[W:211]What is "common sense gun control"?

[Rucker61]

Actually, it doesn't. It proves my point. Note how those State constitutions use different language. That was the dispute at the Convention. The framers chose not to address that as it was considered a State issue.

The language they use acknowledges bearing arms for self defense. Correct?

 

[Rucker61]

I don’t know that history but will accept for argument’s sake that you are right. If it’s treated as a 9th amendment issue doesn’t that effectively neuter the Federal government - except maybe for end runs using thr commerce clause?

And that's unconstitutional.

In McCulloch v Maryland (1819), Chief Justice Marshall insisted that "should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal . . . to say that such an act was not the law of the land."

In United States v Darby, Justice Stone wrote: "Whatever their motive and purpose, regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibition are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause."

Trying to use the Commerce Clause to restrict a right goes against McCulloch v Maryland.

 

[NWRatCon]

I don’t know that history but will accept for argument’s sake that you are right. If it’s treated as a 9th amendment issue doesn’t that effectively neuter the Federal government - except maybe for end runs using thr commerce clause?

Not at all. The process for reviewing federal limitations remains the same: 1) legal authority; 2) rational relationship to that authority; 3) direct effect of legislation on issue; 4) limited intrusion on individual interest. Same formula in place for 200 years.

 

[reinaert]

Yearly competency licensure for each weapon would not violate the 2A. Nor would Congressional definition of what constitutes arms, esp if Congress includes language that restricts the SCOTUS's capacity to review.

 

[NWRatCon]

And that's unconstitutional.

In McCulloch v Maryland (1819), Chief Justice Marshall insisted that "should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the government; it would become the painful duty of this tribunal . . . to say that such an act was not the law of the land."

In United States v Darby, Justice Stone wrote: "Whatever their motive and purpose, regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibition are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause."

Trying to use the Commerce Clause to restrict a right goes against McCulloch v Maryland.

Not at all. Where do you get this nonsense?

 

[Rucker61]

Not at all. Where do you get this nonsense?

SCOTUS. How would you interpret McCulloch?

 

[CrakHoBarbie]

Did he say it was okay?

When one defends the Constitution to the point that they defend the right of violent felons to own weapons simply because it isn't specifically prohibited by the 2nd amendment, there's a problem.

 

[NWRatCon]

SCOTUS. How would you interpret McCulloch?

I just posted it. Post #103.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

UBC but nothing as draconian as you suggested.

Licensing for public carry

No registration, no insurance to exercise a right,

Allowing people to beat choose for themselves what kind of firearm they wish to own

YOu've gott register to vote, and it's the single most important right there is as far as the USA is concerned.

 

[NWRatCon]

Getting back to the actual topic...

Firearms, ammunition and their components clearly affect interstate commerce. In addition, limitations on possession and use of particular materials affect the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. Congress, therefore, 1) has authority to legislate with regard to the subject matter. (States also have authority to legislate with regard to the subject matter.) The necessary and proper clause would apply to enforcement matters. Having established that, the next question would be,

2) Would particular limitations be reasonably related to congressional goals. For example. A limitation on magazine size, or operational characteristics. The courts have already addressed many of these issues regarding past legislation. It would be fairly simple to structure the law to meet this criterion.

3) Would particular limitations effect the congressional purpose? Courts have been generally deferential on this standard.

4) Would those intrusions have an impact on individual interest? Here the court would balance the public interest against the level of intrusion. It is not, as some have asserted, a black and white, up or down determination. A magazine-size limitation, for example, would have a minimal impact on the individual interest. It doesn't prohibit the use, it doesn't make a firearm ineffective, but would have a profound impact on public safety.

That's the analysis. Now, how about some specific proposals?

 

[Rucker61]

YOu've gott register to vote, and it's the single most important right there is as far as the USA is concerned.

Or not. It's really only important in swing districts or states. I live in a blue state, and no matter which we I vote my vote really means nothing.

 

[Rucker61]

Getting back to the actual topic...

Firearms, ammunition and their components clearly affect interstate commerce. In addition, limitations on possession and use of particular materials affect the general welfare of the citizens of the United States. Congress, therefore, 1) has authority to legislate with regard to the subject matter. (States also have authority to legislate with regard to the subject matter.) The necessary and proper clause would apply to enforcement matters. Having established that, the next question would b

2) Would particular limitations be reasonably related to congressional goals. For example. A limitation on magazine size, or operational characteristics. The courts have already addressed many of these issues regarding past legislation. It would be fairly simple to structure the law to meet this criterion.

An actual ban on handguns, with confiscation by force, is the one action that would have a material impact on the firearm death rate. Yet Heller stated that these were protected. A magazine size limit wouldn't affect the ability to kill one, two or three people, and that's 99% or so of all homicides.

3) Would particular limitations effect the congressional purpose? Courts have been generally deferential on this standard.

4) Would those intrusions have an impact on individual interest? Here the court would balance the public interest against the level of intrusion. It is not, as some have asserted, a black and white, up or down determination. A magazine-size limitation, for example, would have a minimal impact on the individual interest. It doesn't prohibit the use, it doesn't make a firearm ineffective, but would have a profound impact on public safety.

That's the analysis. Now, how about some specific proposals?

⦁ Allow individual access to NICS so that private sales can utilize the background check process. Sen Coburn sponsored a bill that would be very effective for this.
⦁ Exempt CCW and LEO from background checks.
⦁ Arrest those who commit felonies while attempting to get guns. In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Another 20,000 were denied for state and local prohibited status. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
⦁ Focus on the gun dealers and sellers who sell large amounts of guns to ineligible buyers. If the Brady Campaign knows who they are, then ATF knows who the major sellers are.
⦁ Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in acts of criminal violence. Stop plea bargaining away gun crimes. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/
⦁ Extend the legal possession geographies for CCW holders.
⦁ Go arrest the criminals who have guns illegally now - don't wait for them to commit a crime.
⦁ Fully prosecute and punish straw purchasers. http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/pol...cle_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

 

[Chillfolks]

YOu've gott register to vote, and it's the single most important right there is as far as the USA is concerned.

Ok if it’s really that important to you then push your representative to purpose legislation that automatically registers you to own a firearm whenever you register to vote.
As long as you make it as easy as registering to vote and keep any weapons you own anonymous like your vote is then I am willing to compromise on this. Most of the time whenever you see someone talk about registration they are also talking about a tracking program nothing like how registration to vote works.

 

[NWRatCon]

An actual ban on handguns, with confiscation by force, is the one action that would have a material impact on the firearm death rate. Yet Heller stated that these were protected. A magazine size limit wouldn't affect the ability to kill one, two or three people, and that's 99% or so of all homicides.

⦁ Allow individual access to NICS so that private sales can utilize the background check process. Sen Coburn sponsored a bill that would be very effective for this.
⦁ Exempt CCW and LEO from background checks.
⦁ Arrest those who commit felonies while attempting to get guns. In 2010, 72,000 applicants were denied permission to purchase a firearm via the NICS and state systems. 34,000 of these were denied for previous felony convictions. Another 20,000 were denied for state and local prohibited status. Only 10 (10!) were convicted. We still have tens of thousands of people who committed a felony by lying on the Form 4473 and have a violent past free to find guns through illegal means. Given that a violent felon is looking for a gun, how many violent crimes could be prevented by arresting and incarcerating these felons? https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/239272.pdf
⦁ Focus on the gun dealers and sellers who sell large amounts of guns to ineligible buyers. If the Brady Campaign knows who they are, then ATF knows who the major sellers are.
⦁ Mandatory sentences for those who use guns in acts of criminal violence. Stop plea bargaining away gun crimes. http://chicagoreporter.com/thousand...-being-dismissed-cook-county-criminal-courts/
⦁ Extend the legal possession geographies for CCW holders.
⦁ Go arrest the criminals who have guns illegally now - don't wait for them to commit a crime.
⦁ Fully prosecute and punish straw purchasers. http://www.omaha.com/news/crime/pol...cle_dcd60ace-8716-5651-9125-cb297998694e.html

That is an incredible list of nonsense. Not a single useful suggestion among them. Well done.

 

[Gaius46]

Not at all. The process for reviewing federal limitations remains the same: 1) legal authority; 2) rational relationship to that authority; 3) direct effect of legislation on issue; 4) limited intrusion on individual interest. Same formula in place for 200 years.

So even though the 9th gives states the right to implement gun laws as they see fit there is room for, say, a federal ban on high capacity magazines?

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Or not. It's really only important in swing districts or states. I live in a blue state, and no matter which we I vote my vote really means nothing.

And I live in Kansas so I'm swamped in a sea of morons, sorry I mean red. It's still the single most important thing you can do for your country.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Ok if it’s really that important to you then push your representative to purpose legislation that automatically registers you to own a firearm whenever you register to vote.
As long as you make it as easy as registering to vote and keep any weapons you own anonymous like your vote is then I am willing to compromise on this. Most of the time whenever you see someone talk about registration they are also talking about a tracking program nothing like how registration to vote works.

Wait, aren't you guys the ones who want to make it harder and harder to vote?

 

[jpevans]

Everything you mentioned infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

Says Who? Not "Heller" which is confined to handguns. If the Constitution were looked at by Originalist Justices, it would hold more towards the "well regulated Militia", then the any jackoff with enough money can buy whatever they desire. Including rapid firing semi-automatics' that put children in closed caskets because they are designed to kill by ripping flesh & bone causing severe trauma to the bodies systems.

 

[Gaius46]

Says Who? Not "Heller" which is confined to handguns. If the Constitution were looked at by Originalist Justices, it would hold more towards the "well regulated Militia", then the any jackoff with enough money can buy whatever they desire. Including rapid firing semi-automatics' that put children in closed caskets because they are designed to kill by ripping flesh & bone causing severe trauma to the bodies systems.

Heller is not confined to handguns. In his opinion Scalia said the 2A applied to “firearms in common use.”

 

[Gateman_Wen]

 

[Rucker61]

So even though the 9th gives states the right to implement gun laws as they see fit there is room for, say, a federal ban on high capacity magazines?

See Chicago v McDonald.

 

[jpevans]

That's a silly semantic game the either willfully ignorant or actually ignorant fall for and think it makes them smart to spew.

Well that was the general thinking, up until "Heller", which opened the interpretation up to allowing a handgun in the home. Repeating weapons were the stuff of science fiction to the framers, nevermind a weapon that would fire 45 high powered slugs in 60 seconds. Reducing game animals to worthless masses of fur & flesh & blood.
I am hopeful that the American people who are open to sensible gun laws, make their opinion inform their vote come Nov. As I'm sure those who feel that any restriction on owning & carrying is taboo will.

or those hoping to see new laws to prevent gun violence, there’s a lot to like in the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll, which was conducted after this week’s massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

The survey covered a fair amount of ground, but among the topline results were lopsided attitudes:
88 percent of the public supports background checks on gun sales.
75 percent of Americans are on board with a national gun sale database.
77 percent support a ban on assault-style weapons.
At face value, a poll like this might seem like great news for reformers and terrible news for Republicans. After all, it’s an election year. Which elected officials want to take a stand against an idea that 88 percent of Americans support?

MSN

 

[Gaius46]

See Chicago v McDonald.

I know but we’re not discussing current reality. We’re discussing whether the 9A in theory protects the RTKBA at the state level and - if it does - the limits of federal authority.

 

[Renae]

Well that was the general thinking, up until "Heller", which opened the interpretation up to allowing a handgun in the home. Repeating weapons were the stuff of science fiction to the framers, nevermind a weapon that would fire 45 high powered slugs in 60 seconds. Reducing game animals to worthless masses of fur & flesh & blood.
I am hopeful that the American people who are open to sensible gun laws, make their opinion inform their vote come Nov. As I'm sure those who feel that any restriction on owning & carrying is taboo will.

or those hoping to see new laws to prevent gun violence, there’s a lot to like in the latest Politico/Morning Consult poll, which was conducted after this week’s massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

The survey covered a fair amount of ground, but among the topline results were lopsided attitudes:
88 percent of the public supports background checks on gun sales.
75 percent of Americans are on board with a national gun sale database.
77 percent support a ban on assault-style weapons.
At face value, a poll like this might seem like great news for reformers and terrible news for Republicans. After all, it’s an election year. Which elected officials want to take a stand against an idea that 88 percent of Americans support?

MSN

I can find a poll to say whatever I want it to say, most people don't know what an Assault rifle is nor do they get how little an impact such a ban would have on crime in general and these kinds of shootings. People are sheep when they are scared, and the media and elites prefer us scared.

 

[Rucker61]

That is an incredible list of nonsense. Not a single useful suggestion among them. Well done.

So you don't want to allow direct access to NICS to conduct private sales, you want to let 50,000 easily identifiable felons free to find guns through illegal means every year, you don't want to prosecute criminals who break gun laws and you don't care about prosecuting straw purchasers?

That seems like a strange position to take.