What Gun Control to Keep?

[blackjack50]

What kinds of "gun control" would you like to keep on the books? Is there something you feel we can keep without infringing on our rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ttwtt78640]

Greatly enhanced sentences for "armed" offenses, so long as the "arm" was brandished or used - e.g. armed robbery. In other words, DUI with a gun in the car does not get an enhanced sentence.

 

[shagg]

Greatly enhanced sentences for "armed" offenses, so long as the "arm" was brandished or used - e.g. armed robbery. In other words, DUI with a gun in the car does not get an enhanced sentence.

:yes:
One of the few effective ways to reduce gun crime, IMO.

 

[Casper]

What kinds of "gun control" would you like to keep on the books? Is there something you feel we can keep without infringing on our rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Removing the right to bear arms of convicted violent felons and those under heavy drugs to keep them from harming themselves or others until a court releases them as being either trustworthy or sane. Other than that drop all the rest of the laws especially Federal laws. Now that does not mean I am against local (not State) laws that prohibit such things as firing a firearm within city limits unless it is warranted per their guidelines, those are local safety issues and not a threat to anyone's right to bear arms.

 

[matchlight]

I think the Second Amendment should be interpreted to allow firearms regulations of the types that were recognized in 1791. Some exceptions had already become widely recognized by then, for example that the right to keep and bear arms did not extend to felons and insane people, to carrying arms in certain sensitive public places like courtrooms, to carrying concealed weapons, and so on. It is no more offensive to the Second Amendment to recognize these exceptions than it is offensive to the First to recognize that defamation and inciting imminent lawless action have never been part of the freedom of speech.

But entirely new types of restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms--for example, arbitrary limits on magazine capacity, or arbitrary bans on certain kinds of firearms in common use--are a different matter. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right, and I would like to see the Supreme Court apply its "strict scrutiny" standard to any government action that created any such restriction. Under that standard, the government action would be presumed unconstitutional, with the government bearing the burden of proving that it was necessary for a compelling government purpose.

 

[jamesrage]

What kinds of "gun control" would you like to keep on the books? Is there something you feel we can keep without infringing on our rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Local laws that limit firing your gun in city limits. For example laws that say you can just shoot your firearm for no reason at all, that you can't do a firing range in your back yard.
laws that prohibit carrying firearms into court rooms and other sensitive places. I don't think former criminals should be banned from owning firearms and I think people who are dangerously insane should be locked up in the loony bin until they are cured.

 

[apdst]

What kinds of "gun control" would you like to keep on the books? Is there something you feel we can keep without infringing on our rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

None....

 

[MickeyW]

Removing the right to bear arms of convicted violent felons and those under heavy drugs to keep them from harming themselves or others until a court releases them as being either trustworthy or sane. Other than that drop all the rest of the laws especially Federal laws. Now that does not mean I am against local (not State) laws that prohibit such things as firing a firearm within city limits unless it is warranted per their guidelines, those are local safety issues and not a threat to anyone's right to bear arms.

Fully agree.

I think the Second Amendment should be interpreted to allow firearms regulations of the types that were recognized in 1791. Some exceptions had already become widely recognized by then, for example that the right to keep and bear arms did not extend to felons and insane people, to carrying arms in certain sensitive public places like courtrooms, to carrying concealed weapons, and so on. It is no more offensive to the Second Amendment to recognize these exceptions than it is offensive to the First to recognize that defamation and inciting imminent lawless action have never been part of the freedom of speech.

But entirely new types of restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms--for example, arbitrary limits on magazine capacity, or arbitrary bans on certain kinds of firearms in common use--are a different matter. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right, and I would like to see the Supreme Court apply its "strict scrutiny" standard to any government action that created any such restriction. Under that standard, the government action would be presumed unconstitutional, with the government bearing the burden of proving that it was necessary for a compelling government purpose.

Carrying concealed. Are you talking about without a license to do so?

Local laws that limit firing your gun in city limits. For example laws that say you can just shoot your firearm for no reason at all, that you can't do a firing range in your back yard.
laws that prohibit carrying firearms into court rooms and other sensitive places. I don't think former criminals should be banned from owning firearms and I think people who are dangerously insane should be locked up in the loony bin until they are cured.

I have a firing range in my backyard. It is very safe, and the neighbors aren't close enough to be offended by the noise and I've talked with all of them so they don't have to call the authorities when they hear me practicing or teaching a class.

None....

Pretty much agree.

 

[matchlight]

Carrying concealed. Are you talking about without a license to do so?

I could have chosen a better example of an exception to the right to keep and bear arms that was widely recognized at the time of the Second Amendment. Re-reading Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller, I see that he cites an 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in which the court said the state constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms did not prohibit banning concealed weapons. Scalia also cites an 1873 legal text whose expert author said it "had been a subject of grave discussion, in some state courts, whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, as as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons, be constitutional."

Scalia noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." It's not clear whether this was a generally recognized legal rule even in 1791. But it was well enough established by the mid-to-late 1800's that a state law which restricted or even banned concealed weapons probably would not be the most likely candidate for a Second Amendment challenge these days. It's the new and creative types of restrictions some states have come up with that I think run the greatest risk of being held unconstitutional by a new and more originalist Supreme Court. Trump will have the chance to appoint at least two justices, and I think he will probably get ones who will interpret the Constitution much like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

 

[MickeyW]

I could have chosen a better example of an exception to the right to keep and bear arms that was widely recognized at the time of the Second Amendment. Re-reading Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller, I see that he cites an 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court decision in which the court said the state constitution's guarantee of the right to bear arms did not prohibit banning concealed weapons. Scalia also cites an 1873 legal text whose expert author said it "had been a subject of grave discussion, in some state courts, whether a statute prohibiting persons, when not on a journey, as as travellers, from wearing or carrying concealed weapons, be constitutional."

Scalia noted that "the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues." It's not clear whether this was a generally recognized legal rule even in 1791. But it was well enough established by the mid-to-late 1800's that a state law which restricted or even banned concealed weapons probably would not be the most likely candidate for a Second Amendment challenge these days. It's the new and creative types of restrictions some states have come up with that I think run the greatest risk of being held unconstitutional by a new and more originalist Supreme Court. Trump will have the chance to appoint at least two justices, and I think he will probably get ones who will interpret the Constitution much like Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

We can only hope and pray that he does. Trumps greatest triumph in this entire spectacle, is that power to offer up Right thinking men or women for the SC....and the ability of the new Congress to confirm those nominations.

I just hope the old liberal retreads, will retire very soon.

7 states currently allow Concealed Carry, w/o any permit at all, for residents of those states.

I'd like to see a lot more of that. Sadly, it won't happen in the blue states.

 

[TurtleDude]

What kinds of "gun control" would you like to keep on the books? Is there something you feel we can keep without infringing on our rights?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

State laws:

reasonable restrictions concerning the DISCHARGE of firearms-like no shooting within city limits except for emergencies

Hunting laws-no shooting deer with say a 22 caliber rimfire. No dove hunting with 10 shot shotguns etc.

restrictions on carrying or possessing firearms is guarded sensitive areas-jails, courthouses,

laws preventing those adjudicated dangerous from possessing weapons

restrictions on age-no minors (under 18) from buying firearms or ammunition



Federal laws-only restrictions applying to migratory game animals

restrictions concerning possession of firearms in federal facilities such as courthouses, prisons, the offices of federal employees (such as congressmen, magistrates, the US Attorney etc)

 

[matchlight]

We can only hope and pray that he does. Trumps greatest triumph in this entire spectacle, is that power to offer up Right thinking men or women for the SC....and the ability of the new Congress to confirm those nominations.

I just hope the old liberal retreads, will retire very soon.

7 states currently allow Concealed Carry, w/o any permit at all, for residents of those states.

I'd like to see a lot more of that. Sadly, it won't happen in the blue states.

When I lived in Phoenix years ago, it wasn't uncommon to see someone wearing a sidearm in a holster. I was always glad to see someone doing that now and then, because I felt it made anyone thinking about committing a crime think a little harder about it. I don't know what the law on concealed carry was there.

 

[MickeyW]

When I lived in Phoenix years ago, it wasn't uncommon to see someone wearing a sidearm in a holster. I was always glad to see someone doing that now and then, because I felt it made anyone thinking about committing a crime think a little harder about it. I don't know what the law on concealed carry was there.

It's one of the 7 states I mentioned above. Personally, I always prefer concealed, to open carry.

 

[beerftw]

Greatly enhanced sentences for "armed" offenses, so long as the "arm" was brandished or used - e.g. armed robbery. In other words, DUI with a gun in the car does not get an enhanced sentence.

I like how you aid armed offenses rather than armed with a gun. Some states give greater penalties for using a firearm for lets say murder than with using other weapons.

How I see it, it is dumb someone gets 20 years for murder stabbing someone but gets extra time for using a firearm, armed is armed and murdered is murdered.

 

[Crimefree]

It's one of the 7 states I mentioned above. Personally, I always prefer concealed, to open carry.

A very wise choice as the victim suffers the disadvantage of surprise, there is no need or reason to give advance warning to the determined.

 

[Crimefree]

We can only hope and pray that he does. Trumps greatest triumph in this entire spectacle, is that power to offer up Right thinking men or women for the SC....and the ability of the new Congress to confirm those nominations.

I just hope the old liberal retreads, will retire very soon.

7 states currently allow Concealed Carry, w/o any permit at all, for residents of those states.

I'd like to see a lot more of that. Sadly, it won't happen in the blue states.

Does Trump wish to remain popular? Does any politician?

It should be obvious that people who are totally dependent on votes to remain in power must be subject to the thought of losing that power by loss of votes. Who controls the votes? How are votes controlled? Do people who know better vote better? Do people know a vote for gun control is a vote for criminals and easy crime? That it is a vote for decreased security? That it is a vote for decreased freedom? Why not? Who's responsibility is this?

 

[Crimefree]

State laws:

reasonable restrictions concerning the DISCHARGE of firearms-like no shooting within city limits except for emergencies

Hunting laws-no shooting deer with say a 22 caliber rimfire. No dove hunting with 10 shot shotguns etc.

restrictions on carrying or possessing firearms is guarded sensitive areas-jails, courthouses,

laws preventing those adjudicated dangerous from possessing weapons

restrictions on age-no minors (under 18) from buying firearms or ammunition



Federal laws-only restrictions applying to migratory game animals

restrictions concerning possession of firearms in federal facilities such as courthouses, prisons, the offices of federal employees (such as congressmen, magistrates, the US Attorney etc)

Sounds reasonable to me but are any of these actually a gun control law? Seems to me they are all as they should be behavioural laws. As much as we cling to the idea that one can prevent something by a system of denial we really should know by now it will fail with 100% certainty.

 

[Casper]

It's one of the 7 states I mentioned above. Personally, I always prefer concealed, to open carry.

I never open carry in town, very bad idea and for many reasons. That said, out here where I live I open carry at all times.

 

[Crimefree]

I never open carry in town, very bad idea and for many reasons. That said, out here where I live I open carry at all times.

Taking a break, seems like some here do not like my stand, have fun guys, see ya down the road......

So learn that one should not worry to much about what others think. Most of them are not capable of any reasonable thought anyway. Why place any value in their myopic irrational delusional thoughts? Take a break, clear the mind of irrelevant crap and you are better than them.

 

[MickeyW]

I never open carry in town, very bad idea and for many reasons. That said, out here where I live I open carry at all times.

So do I, on my property....

 

[Casper]

So do I, on my property....

I open carry on mine and the federal land outside my back gate. I would hate to have to go someplace else and pay money to use a range to simply zero a scope or do some plinking, had to do that for years and it was a real pain in the arse. Country Living is Best.

 

[MickeyW]

I open carry on mine and the federal land outside my back gate. I would hate to have to go someplace else and pay money to use a range to simply zero a scope or do some plinking, had to do that for years and it was a real pain in the arse. Country Living is Best.

I agree, as long as you have a good water source. I use to live in the country and my well went bad......pain in the arse too.

 

[Crimefree]

I agree, as long as you have a good water source. I use to live in the country and my well went bad......pain in the arse too.

It's worse than a pub with no beer. Sorry that misfortune happened to you.

So has this thread found any gun control that is worth keeping?

I've seen suggestions of age which in reality is the parents responsibility to bring their kids up properly and shifts that responsibility to an under age person. I mean a child can walk in and buy a vehicle no questions asked.

I've see suggestions of the feared "felons" which in reality are in prison or on parole and may not have firearms. Once released they are citizens again with all rights intact. Can we have a blanket law that strips a class or group of people of constitutional rights because we don't like them or fear them? I really do not think so can anyone show a constitutional law that could do so? If criminals are to dangerous to be let out denying them gun seems like a really stupid idea that has no chance of working.

All this recent claims of registration, background checks and what not have already been tested and found useless as they are through out the world. Is there any point in repeating failed "experiments" that are very difficult to remove.

Bans and restrictions have never worked with anything. Why will they work now?

Gun free zones are a total disaster.

So what have the gun control experts to suggest that is worth examining to keep?

 

[Rucker61]

... suggestions of the feared "felons" which in reality are in prison or on parole and may not have firearms. Once released they are citizens again with all rights intact.

This may be your desire, but it is not the current law. Recidivism rates over 70% are the reason convicted felons are feared.

 

[Crimefree]

This may be your desire, but it is not the current law. Recidivism rates over 70% are the reason convicted felons are feared.

Does that not then point to a problem with our punishment system? Do you think a gun law can fix that by denying people who are willing to break the law with another law?

Now what does the constitution say about that? Does it exclude any citizen?

Your own words show the reason "fear". Does any section of the constitution read unless they are feared?

When we start making excuses to breech the constitution we are done. The chance of such a law working to keep guns out of peoples hands is zero. It also will not rehabilitate them.

PS There is no law that can do that.