CDZ Gun Control

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control?]

I wonder if anyone asked the majority of the 39th Congress that question?

A big reason why we have the 14th Amendment were laws that said:

__________________

Section 1. Be it enacted, ... [t]hat no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States [G]overnment, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie-knife,. . . -- 1865 Miss. Laws 165 (Nov. 29, 1865).
__________________

The "equal rights" argument was that such a requirement (that was not enforced against Whites) was a violation of rights of Freemen (former slaves, then citizens) which was why the 2nd Amendment needed to be enforced against state action.

So it's your opinion that as long as such a license to own a gun was mandated for everybody (equal restriction) it would pass constitutional muster?

Yes, for everybody who wanted to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control.

Everyone could apply for a license, but some restrictions would need to be applied based on issues NOT related to a protected class, and of course would not adversely impact white males.

So just what entity do you see being so equitable and fair that they can be entrusted with such discretion, meting out a fundamental right to the people . . . Local police?

The people themselves are that entity – they decide the laws and measures enacted to regulate firearms; and when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those adversely effected are at liberty to seek relief in the courts, and have such measures invalidated in accordance with Constitutional jurisprudence and the rule of law.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Big Problem in the CJS in CA is not the process, it is the short cuts necessary do to a lack of funding and an overcrowded system. We have exacerbated a problem by electing penny wise and pound foolish members of legislatures who promise a free lunch - something only they get, see the daily pork received by the assembly and senate pols in CA

As of 2015, members of the California State Legislature are paid $97,197 per year. They are also given a per diem of $168 per day in session **

** California State Legislature - Ballotpedia

 

[2aguy]

Q. Why do you object to being licensed to own, possess or have a gun in your custody or control?]

I wonder if anyone asked the majority of the 39th Congress that question?

A big reason why we have the 14th Amendment were laws that said:

__________________

Section 1. Be it enacted, ... [t]hat no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States [G]overnment, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie-knife,. . . -- 1865 Miss. Laws 165 (Nov. 29, 1865).
__________________

The "equal rights" argument was that such a requirement (that was not enforced against Whites) was a violation of rights of Freemen (former slaves, then citizens) which was why the 2nd Amendment needed to be enforced against state action.

So it's your opinion that as long as such a license to own a gun was mandated for everybody (equal restriction) it would pass constitutional muster?

Yes, for everybody who wanted to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control.

Everyone could apply for a license, but some restrictions would need to be applied based on issues NOT related to a protected class, and of course would not adversely impact white males.

You keep bringing up licenses......as if they actually do anything to prevent or stop gun crime......why do you keep bringing it up....

Since criminals will not get licenses...right?

Since mass shooters will get the license...and then shoot people...right?

The only people who don't shoot other people are the only ones who will become felons if they don't get the license...right?

You have shown no practical purpose to licensing gun owners, other than to increase the fee on gun ownership, and to create a legal consequence for people who do not use guns to commit crimes.

 

[2aguy]

If one were suspicious...one would think that they were letting known violent gun criminals back on the streets to commit more gun crimes.......

It does give one pause.

The only excuse that doesn't constitute misconduct, is that they are stuck in a system that doesn't work and they just want to pad their clearance rates to give the illusion of effectiveness.
Their function then is just to funnel criminals through a system that never punishes and does not keep society safe.

It is unconscionable that their "product" is released to commit gun crime with impunity, is held up as evidence that more laws are needed to restrict basic gun ownership -which is in and of itself not criminal - with the only people impacted by those laws being those people least likely to break any laws.

It really does boggle the mind when the utter failure of liberals to do the job can be used by other liberals to argue that I need to give up more of my rights.

Abatis....you should post more often......we need more people like you on our side actually posting....

 

[2aguy]

And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.

Sounds great!

The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.

____________________________

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

__________________________

So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?

First, that's not how it works in CA. A person convicted of a felony, vis a vis what we call a wobbler, can never have the Felony removed from CII* (CA Rap Sheet) which also includes the dates of arrest and conviction plus the charge at detention and final disposition and sentence.

* Rap Sheets in California

A person convicted of a wobbler (a crime which may be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor) can have the Felony Charge reduced (via 17 PC) by the court if he or she has successfully completed probation. However, the rap sheet remains unaltered and a prison committment will remain a felony unless the person can obtain a rare Governors Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation (also rare).

Also, in CA, a Pre Sentence Report submitted by the Dept. of Probation will list all prior offenses as well as a social study, victim statements and a sentencing recommendation, which then is submitted to the attention of the judge at the time sentence is pronounced.

And regardless of what you just posted....those criminals with felonies who are out walking the streets....get guns easily...because they steal them or get someone with a clean record to buy the gun for them....

And the felons...by the Haynes v. United States supreme court decision do not need to register their illegal guns.....

And the felons will not go out and pay the fee to get a gun license...right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ABATIS SAID:

"That's a main part of the problem, liberals are more concerned with poking a stick in the eye of the NRA and gun owners than they are actually enacting legislation that will impact violent crime."

This fails as a straw man fallacy, as it is in fact a lie – the problem is most on the right refuse to take any meaningful action at all to address the issue of gun violence, most refuse to seek out common ground, and to find actual solutions separate and apart from partisan politics; indeed, the problem is that most on the right have sought to contrive 'guns' into a political issue.

 

[2aguy]

ABATIS SAID:

"That's a main part of the problem, liberals are more concerned with poking a stick in the eye of the NRA and gun owners than they are actually enacting legislation that will impact violent crime."

This fails as a straw man fallacy, as it is in fact a lie – the problem is most on the right refuse to take any meaningful action at all to address the issue of gun violence, most refuse to seek out common ground, and to find actual solutions separate and apart from partisan politics; indeed, the problem is that most on the right have sought to contrive 'guns' into a political issue.

Yes....and that is not true. Name the things the right refuses to do....please. Then name those things and how they would stop criminals or mass shooters from committing gun crimes and how they do not directly target people who do not use guns to commit gun crimes.

If you can do that you can have a cookie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ABATIS SAID:

"Of course we know what works. Removing violent criminals from society is the most effective way of reducing criminal activity. The hug-a-thug liberal criminal justice system considers its clearance rate to be more important that justice or the safety of society is the problem. Programs that allow felony gun charges to be plead down or any of the suspended imposition of sentence or accelerated disposition for gun crimes which include expungement of the arrest with no conviction, just emboldens armed criminal activity."

Another straw man fallacy, another ridiculous lie.

The criminal justice system is not 'liberal,' and the notion of 'hug-a-thug' is as moronic as it is racist.

A comprehensive solution to gun violence is needed, where removing violent criminals from society is one of many components of the solution, in conjunction with necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures.

A pragmatic approach is warranted, pursuing policies that work, independent of partisan politics, where 'guns' is no longer a political issue.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

Your source is a blog written by this man:

Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

• A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
• A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
• A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment

You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.

He testified before congress.....just as valid as the anit gunners at the CDC......

These guys too testified before The Congress:

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or paramilitary force of our government."

You do know that's precisely what the 2nd amendment is for right? Protection against a tyrannical Government. Wether you believe it is possible or not is irrelevant history has shown that it can happen time and time again.

There are already background checks in place in every state in the Union, In each of those states there are laws in place that should stop shootings from happening so why are still occurring? Criminals do not follow the law. The gun control that some want will only make it harder for law abiding citizens to practice the Constitutional rights and when that happens that tyrannical Government you dismiss as unlikely will be here.

Yes, that was the purpose of the second amendment, and it was a wise provision in it s day. That day ended with the establishment of a standing army at the start of the Twentieth Century. Anyone who thinks that the same purpose is being served today is delusional. Anyone who thinks that laws (and that is all the constitution is, laws) will remain viable throughout all of history is ignorant of what law and government is. The same people who made the constitution made it amendable. It's up to us, the people who are alive, to determine whether any law on the books is still viable. All of this, of course, is completely irrelevant to the subject of this thread, which is how to reduce gun violence.

The Constitution is not a set of laws. They are rights laws are written to uphold those rights not to take them away. .Even though the 2nd Amendment was for protection against a tyrannical Government the framers also had self-defence in mind, as well as later writings by them, show this. The Constitution is amendable but you still can not take a fundamental right away or weaken it.

Incorrect.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI – including the Second Amendment.

Although inalienable, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Therefore, when government places a restriction on a fundamental right consistent with Constitutional jurisprudence, that right has neither been 'weakened' nor 'taken away.'

Last, there is nothing in the text or history of the Second Amendment that suggests citizens are 'authorized' to 'take up arms' against a lawfully manifested government simply because those citizens subjectively perceive government to have become 'tyrannical.'

The Second Amendment doesn't 'trump' the First, the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process cannot be abridged by other citizens absent the majority's consent.

The Second Amendment recognizes no 'criteria' as to what constitutes 'tyrannical government,' codifying only an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, not to engage in 'armed rebellion' for partisan reasons.

 

[2aguy]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

No he actually hasn't. He has yet to address the actual questions I raise. What does licensing gun owners who will not commit crime with guns, who have no history of criminal activity do to stop gun crime or mass shooters?

Criminals will not get gun licenses to use their guns to commit crimes....right?

Mass shooters will get a license to own a gun and then take that license and shoot people...right?

If I don't have a gun license but am a law abiding citizen and never commit a crime with a gun...what was the point of forcing me to get a license for my gun?

At a police stop:

--I am a law abiding citizen without a criminal record. I carry a gun without a license. As many cops are doing now he asks me if I have a gun on my person....I say yes. The cop runs my name and date of birth, there is no criminal record, so they let me go on my way.

What difference would forcing me to have a gun license make in that encounter?

--I am a felon. I am carrying a gun without a license. As a convicted felon, it is already against the law for me to own, let alone carry a gun. A police officer stops me for a traffic violation, and asks me if I have a gun on my person. I say no, lying. He runs my name and date of birth and finds out I am a convicted felon and goes on to search me...he finds the illegal gun, and can automatically arrest me.

What would licensing law abiding citizens change in that encounter?

I am a law abiding citizen. I have many guns and never use them to commit crimes. What would forcing me to get a license do?

I am a citizen with guns...I take one of them and commit a crime...I am caught by the police, arrested, go through a trial and I am convicted of the crime. What would making me get a license change about that outcome?

See.....Wry Catcher cannot explain exactly what licensing gun owners will do.

The Primary reasons to license gun owners is to increase the price of owning a gun, and to create a situation where a law abiding gun owner, who does not use their guns to commit crimes is vulnerable to becoming a felon due to failing to fill out paperwork. If you forget to renew your license, and are stopped by a police officer who sees you have failed to renew your license...you are now a felon...you will be sent to a prison, fined heavily, lose your job, lose your chance of getting another decent job, have your guns conficated and lose your right to own or carry guns in the future.

And you have not used your gun to commit one crime. You failed to fill out paperwork on time.

That is the real purpose of licensing gun owners.

 

[Wry Catcher]

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

The problem with this is, the reason laws that restrict the civilian possession and use of weapons of war are legitimate is because of the principle of conferred powers. "We the People" conferred the power to make war and provide for an army or navy (and thus acquire, possess and use the weapons of war) to Congress --for as long as the Constitution is in force. Whatever "We the People" have conferred (surrendered) we can not claim any right to. This is the doctrine of supremacy and preemption. The corollary to that is of course, whatever interest "We the People" did not confer, we retain as a right and the government can not claim any power over it.

Secondly, the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this principle for the right to arms / 2nd Amendment for going on 140 years. So, gun rights people going on about their "2nd Amendment right" and gun control people arguing that the 2nd is not absolute or that it isn't "sacrosanct" are both wrong.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't do anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

The framers discussed this and the superiority that the civilians have over the military was never believed to be tactical, it was always shear numbers. In1788 Madison wrote in Federalist 46 that the largest standing army the nation could support would amount to no more than 1% of the total number of souls -- then that was about 25K-30K men. . . In opposition would be a militia of armed citizens numbering 500K with arms in their hands (armed citizens outnumbering a standing army 17 to 1) .

Today the ratios have widened only to benefit the citizenry; 318 million total souls, an active and reserve national standing army of 2.8 million opposed by 80 million citizens with arms in their hands (armed citizens outnumbering a standing army 28 to 1).

To your point, just for a point of reference in modern times, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents in 2006 ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence). With 160,000 troops in country, US armed forces enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage. And in the opinion of many we were in a quagmire, losing and losing bad.

Imagine if there were 4 million insurgents and many of them were completely familiar and competent with American military weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?

It isn't as cut a dry as you think.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

While yet to be tested specifically for the RKBA, SCOTUS has had a dim view of government requiring a license for a citizen to exercise a constitutional right; I would think that the bar would even be higher for government to license a right considered to be fundamental - see Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

Is there any gun rights opposition to the criteria for disabling the right to arms set-out in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9)?

Those criteria prohibit certain individuals from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating any provision is ten years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine.

Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release) makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:

(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
(8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Just for the sake of argument, here is the FBI page that shows how many people that meet the above criteria are included in the National Instant Check System (NICS) database (3.5kb PDF). Anything jump out at you?

1. "The principle of conferral is a fundamental principle of European Union law. According to this principle, the EU is a union of member states, and all its competences are voluntarily conferred on it by its member states. The EU has no competences by right, and thus any areas of policy not explicitly agreed in treaties by all member states remain the domain of the member states."
Principle of conferral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is NO principle of conferred powers in COTUS, it is an opinion which has no force of law.

2. The Right to Arms goes to the Common Law, a time when, notwithstanding numbers, each individual could afford and obtain legally most of the same arms under the control of the state but not the power of command and control.

My argument does not suggest that the common law be breached, only that common sense and sagacious thinking seek pragmatic solutions to serious problems.

3. What jumps out at me is not every person who by law ought not to have a gun is not always reported to the FBI; and that there exists too many loop holes in the sale of guns and ammunition under the current reporting laws.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A silly thread, as every thread I've ever read about gun violence has been. People on both sides of the question talking past one another. No one defining the problem properly and no one advancing a thoughtful approach.

Step one: Is there a problem with gun violence in the USA? If so, what is it, precisely?

Unless both sides of the issue can agree that there is a problem, and can agree on what exactly that problem is, discussing solutions is a waste of time.

We on the side of gun rights have been talking about a solution for years. No one on the left wants to hear it.

The problem is not the tool used, but the motivation. As we just saw, any crazy idiot can kill, a woman in Las Vegas just used her car to kill. If we really want to stop the violence, we need to find out why it's happening, and stop trying to blame the tool.

But what if the "crazy idiot" is a veteran who has served their country honorably? What if their service has damaged them so badly that they raise a gun to their head and pull the trigger? Suicide is the number one cause of gun death in the US, and it is an epidemic amongst our veterans. What does the so-called gun-rights side say about that (I am completely pro-gun rights, btw, and I don't believe gun control would be an effective solution)?

Yes suicide is tragic, and unfortunate and as Japan and Korea and the Scandinavian countries show us someone who is intent on killing themselves will do so. All of those countries have strict gun control and much higher suicide rates than we do. It ain't the tool, it's the desire to kill oneself that determines success.

So, that's it? Forgive me, but why in the world should anyone be interested in your defeatist opinion about suicide? Suicide prevention is the province of mental health professionals. Your casual dismissal of the problem is both typical and truly shameful. The so-called "pro gun rights" crowd have obsessively blocked the study of gun violence by health care professionals. Former Rep. Jay Dickey, who wrote the 1996 amendment which prevented the CDC from researching this problem now regrets that action. The president supposedly freed them to take up this study, and they have refused to do so. Why? Because they fear the NRA. The NIH has, at least, made a very small start in conducting such research.

What's sad and telling about this is that whatever the findings of these studies, they would have no bearing whatsoever on the Second Amendment right, where such findings could in no way 'justify' placing additional restrictions on firearms, rendering unwarranted the fears of 'gun rights' extremists.

Clearly opposition to such studies are political and without merit.

 

[westwall]

1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.

Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.

The problem with this is, the reason laws that restrict the civilian possession and use of weapons of war are legitimate is because of the principle of conferred powers. "We the People" conferred the power to make war and provide for an army or navy (and thus acquire, possess and use the weapons of war) to Congress --for as long as the Constitution is in force. Whatever "We the People" have conferred (surrendered) we can not claim any right to. This is the doctrine of supremacy and preemption. The corollary to that is of course, whatever interest "We the People" did not confer, we retain as a right and the government can not claim any power over it.

Secondly, the right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this principle for the right to arms / 2nd Amendment for going on 140 years. So, gun rights people going on about their "2nd Amendment right" and gun control people arguing that the 2nd is not absolute or that it isn't "sacrosanct" are both wrong.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't do anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.

The framers discussed this and the superiority that the civilians have over the military was never believed to be tactical, it was always shear numbers. In1788 Madison wrote in Federalist 46 that the largest standing army the nation could support would amount to no more than 1% of the total number of souls -- then that was about 25K-30K men. . . In opposition would be a militia of armed citizens numbering 500K with arms in their hands (armed citizens outnumbering a standing army 17 to 1) .

Today the ratios have widened only to benefit the citizenry; 318 million total souls, an active and reserve national standing army of 2.8 million opposed by 80 million citizens with arms in their hands (armed citizens outnumbering a standing army 28 to 1).

To your point, just for a point of reference in modern times, estimates of the number of Iraqi insurgents in 2006 ranged between 8000-20,000 (US) up to 40,000 (Iraqi intelligence). With 160,000 troops in country, US armed forces enjoyed at worst a 4 to 1 advantage and at best a 20 to 1 advantage. And in the opinion of many we were in a quagmire, losing and losing bad.

Imagine if there were 4 million insurgents and many of them were completely familiar and competent with American military weapon platforms and endeavored to seize and offensively use those weapons instead of just blowing themselves up?

It isn't as cut a dry as you think.

3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.

While yet to be tested specifically for the RKBA, SCOTUS has had a dim view of government requiring a license for a citizen to exercise a constitutional right; I would think that the bar would even be higher for government to license a right considered to be fundamental - see Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.

Is there any gun rights opposition to the criteria for disabling the right to arms set-out in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9)?

Those criteria prohibit certain individuals from possessing firearms, ammunition, or explosives. The penalty for violating any provision is ten years imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine.

Further, 18 U.S.C. 3565(b)(2) (probation) and 3583(g)(2) (supervised release) makes it mandatory for the Court to revoke supervision for possession of a firearm.

Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1-9) prohibits the following from possessing, shipping/transporting, or receiving any firearm or ammunition:

(1) a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;
(2) a person who is a fugitive from justice;
(3) a person who is an unlawful user of or who is addicted to a controlled substance;
(4) a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been involuntarily committed to a mental institution;
(5) an alien who is unlawfully in the United States or who has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
(6) a person who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, renounces his citizenship;
(8) a person subject to a court order that was issued after a hearing in which the person participated, which order restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or partner’s child, and which order includes a finding that the person is a credible threat to such partner or partner’s child, or by its terms prohibits the use, attempted use or threatened use of such force against such partner or partner’s child;
(9) a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Just for the sake of argument, here is the FBI page that shows how many people that meet the above criteria are included in the National Instant Check System (NICS) database (3.5kb PDF). Anything jump out at you?

Exceptionally well presented.

 

[westwall]

And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.

Sounds great!

The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.

____________________________

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

__________________________

So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?

First, that's not how it works in CA. A person convicted of a felony, vis a vis what we call a wobbler, can never have the Felony removed from CII* (CA Rap Sheet) which also includes the dates of arrest and conviction plus the charge at detention and final disposition and sentence.

* Rap Sheets in California

A person convicted of a wobbler (a crime which may be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor) can have the Felony Charge reduced (via 17 PC) by the court if he or she has successfully completed probation. However, the rap sheet remains unaltered and a prison committment will remain a felony unless the person can obtain a rare Governors Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation (also rare).

Also, in CA, a Pre Sentence Report submitted by the Dept. of Probation will list all prior offenses as well as a social study, victim statements and a sentencing recommendation, which then is submitted to the attention of the judge at the time sentence is pronounced.

Ummm, nope. You're wrong. A good friend of mine who at the time was an Alameda County Deputy was walking out of a shop on patrol, in uniform, when he got coldcocked by a guy he put in prison. The man broke my friends jaw and thought he had him. Unfortunately for him my friend is one tough SOB and he was able to subdue the perp. The perp had just assaulted a peace officer, was a felon, and was carrying a gun, while on probation.

He should have been immediately violated back to prison for 9 years based on the assault on a peace officer charge. He was released the next day so your assertion is absolute bullshit. Feel free to ask me the name of the SO involved privately and I will give it to you so you can look up the case.

 

[westwall]

By no means do I casually dismiss suicide and those whom it affects. A good friend of mine took his life many years ago. He was in severe pain and swam out to sea till he could swim no longer. I am well aware of the pain that survivors experience. However, those who are serious about suicide are going to do it.

The CDC uses biased metrics in everything they do so they are not a reliable source. If they truly wanted to reduce deaths they should concentrate on their specialty which is disease. Hell doctors kill more people than guns, and by a huge margin. Why do you think malpractice insurance rates are so high? They kill (according to the AMA) 120,000 people per year through mistakes, malpractice, misdiagnosis etc. This out of a population of 800,000 doctors.

How do you know the CDC uses biased metrics? What would be their agenda in doing so?

Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.

• 
  
  
  • CDC Grant #R49/CCR903697-06 to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control advocacy group, supporting a newsletter that frankly advocated gun control.

Your source is a blog written by this man:

Timothy Wheeler, MD Articles – Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership

• A biased opinion. A blog by a doctor opposed to gun control
• A Republican Party which controlled a majority in both chambers of Congress
• A President under fire by The Congress and willing to compromise on everything to try to avoid impeachment

You're lying by omission. These bullet points are the facts.

He testified before congress.....just as valid as the anit gunners at the CDC......

These guys too testified before The Congress:

Talk about trotting out a straw man. What exactly do these clowns have to do with gun control? Those who are against gun control have nothing to gain. They already have what they want. These people were lying to protect their ability to make money. The two are so far apart as to be ludicrous.

 

[westwall]

Note. I no longer respond to 2aguy because I can't fix stupid, and in particular someone who is mendacious and stupid as is he.

For the record I have explained the practical application of licensing a dozen or more times,

Agree – responding to such an individual is a pointless waste of time; it is a settled and accepted fact of Constitutional law that the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are no 'better' than the rights enshrined in the First – as both are subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

Disagree with regard to licensing as a comprehensive condition to firearm possession; licensing is appropriate on a voluntary basis, such as to carry a concealed weapon or to acquire firearms as a collector, but it is not justified as a general requirement in order to purchase, obtain, own, or possess a firearm.

Licensing requirements and associated fees are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, of course, where opposition to licensing requirements must be pursued through to political process until such time as the case law changes.

Licensing is required to drive a car, perform surgery, practice the law, etc. Why is it any different to require someone who wants to own a deadly weapon to obtain a license?

And not ONE of those activities is a Right. Not one. Licensing DESTROYS Rights. Which is no doubt why you desire it so much. Individual Rights are anathema to a totalitarian such as yourself. We all know that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

And don't forget, Use a gun, go to prison legislation, and the enhancement when a gun is present in any crime, adding years to a sentence.

Sounds great!

The following is how your idea translates to the real world in a US city plagued by gun violence.

____________________________

St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:

"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

__________________________

So, how does your idea square with the reality of the liberal revolving door justice system?

First, that's not how it works in CA. A person convicted of a felony, vis a vis what we call a wobbler, can never have the Felony removed from CII* (CA Rap Sheet) which also includes the dates of arrest and conviction plus the charge at detention and final disposition and sentence.

* Rap Sheets in California

A person convicted of a wobbler (a crime which may be filed as a felony or a misdemeanor) can have the Felony Charge reduced (via 17 PC) by the court if he or she has successfully completed probation. However, the rap sheet remains unaltered and a prison committment will remain a felony unless the person can obtain a rare Governors Pardon or Certificate of Rehabilitation (also rare).

Also, in CA, a Pre Sentence Report submitted by the Dept. of Probation will list all prior offenses as well as a social study, victim statements and a sentencing recommendation, which then is submitted to the attention of the judge at the time sentence is pronounced.

Ummm, nope. You're wrong. A good friend of mine who at the time was an Alameda County Deputy was walking out of a shop on patrol, in uniform, when he got coldcocked by a guy he put in prison. The man broke my friends jaw and thought he had him. Unfortunately for him my friend is one tough SOB and he was able to subdue the perp. The perp had just assaulted a peace officer, was a felon, and was carrying a gun, while on probation.

He should have been immediately violated back to prison for 9 years based on the assault on a peace officer charge. He was released the next day so your assertion is absolute bullshit. Feel free to ask me the name of the SO involved privately and I will give it to you so you can look up the case.

XXXX happens, but I wonder if the over crowding at Santa Rita created the situation?

The perp should have had a probation hold placed on him, which would have prevented the SO from releasing the jerk on bail or OR. If on parole he would have also had a hold put on him and most likely scheduled for a Morrissey Hearing, required to violate parole and return the parolee to finish his term.

Due process prevents an immediate return to prison, but the perp could and should have been held for the minimum 48 hours of judicial time and the DA should have then prepared the complaint/information allowing the court to hold the jerk by denying or setting a very high bail.

I know of situations where inmates were released because they had the same or a similar name to someone else with a release order.

The facts as you laid out would never have allowed for a release had people done their jobs, but people screw up and one data point does not make your case.