentally illl and dangerous drug users, legal or not, and I would not opposed to those records being available to LEO. However. I would suspect it would accomplish nothing.

Register nut jobs, not guns.