A gun control proposal

[hjmick]

Wow, Timmy sure did "tear things up" with this thread. So much so that he bailed back at page 3... Guess he recognized his failure...

GREAT JOB TIMMY! Way to make an impression! TEAR IT UP, LITTLE MAN!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How about a real conversation about the gun issue .

Here's what I think .

Background Checks, no private sale or gun show loopholes . Gun registration so we can follow the gun and prevent straw purchases. Local gun licenses thru the police Those things would help keep guns away from criminals and kooks . That's the majority of the gun problem.

And put an undue burden on the vast majority of gun buyers who aren't criminals and kooks, so no.

It also won't stop people like Chris Harper-Mercer

 

[Politico]

Wow, Timmy sure did "tear things up" with this thread. So much so that he bailed back at page 3... Guess he recognized his failure...

GREAT JOB TIMMY! Way to make an impression! TEAR IT UP, LITTLE MAN!

LOL!

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow, Timmy sure did "tear things up" with this thread. So much so that he bailed back at page 3... Guess he recognized his failure...

GREAT JOB TIMMY! Way to make an impression! TEAR IT UP, LITTLE MAN!

Timmy is yet another world class idiot spouting things he heard on Rachel Maddow. When reality collides he hightails it out of town.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

no thanks Timmy , I want to roll back all gun laws .

so what do u want ? Guns out of vending machines?

The application of firearms regulatory measures consistent with that of the regulation of other rights: that firearms regulatory measures be rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, are supported by objective, documented facts and evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.

In essence what needs to happen is laws that seek to limit or restrict the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment should be subject to strict scrutiny of judicial review, which is currently not the case.

If firearms regulatory measures were subject to strict scrutiny, policies such as waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions and bans, licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry), permit requirements, registration requirements, and bans on particular types of weapons clearly in common use would be invalidated by the courts.

The real question I have here is why?

With the recent SCOTUS rulings, I think there are several laws on the books that are not simply unconstitutional but blatantly so yet they have not fallen. It is not as though these rulings are brand new - how have some of these laws stuck around?

These laws pass Constitutional muster because the Heller Court did not specify a particular level of judicial review, leaving that to the lower courts, who have for the most part used intermediate scrutiny, a level of judicial review that decreases the burden on government to demonstrate its gun laws are warranted.

Judges in the Federal and appellate courts have held that as long as a given jurisdiction allows the possession of some type of firearm, the banning of a specific firearm is Constitutional, along with bans and restrictions on types of magazines and their capacity.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Judges in the Federal and appellate courts have held that as long as a given jurisdiction allows the possession of some type of firearm, the banning of a specific firearm is Constitutional, along with bans and restrictions on types of magazines and their capacity.

What an absurd position.

Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the Methodist religion, on the grounds that there are still plenty of other religions that one could choose from?

Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the possession or operation of a Davidson printing press, as long as one can still have an AB Dick press?

Can a jurisdiction ban the expression of a particular opinion, on the basis that one still is free to express a different opinion?

A right isn't really a right, if it's subject to any arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Judges in the Federal and appellate courts have held that as long as a given jurisdiction allows the possession of some type of firearm, the banning of a specific firearm is Constitutional, along with bans and restrictions on types of magazines and their capacity.

What an absurd position.

Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the Methodist religion, on the grounds that there are still plenty of other religions that one could choose from?

Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the possession or operation of a Davidson printing press, as long as one can still have an AB Dick press?

Can a jurisdiction ban the expression of a particular opinion, on the basis that one still is free to express a different opinion?

A right isn't really a right, if it's subject to any arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.

First Amendment jurisprudence is nearly 100 years old, Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving, yet to have a post Heller/McDonald ruling by the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court can rule only on the issue or issues before it, where in Heller the appropriate level of judicial review was not at issue.

Moreover, we must assume the various Federal judges are ruling in good faith with regard to the Constitutionality of gun laws – there's nothing in Heller giving a Federal judge license to infer that the application of strict scrutiny is warranted, as the Federal courts have shown deference to state and local jurisdictions who enacted these measures reflecting the will of the people; absent precedent demonstrating the people have willfully erred by enacting measures clearly repugnant to the Constitution, the courts will likely continue to apply intermediate scrutiny.

In time there will likely be a case to come before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of various restrictions and bans, where the focus needs to be on Miller's holding that weapons considered to be 'in common use' are entitled to Second Amendment protections, and the argument is successfully made that AR and AK/M platform rifles are clearly 'in common use,' and indeed entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[FA_Q2]

Judges in the Federal and appellate courts have held that as long as a given jurisdiction allows the possession of some type of firearm, the banning of a specific firearm is Constitutional, along with bans and restrictions on types of magazines and their capacity.

What an absurd position.

Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the Methodist religion, on the grounds that there are still plenty of other religions that one could choose from?

Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the possession or operation of a Davidson printing press, as long as one can still have an AB Dick press?

Can a jurisdiction ban the expression of a particular opinion, on the basis that one still is free to express a different opinion?

A right isn't really a right, if it's subject to any arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.

First Amendment jurisprudence is nearly 100 years old, Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving, yet to have a post Heller/McDonald ruling by the Supreme Court.

And the Supreme Court can rule only on the issue or issues before it, where in Heller the appropriate level of judicial review was not at issue.

Moreover, we must assume the various Federal judges are ruling in good faith with regard to the Constitutionality of gun laws – there's nothing in Heller giving a Federal judge license to infer that the application of strict scrutiny is warranted, as the Federal courts have shown deference to state and local jurisdictions who enacted these measures reflecting the will of the people; absent precedent demonstrating the people have willfully erred by enacting measures clearly repugnant to the Constitution, the courts will likely continue to apply intermediate scrutiny.

In time there will likely be a case to come before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of various restrictions and bans, where the focus needs to be on Miller's holding that weapons considered to be 'in common use' are entitled to Second Amendment protections, and the argument is successfully made that AR and AK/M platform rifles are clearly 'in common use,' and indeed entitled to Constitutional protections.

The courts are painfully slow (and this is a good thing). Eventually these cases will get there though, as I stated earlier, I am somewhat surprised it is not going a little faster considering all the laws on the books that virtually ignore the second even exists.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

First Amendment jurisprudence is nearly 100 years old, Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving, yet to have a post Heller/McDonald ruling by the Supreme Court.

Both the First and the Second Amendments were ratified at the same time,and have been in effect for the same time. Nowhere in your pathetic excuse about “Second Amendment jurisprudence [being] in its infancy, still evolving…” justifies any of the past century's efforts at trying to deny that it means what it clearly states; nor does it justify any acts of any corrupt judges, legislators, executives, or other public servants to willfully violate it.

 

[Mousterian]

 

[Jarlaxle]

How about a real conversation about the gun issue .

Here's what I think .

Background Checks, no private sale or gun show loopholes . Gun registration so we can follow the gun and prevent straw purchases. Local gun licenses thru the police Those things would help keep guns away from criminals and kooks . That's the majority of the gun problem.

In return . The law abiding can buy all the guns they want . U can only shoot 2 at a time at best . U want a 20 round clip, go ahead and have a party . License to carry, ok with me .


What's the down side ?

I differ from most conservatives in that I believe that with our rights come responsibilities.
That said, I think a firearms purchase should fall into the same vein as buying a motor vehicle.
In order to purchase a vehicle and then operate it on the public roadways, we must present ID, have a background( credit) check, give out personal information.
I see no reason why a firearm purchase cannot include the same scrutiny.

Actually...none of that is true. When I bought my Dakota, I handed the guy money and drove away with the truck. When I bought my Jeep, I did the same. Neither got any personal information beyond my name.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You are not going to get any kind of compromise from our gun nuts. And I would add the penalties for breaking these laws. If you sell a gun to someone without the background check and approval, you are arrested for a felony, and can never own any kind of firearm again. The same for the person trying to buy a gun without a check. Guns cannot be transferred in any manner, even within families without said background check. To do so incurs a felony conviction. Those with felony convictions cannot own guns. Period. Those judged to have sanity problems with hostility cannot own guns, period.

The majority of the guns in the US are owned by criminals.

Do you have any actual EVIDENCE of that assertion, or did you pull it out of your ass?

 

[westwall]

How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?

So long as there is no gun registration involved i think that this is a great idea.

 

[Rustic]

Gun registration is absolutely unacceptable... No reason for it.

When people buy firearms from me they have an background insa-check just like a swiping a Visa card.

I never and will never ask them to fill out gun registration...

 

[AVG-JOE]

How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?

So long as there is no gun registration involved i think that this is a great idea.

Florida issues concealed carry permits. I would say that anyone who has that kind of certification from their state should be a buyer that a seller can sell to immediately.

The idea is to keep weapons out of the hands of the whack-jobs.

Permit renewal cycles to be adjusted accordingly and the sane will simply have to deal.

`​

 

[westwall]

How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?

So long as there is no gun registration involved i think that this is a great idea.

Florida issues concealed carry permits. I would say that anyone who has that kind of certification from their state should be a buyer that a seller can sell to immediately.

The idea is to keep weapons out of the hands of the whack-jobs.

Permit renewal cycles to be adjusted accordingly and the sane will simply have to deal.​

Here in Nevada anyone with a CCW (as I have) is exempt from background checks when they purchase a weapon from any source. If you buy from a store you still have to fill out the 4473 but you don't have to do anything else. I would love to see a law passed that did exactly as you say, any background check is immediate, and free to the caller. There is no gun registration but we DO get to check out who is buying the weapon.

And yes, in that situation I could support the seller being civilly liable for failure to do a check.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

How about a real conversation about the gun issue .

Here's what I think .

Background Checks, no private sale or gun show loopholes . Gun registration so we can follow the gun and prevent straw purchases. Local gun licenses thru the police Those things would help keep guns away from criminals and kooks . That's the majority of the gun problem.

In return . The law abiding can buy all the guns they want . U can only shoot 2 at a time at best . U want a 20 round clip, go ahead and have a party . License to carry, ok with me .


What's the down side ?

The down side is all the shit you listed and think is the pro side. So here's the **** off side...you get nothing and will like it.

 

[easyt65]

No existing law can prevent shootings.

No potential law can prevent shootings.

Criminals will not obey any law.

These laws target law-abiding citizens and seek to maje it harder for THEM to own guns.

Stripping law-abiding citizens of their ability to defend themselves will not stop shooting but will ensure more victims.

Take action that targets criminals:
- Arm guards and select teachers to conceal carry at schools; shooters pick unguarded gun-free zones where they will have the least chance of being shot
-- Hire retired military vets

- Pass laws like Katie's law to protect Americans

- Outlaw Sanctuary Cities that give safe haven to violent illegals that prey on Americans

- Close the loophole that alliws violent tepeat felon illegals to be released when DHS & ICE doesn't want to take them or have been told not to

- Enforce existing Immigration and other laws

- Declare staes of Energency in the worst cities, like Chicago, and bring in the National Guard to combat the violent gangs and criminals perpetrating the record-setting violence

Start addresding the promotion of violence, desensitizing of violence, and disrespect for life in our culture through violent movies, violent video games, and teaching our kids murdering babies at any stage of pregnancy is ok

....there's a serious, good start at really adressing the issue

 

[Mousterian]

What a crock of shit, easyt65! You're conflating all the bogey-mans that keep the extreme right living in fear: illegals, crazy shooters, abortionists, immigration...
The real problem is the fact that getting hold of a gun is as easy as buying a car.
So the USA is awash with guns, and any crazy can assemble an arsenal for less than the cost of an old clunker.
Australia seems to have enacted legislation that completely removed the risk of mass shootings, and the USA could do the same, if we could get the power back in the hands of the people. The sane people, that is, not loony 'state of emergency' advocates.

 

[g5000]

How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?

I think car salesmen should be held to this rule, too. They should run a standardized background check on any auto buyer to make sure they don't have a history of mental illness or DUIs or domestic violence.

This includes private sales.

If a car buyer then goes out and runs over a bunch of homeless people, the person who sold him the car should go to prison.