Senate Dems partner with gun-control activists amid ‘summer of gun violence’

[WSUwarrior]

Setting aside that there are plenty of gun crimes that occur wherein the individual obtained the gun specifically because a background check did not occur, I would just note that your argument smacks of "Welp...there's nothing to be done to prevent gun crimes, so we may as well get rid of all our gun laws."

Yea, by guns that were procured via another crime....either the gun was stolen, bought from another criminal, or from a straw purchase (a crime that carries a 10 year prison sentence). A criminal even holding a gun is a crime, much less the action they finally carry out with the gun.

There is a law broken every step of the way. Literally nothing will make you gun grabbing Constitutional Rights hating libs happy. Its no wonder we absolutely reject anything you say at this point as gun sales continue to skyrocket.


More and more people are finally getting it through their skulls that there is nothing righteous about being a victim...the entire reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. God Bless America.

 

[matchlight]

Fixed that for you.

Did you? The Court in Heller said that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubts on . . . laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In a footnote to this passage, the Court noted that "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

I do not see any suggestion that federal laws could impose these "conditions and qualifications" without limit, and yet not violate the Second Amendment. There surely is a limit somewhere, and I suppose it would depend on what the law in question specifically provided. As the Court also noted, "since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field . . . ." Further Second Amendment decisions will define the boundaries of the Second Amendment's protection more clearly, and a law like the one being discussed here could give rise to a challenge that resulted in one of those decisions.

 

[VanceMack]

Yea, by guns that were procured via another crime....either the gun was stolen, bought from another criminal, or from a straw purchase (a crime that carries a 10 year prison sentence). A criminal even holding a gun is a crime, much less the action they finally carry out with the gun.

There is a law broken every step of the way. Literally nothing will make you gun grabbing Constitutional Rights hating libs happy. Its no wonder we absolutely reject anything you say at this point as gun sales continue to skyrocket.


More and more people are finally getting it through their skulls that there is nothing righteous about being a victim...the entire reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. God Bless America.

I disagree. I think people are defaulting to a self defense position re the 2A but that was clearly NOT their intent. The intent of the 2A is to ensure the freedoms and protections guaranteed by the Constitution by securing the rights of citizens to military grade weapons. Hunting and personal defense would have been a given to our founding fathers.

 

[Lursa]

Yes, I am. Your gun already contains a safety that must be engaged in order for you to use the weapon properly. You gun must be clean in order to properly function. You gun must be loaded in order to properly function. You gun must be accessible to be properly used. Oh, and you need to be in a situation where you are able to grab your gun without risking being injured because the person attacking you already has a gun aimed at you or a knife to your throat.

There are a whole host of factors that must play out properly for you to use your gun defensively - even before the inclusion of my additional proposal that would, at least, prevent that home intruder from stealing your gun before you can get it and then using it against you.

Not all guns have a safety, unless you mean an internal drop safety (modern guns).

For some people, their safety is their brain and their finger.

And I am aware of many many scenarios. (Hence my choice not to have a grip safety on a defensive firearm). I'm not sure what your point is, since we personally can control ALL of those factors except the laws. You mention 'accessibility.' Yes...and it seems like a mandatory fingerprint safety reduces that accessibility...and TIME. Time that mean life or death.

 

[Jerry]

Yea, by guns that were procured via another crime....either the gun was stolen, bought from another criminal, or from a straw purchase (a crime that carries a 10 year prison sentence). A criminal even holding a gun is a crime, much less the action they finally carry out with the gun.

There is a law broken every step of the way. Literally nothing will make you gun grabbing Constitutional Rights hating libs happy. Its no wonder we absolutely reject anything you say at this point as gun sales continue to skyrocket.


More and more people are finally getting it through their skulls that there is nothing righteous about being a victim...the entire reason the 2nd Amendment was written in the first place. God Bless America.

And they don't stop at disarming regular people. After that they ban sprays and tazers, they disarm police, they ban any blade over a tiny length and even then you have to have an other-than-self-defense reason for possessing it.

 

[Jerry]

Your gun already contains a safety that must be engaged in order for you to use the weapon properly.

My gun doesn't have a safety. It's meat & potatoes, grab it and pull the trigger.

 

[WSUwarrior]

My gun doesn't have a safety. It's meat & potatoes, grab it and pull the trigger.

None of my handguns have safeties. They are absolutely ****ing pointless on a handgun.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Only in the scenario where the intended owner has previously picked up the gun and unlocked it before the criminal grabs the gun away from you. That seems unlikely.

The scenario I envision is where the criminal steals your gun from your storage point, whether in your home, car, or person and then uses it against you before you realize that they are a thief and/or intend to use that weapon against you. This seems much more likely.

You are really reaching now. This is why we NEVER consider ANYTHING reasonable when it comes to gun rights. A little is never enough. You folks want the whole cake.

 

[NonoBadDog]

So now every crime becomes a gun crime.

Awesome.

You completely either ignored or missed the message.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You would still, under my scenario, have a constitutional right to own a firearm. You would just need to obtain a license before being able to purchase a firearm from a legal dealer.

At the point where you are convicted of a crime that makes owning a firearm illegal, then your permit can be updated to reflect such and therefore you will be prevented from purchasing another firearm. It goes without saying that you would also be ordered to surrender any previously owned firearms and it also goes without saying that it is impossible to prevent individuals from retaining or obtaining a firearm if they are willing to pursue illegal means to obtain said firearm.

This proposal would, nonetheless, cut off the ability of these individuals (or anyone who is unwilling to undergo a background check and/or obtain gun safety training) from purchasing a firearm from a reputable and legal distributor.

The bolded is precisely why I oppose gun "registration". How, exactly, does one go about surrendering a "previously owned" anything? If one loses their driver's license then they can keep not only their current vehicle(s) but are never asked to surrender "peviously owned" (aka already sold) vehicles. You do realize that guns, unlike cars, can now be sold without informing the government.

I assume that you mean a FFL gun dealer when you refer to a "reputable and legal distributor". As far as I know that is precisely what we have now and the current "universal" BGC idea is to force all gun sales to pass through one of those defacto "federal agents".

You simply cannot make up a new federal law that requires the states, towns and cities to take away "previously owned" guns from folks because they convicted a person on a felony charge. This takes civil asset forfeiture to a whole new level. Are you suggesting that the FBI woulld then pay a visit to anyone convicted of felony DWI/DUI, tax evasion, fraud or assault to ensure that no guns are in their home? Taking away rights is one thing, but taking away property (without just compensation) on completely unrelated charges is quite another.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'd suggest mandating fingerprint locks on newly manufactured firearms. That would directly address the issue of gun theft crimes.

Let's try that with cars "of the future" first. I am sure that all folks are aware of how often "high tech" electronic features on cars fail. Unlike when you get locked out of your car, when its battery (and/or computer) fails, you just may die because your gun decided to suffer from a similar failure. Something as minor as scratch (or condensation) can render a image recognition system useless. Have you ever tried to buy something during a power outage only to be told that "the system" is down and we cannot operate until power resumes? I would never buy a gun that could suffer from such a "safety feature" failure.

 

[Jerry]

Let's try that with cars "of the future" first. I am sure that all folks are aware of how often "high tech" electronic features on cars fail. Unlike when you get locked out of your car, when its battery (and/or computer) fails, you just may die because your gun decided to suffer from a similar failure. Something as minor as scratch (or condensation) can render a image recognition system useless. Have you ever tried to buy something during a power outage only to be told that "the system" is down and we cannot operate until power resumes? I would never buy a gun that could suffer from such a "safety feature" failure.

If this is ever mandated, the very first thing to happen is YouTube will sprout videos showing gun owners how to bypass the safety in such a way as to make it look like it broke under normal operation.

Of course, an owner can also just remove the physical part mechanically locking the gun, leaving the smart tech completely intact.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If this is ever mandated, the very first thing to happen is YouTube will sprout videos showing gun owners how to disable the safety in such a way as to make it look like it broke under normal operation.

it won't even be needed to disable, in most everywhere in the country at the local level there will be very little political will to actually prosecute violations of the laws he proposes.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If this is ever mandated, the very first thing to happen is YouTube will sprout videos showing gun owners how to bypass the safety in such a way as to make it look like it broke under normal operation.

Of course, an owner can also just remove the physical part mechanically locking the gun, leaving the smart tech completely intact.

Rest assured that would be classified as a federal gun crime resulting in loss (for life) of your 2A rights.

 

[MrT]

There's LOTS to be done to prevent gun crimes. You don't have the stomach for them because they involve targeting the people that actually commit violent crimes. You want to get serious? Pass mandatory minimum sentencing laws for criminals that commit violent crimes. Say...sentence plus mandatory minimum of 40 years.

That has nothing to do with "not having the stomach" and everything to do with recognizing that sentencing someone to 50 years because of a burglary is cruel and unusual punishment, and is therefore unconstitutional. We want to rehabilitate criminals - not kill them by shooting everyone of them or sending them to prison for the rest of their life.

 

[MrT]

The word “infringed” was very carefully chosen, for its use in the Second Amendment. It's related to the word “fringe”, referring to the barest edges of a thing, or to a common for of decoration often applied thereto. Tom “infringe” is to touch that edge.

It's use makes the Second Amendment the strongest language found anywhere in the Constitution. It forbids government from even touching the edge of the people's right to keep and bear arms. Anything that government does, that causes even the slightest interference or impairment of the free exercise of this right, is an infringement, and is strictly forbidden by the Second Amendment. That is what the Constitution clearly says. If you don't like it, then try to get a new amendment ratified to overturn it. Until that happens, everything that you want to do against this right is illegal.

What a god awful reasoning.

 

[MrT]

It's important to note that none of these examples involve seeking a permit for the exercise of a right itself. The permit is for the use of a limited public resource, of which unfettered use by one would impair the rights of others to equally use that resource.

Nothing here has any relevance to the bearing of arms. If I carry a gun, it has no impact on anyone else's right to also carry a gun.

You will also note that requiring someone to undergo a background check or to obtain a license prior to purchasing a firearm does not relate to the exercise of the right itself. You still have a right to bear and own your firearm. I am placing the minor limitation on what you must do if you want to purchase said firearm.

 

[MrT]

Not at all absurd. The language of the Second Amendment is clear. It identifies a right, it identifies to whom that right belongs, and it forbids any infringement of that right.

You've tried repeatedly to make the argument that infringing that right does not constitute infringing that right—an argument that is nonsensical on its face.

No, I have made the argument that you must first define the right in order for us to have a discussion on what "infringes" that right. For example, if I were to define the "right to bear and keep arms" as one wherein ordinary citizens are allowed to purchase certain types of weaponry from recognized dealers only after subjecting themselves to background checks and/or licensing and training requirements, and to own those firearms so long as they are kept responsibly with fingerprint locks on them, then any law that enforces that right is not infringing.

 

[MrT]

That's a bad poll.

We had universal background checks passed in WA by ballot initiative, by 59% with the pro gun control side outspending the anti side 5 to 1 and buying up all the ad time.

So when the rubber meets the road, 80% do not actually support thT measure. A majority yes, but that majority will not vote for democrats purely for gun control. 80% of the population simply doesn't care about the issue

I believe your law went further than what is envisioned by the polls I cited. My polls relate to instances where private individuals sells guns. I believe your law also extends to instances of gifting.

 

[MrT]

Did you? The Court in Heller said that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubts on . . . laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In a footnote to this passage, the Court noted that "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

I do not see any suggestion that federal laws could impose these "conditions and qualifications" without limit, and yet not violate the Second Amendment. There surely is a limit somewhere, and I suppose it would depend on what the law in question specifically provided. As the Court also noted, "since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field . . . ." Further Second Amendment decisions will define the boundaries of the Second Amendment's protection more clearly, and a law like the one being discussed here could give rise to a challenge that resulted in one of those decisions.

Yes, I did. You left out the word, "not." I added that word for you. You echoed the point I made by quoting the Supreme Court here.

And of course there are limits to what the Government can impose - a federally mandated background check does not, in my opinion, go beyond those limitations. The Court in Heller was not asked to decide on that issue and my reading yielded no statements on that front either, a point that should not be shocking.

 

[MrT]

Not all guns have a safety, unless you mean an internal drop safety (modern guns).

For some people, their safety is their brain and their finger.

And I am aware of many many scenarios. (Hence my choice not to have a grip safety on a defensive firearm). I'm not sure what your point is, since we personally can control ALL of those factors except the laws. You mention 'accessibility.' Yes...and it seems like a mandatory fingerprint safety reduces that accessibility...and TIME. Time that mean life or death.

Yes, modern guns are pretty much all designed to include a safety that must be engaged before the gun can be fired. That theoretically (along with all of the other factors that I mentioned [and more]) could theoretically take time and cost lives. But you're forgetting the other side of the equation - the amount of lives lost because an unintended user has gained access to your firearm and is now trying to use that weapon.

Just last year there was a three year old child who shot his mother in the head using her firearm. Would a fingerprint lock have saved that woman's life? Almost certainly.

And that is an actual, verifiable story. Could it have been avoided in another way? Yes. Would this proposed method have also saved her life? Yes. Would this proposed method also save the cop who, in a struggle with a perp has his gun stolen from him and then used against the cop? Yes.

 

[MrT]

None of my handguns have safeties. They are absolutely ****ing pointless on a handgun.

Except for the instance where a three year old grabs the handgun and shoots his mother in the head...a safety would have ****ing life-saving on that handgun.

 

[MrT]

You are really reaching now. This is why we NEVER consider ANYTHING reasonable when it comes to gun rights. A little is never enough. You folks want the whole cake.

Is it really so hard to imagine a scenario where a criminal or an acquaintance grabs your firearm from its storage place in your home or car and then uses that gun against you?

 

[MrT]

You completely either ignored or missed the message.

Oh, no, I got the message. If we give everyone a gun, then there are no more crimes....

Except that crimes will continue, and now every crime will include a gun.

 

[MrT]

The bolded is precisely why I oppose gun "registration". How, exactly, does one go about surrendering a "previously owned" anything? If one loses their driver's license then they can keep not only their current vehicle(s) but are never asked to surrender "peviously owned" (aka already sold) vehicles. You do realize that guns, unlike cars, can now be sold without informing the government.

I assume that you mean a FFL gun dealer when you refer to a "reputable and legal distributor". As far as I know that is precisely what we have now and the current "universal" BGC idea is to force all gun sales to pass through one of those defacto "federal agents".

You simply cannot make up a new federal law that requires the states, towns and cities to take away "previously owned" guns from folks because they convicted a person on a felony charge. This takes civil asset forfeiture to a whole new level. Are you suggesting that the FBI woulld then pay a visit to anyone convicted of felony DWI/DUI, tax evasion, fraud or assault to ensure that no guns are in their home? Taking away rights is one thing, but taking away property (without just compensation) on completely unrelated charges is quite another.

In that instance, is it not illegal for those people to own a firearm at all?