CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Foxfyre, Feb 24, 2018.

?

Of the choices offered to liberals and conservatives in the OP. . .

  1. I don't need to compromise as I can accept all or most.

  2. I can't accept any or most of the choices.

  3. I can accept the options for compromise given the liberals but not the conservatives.

  4. I can accept the options for compromise given the conservatives but not the liberals.

  5. Other that I will explain in my post.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,919
    Thanks Received:
    11,447
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,597

    The original gun registration scheme.....of course, from New york....to protect political leg breakers from law abiding citizens......

    Why Background Registration Checks Suck | Op-ed Articles

    Objection Two: Abuse of the System… Again
    New York City has witnessed just about every form of abuse, and will make for a good case study....

    n 1967, then-mayor John Lindsay signed into law a long gun (rifle or shotgun) registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council. From that point forward, anyone seeking to possess any rifle or shotgun within the city limits merely had to register it by make, model and serial number to obtain a permit for legal ownership. The fee was set at very “reasonable and common sense” $3. Gun owners were promised that registration rolls would never be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens. Bill sponsor City Councilman Theodore Weiss vowed that that the fee would never be raised, and that “the city would always bear the brunt of the real costs of administering the law.”

    Immediately after passage of the law, Mayor Lindsay proposed amendments to increase the fee to $25. As of this writing, the cost is approximately $230 ($140 for the application fee and $90 to process fingerprints). So much for a politician’s promise.

    Then, in 1991, Mayor David Dinkins signed a City Council bill banning the possession of many semi-automatic rifles, claiming they were a now considered “assault weapons,” a term recently defined but now codified in NYC Administrative code, S 10-303.1. The registration rolls established in 1967 – the same rolls that “would not be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens” - were used to identify the owners of such arms, which had been legal just the day before. Another promise broken.

    2,340 citizens received letters demanding the forced sale or surrender of the guns. A Staten Island man who announced his refusal to comply was the subject of a police raid. He was arrested, and his guns were seized.

    In 2006, NYC Administrative code S 10-306 was added, outlawing any “ammunition feeding device greater than five rounds.” This further reduced the number of formerly-legal rifles that could continue to be possessed, but no real enforcement effort was attempted until the passage of the statewide “SAFE Act” law in 2013. Then, once again, the records that “would not be used to confiscate the firearms of law-abiding citizens” were consulted and “sell or surrender the guns we know you own” were sent out to New York City residents.

    Guns were being confiscated – again – even if doors weren’t being kicked in.
     
  2. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    64,919
    Thanks Received:
    11,447
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +46,597

    There actually is one more reason the anti gunners want Universal Background Checks...to harass normal gun owners simply using guns...

    Symbolic Gesture Illustrates Idiocy of Background Check Law

    One universal Background check that is already law....

    The Oregon Firearms Safety Act (OFSA), enacted in 2015, follows the template of such “universal background check” laws and initiatives. The OFSA applies when any change of possession of a gun occurs, even if ownership or title remains the same, by defining a “transfer” as any “delivery of a firearm from a transferor to a transferee, including, but not limited to, the sale, gift, loan or lease of the firearm.”

    It prohibits a gun sale or “transfer” between persons who are not federally licensed, unless the transaction is completed through a licensed gun dealer. Both parties “must appear in person before a gun dealer, with the firearm, and request that the gun dealer perform a criminal background check on the transferee.”

    What does this mean in reality..........

    Dealers are authorized to charge fees for “facilitating” these transactions, which means a loan of a gun costs the lender or borrower twice over (once for the loan, and again when the gun is returned).

    A person who fails to comply with these requirements commits a criminal offense –a felony if the person has a previous conviction.

    The OFSA has limited exceptions, including temporary transfers between specified family members (but not in-laws), for law enforcement officers (only “while that person is acting within the scope of official duties”), or to prevent death or serious physical injury (but the threat must be “imminent” and the gun must be returned “immediately”).


    This is the funny part......one of the first people to get caught up in this law....is a rabid, anti gunner minister who won a gun in raffle that he planned to destroy....he then went on to break this law...unintentionally.......but he should be punished to the full extent of this law...because he supports this foolishness....

    Reverend Lucas, a former lawyer and lobbyist, purchased $3,000 worth of tickets for a softball team’s raffle of an AR-15 rifle, seeking to win the rifle so he could destroy it in a symbolic act. After winning the raffle, Rev.

    Lucas went through the mandatory background check process at a licensed gun dealer before claiming the gun.

    He reportedly then gave the gun to a parishioner to store while he decided what to do with it.

    Regardless of motive or intent, the “delivery of a firearm” to another person for storage is still a “transfer” governed by the OFSA.

    According to news reports, local police have asked the Oregon State Police to investigate the matter. If convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the OFSA, Rev. Lucas could face a maximum fine of $6,250 and up to a year in jail.

    As a law abiding citizen...I hope the minister is punished to the full extent of this law......I hope he enjoys prison food......

    Better him than someone else.......

    And this is another part of the real intent behind the law...to harrass normal gun owners in common gun activities that before were completely innocent and legal.....and now are fraught with legal peril......

    Similarly, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) issued a guidance concerning “transfers” during hunter education classes. Resting on a convoluted interpretation of the initiative law, this concluded that volunteer instructors were “law enforcement” and exempted from the background check requirements, but only “when in formal volunteer status for WDFW and acting within the scope of their authority.” However, student-to-student transfers of firearms would not qualify under that exemption, prompting a suggestion that instructors use only air rifles or facsimiles that did not meet the definition of a “firearm” under the initiative.

    So.........uninformed people have no idea what the true intent of Universal Background checks are......first...to harrass normal gun owners and to make any innocent, common gun activity legally risky, in order to discourage gun ownership and use.....

    The primary reason for background checks......to get gun registration.......this is the crown jewel of the anti gun movement........
     
  3. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,128
    Thanks Received:
    13,565
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,070
    And I don't have much to quarrel with re Heller or anybody else who argues that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has no authority to infringe on the people's right to bear arms.

    Where the federal government has gone wrong, however, and that would include SCOTUS, is in the unsupportable assumption that the federal government is given authority to dictate to the states what their respective laws will be or to impose any law upon the states that the Constitution does not specifically authorize.

    Anybody reading even the cursory opinion of the Founders, i.e. those who forged the documents that would eventually be reflected in the Constitution, would have to see that the intent was that the central government would have no authority other than what was necessary for the separate states to function as one nation and to prevent the states from doing violence to each other. They certainly did not think the federal government could dictate whether the saloon owner could collect the sidearms at the door or that the school marm had to be armed or protest that the laws in the various states and local communities regarding gun ownership were frequently so different.

    In the late 18th Century, 19th Century, and at least to the mid 20th Century, some places were wide open re guns; others more restrictive. But in both cases school children didn't worry about somebody coming in and gunning down everybody in sight. I grew up in a time in which there were usually some guns in the schoolyard and sometimes in the school too, but school children didn't worry about somebody coming in and gunning down everybody in sight.

    And while I think some regulation of what and where weapons are allowed can be appropriate, the bigger picture suggests to me that looking to gun control as the solution is very short sighted and most likely entirely ineffective to solve the problem.

    But I would sure agree to some demands of those who insist guns are the problem if they would agree to work with me and others on creating a culture that doesn't breed mass murderers.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2018
  4. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,550
    Thanks Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,329
    To me, at least, this is pretty easy. The intent was to ensure the government could not prevent otherwise law abiding citizens from owning (bearing) arms with which they could mount an effective resistance to an oppressive (or tyrannical) government. Therefore, as with all rights enshrined in the COTUS, if it does not infringe on another's' rights, it is within the scope of protection. Using this logic, it would be within one's rights to own (bear) any and all weapons. The brandishing, or use thereof is another matter altogether, and a matter for legislation and prosecution.

    For example, using your example of "machine guns" (AKA fully automatic weapons), it would be within one's rights to own a BAR. Brandishing it to initiate an aggressive act/threaten, would already be illegal, as you are threatening to deprive someone of their right to life. Using it, for purposes other than for target shooting, hunting, self-defense, etc., would also be illegal, as it is reasonable to believe that you intend to deprive someone of life.
    I wholeheartedly agree. We are in a very sad state when 2 out of 3 people cannot even name the three branches of the federal government. Something that should be basic civics, even for a 3rd grader.
     
  5. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,128
    Thanks Received:
    13,565
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,070
    As for what arms that the people are allowed to bear under the Constitution, you raise a good point that we are not to be denied the right to defend ourselves, even against our own government should it rise up against the people to do violence in an unlawful manner.

    But I also balance that against a guy who often got blind stupid drunk, probably including more than one substance, and totally out of his mind on weekends and once decided to do some target practice in his back yard with his perfectly legal and honorably acquired deer rifle. Thank God nobody was injured or killed but he put some inadvertent bullets into some of his neighbor's houses. The police took care of it arriving about 20 minutes or so after the shooting binge started. I was told that he and his moved away after he spent awhile in jail, and he apparently checked himself into a rehab center and got dried out.

    But what if he was our neighbor and he had a machine gun or a missile launcher or a Bradley tank in the back yard on those nights he was literally out of his mind? I think I would not be comfortable with that at all.

    There are always some wrinkles in the debate. But I honestly believe returning the American society to a homogenous people sharing mostly common values of personal responsibility, accountability, and working out their differences without violence, we would not have enough of a gun problem to worry about.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,550
    Thanks Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,329
    Ok, so you clearly laid out your case for UBCs. I disagree, but that is another matter. Here's the thing, It's been illegal to murder since the inception of this country. That does not stop people from murdering. Sure, it may discourage some, and imprison those convicted. How many lives have been made whole again though this system? Not one. Simply put, it's because prevention is the only way.

    Prevention is key, on that I think we agree. Would UBCs prevent "nut jobs" from getting guns? Maybe. You know what, I'll even say in some cases it would. However, a determined person can still get a gun. That would be made exponentially more difficult if we had some kind of psychiatric hold laws. Something like this:

    I, and several others, believe one of my relatives/friends is a threat to themselves or others. We go before a judge and testify as such, providing evidence. The judge then has the authority, if deemed appropriate, to legally compel this person to undergo a psych eval in a secured facility. The doctors then make a determination on the individual's mental state and report back to the court. The court then decides if this person can be released, and under what conditions.

    Does it take itime? Sure, so does doing a murder investigation. Will it stop all murders? Of course not, but it does follow the intent of our framers that everyone has certain rights that cannot be taken away without DUE PROCESS.

    What do you think? Where is the flaw? What am I missing?
     
  7. task0778
    Offline

    task0778 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2017
    Messages:
    3,299
    Thanks Received:
    704
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Texas hill country
    Ratings:
    +3,110
    Was wondering at what point in your process do you suspend the individual's right to buy a gun. Do you also confiscate the weapons he already has? I can go along with your idea of psychiatric hold laws, but I'm not sure we have the facilities or the means to do this for everybody that might need to be held.
     
  8. Foxfyre
    Offline

    Foxfyre Eternal optimist Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Messages:
    53,128
    Thanks Received:
    13,565
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    Desert Southwest USA
    Ratings:
    +21,070
    I interpret it that the 2nd Amendment means that the FEDERAL government cannot infringe on our right to bear arms. But it poses no restriction whatsoever on whatever laws state and local governments can impose or what rules a private home or establishment may have. If the saloon owner wants no guns, there should be no federal law requiring him to have one. If I don't want guns in my home, I should not have to have them. But, if I am a collector and want 100 or 1000 firearms in my collection, the federal government has no authority to say I can't have that.

    But ultimately, the safety of the nation, the state, the local community, and the home resides in the integrity and culture of the people and not in gun control.
     
  9. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,550
    Thanks Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,329
    I would bet that this was not a one time occurance. Assuming it was not, I refer you to the proposal I layed out in post #296, and ask for your reaction. Could my proposal have prevented such a situation? Would it cause you to be more comfortable with people having weapons that can do significant damage in very short periods of time?

    Of course there still needs to be restrictions on HOW one uses weapons from of ALL kinds. I believe we, as a society, need to think twice about restricting WHAT weapons one can own. Lest we lose more rights...
     
  10. oldsoul
    Offline

    oldsoul Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2015
    Messages:
    2,550
    Thanks Received:
    382
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Location:
    East side of Spoon Lake
    Ratings:
    +1,329
    As for confiscation, the court would have that power, under certain circumstances. However, compelled transfer would be much preferable to me, especially if only temporary.

    As for the facilities, that I do not know. I am suggesting a long term solution, so that is something that would need to be addressed. A phase-in period may need to be implemented to allow time for facilities to become available (built/retrofitted/expanded). As far as who would own/operate them, I would prefer non-profit organisations, if that is not feasible, then for profit would be better than government owned/operated. I would be willing to discuss all options though.
     

Share This Page