Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Assault Weapons Ban being introduced Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 8
 
 
2012-12-27 10:53 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Manually operated must pertain to double action revolvers (where the trigger fires, cocks, and rotates in the next bullet).

An old Gatling gun I exempt then? You have to rotate a crank but it could fire hundreds o rounds.


2012-12-27 10:56 AM
in reply to: #4549705

New user
900
500100100100100
,
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 
2012-12-27 11:03 AM
in reply to: #4549864

User image

Master
2277
2000100100252525
Lake Norman, NC
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

NXS - 2012-12-27 11:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

More like if your home is broken into, your gun stolen, and later recovered at a crime scene - it can help the police to possibly track down the suspect.

More like if you use your gun and the police investigate, they can prove you obtained it legally and you're not charged with illegal possession.

More like Google has more information on you than the county sheriff has from your gun.  So there's no need to get all tin-foil-hat about it.

 

2012-12-27 11:04 AM
in reply to: #4549864

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

NXS - 2012-12-27 10:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

I know the local police tout registration as a way to track a gun back to its rightful owner if its stolen, but I don't think that's the case.  If my gun is stolen and used in a crime the serial number can be tracked back to me already.  I'm not sure if they have to go to the manufacturer or where it comes from, but they absolutely can track it back to me already.

The other piece is if my gun is stolen and found by the police on somebody I suspect there's a chance somewhere between 0% and 0% that I'll actually get my gun back.  lol

2012-12-27 11:04 AM
in reply to: #4549880

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:03 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 11:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

More like if your home is broken into, your gun stolen, and later recovered at a crime scene - it can help the police to possibly track down the suspect.

More like if you use your gun and the police investigate, they can prove you obtained it legally and you're not charged with illegal possession.

More like Google has more information on you than the county sheriff has from your gun.  So there's no need to get all tin-foil-hat about it.

 

I like my tinfoil hat.  It's very comfortable.  :-P

2012-12-27 11:08 AM
in reply to: #4549880

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:03 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 11:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

More like if your home is broken into, your gun stolen, and later recovered at a crime scene - it can help the police to possibly track down the suspect.

More like if you use your gun and the police investigate, they can prove you obtained it legally and you're not charged with illegal possession.

More like Google has more information on you than the county sheriff has from your gun.  So there's no need to get all tin-foil-hat about it.

 

I can say that it is very hard to track firearms right now.  Many people cannot even provide proof of ownership.



2012-12-27 11:11 AM
in reply to: #4549882

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
tuwood - 2012-12-27 11:04 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 10:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

I know the local police tout registration as a way to track a gun back to its rightful owner if its stolen, but I don't think that's the case.  If my gun is stolen and used in a crime the serial number can be tracked back to me already.  I'm not sure if they have to go to the manufacturer or where it comes from, but they absolutely can track it back to me already.

The other piece is if my gun is stolen and found by the police on somebody I suspect there's a chance somewhere between 0% and 0% that I'll actually get my gun back.  lol

Not true.....over half of the guns I own could never be tracked back to me by serial number.  I have inherited many guns, and bought many from priovate individuals...in my state we no longer need a permit to purchase from a private individual...haven't for years.  There is nothing linking the SN of those guns to current owners.

Disclaimer:  I'm not necessarily in agreement with the registration idea....just presenting what I see now.

2012-12-27 11:12 AM
in reply to: #4549894

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-27 11:08 AM
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:03 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 11:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

More like if your home is broken into, your gun stolen, and later recovered at a crime scene - it can help the police to possibly track down the suspect.

More like if you use your gun and the police investigate, they can prove you obtained it legally and you're not charged with illegal possession.

More like Google has more information on you than the county sheriff has from your gun.  So there's no need to get all tin-foil-hat about it.

 

I can say that it is very hard to track firearms right now.  Many people cannot even provide proof of ownership.

I was curious to your opinion on this.  As stated earlier, I don't really have an issue with a registry but I always hear about them tracking guns back to owners and I wasn't sure how that worked.

2012-12-27 11:12 AM
in reply to: #4549894

User image

Master
2277
2000100100252525
Lake Norman, NC
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-27 12:08 PM
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:03 AM

I can say that it is very hard to track firearms right now.  Many people cannot even provide proof of ownership.

No better time to start than the present!  Both my Baby Eagle and M&P are registered because they have to be.  And even though I didn't have to, I voluntarily registered my 12-gauge as well.  County sherrif was quite appreciative of that.

 

2012-12-27 11:15 AM
in reply to: #4549898

User image

Master
2277
2000100100252525
Lake Norman, NC
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Left Brain - 2012-12-27 12:11 PM
tuwood - 2012-12-27 11:04 AM

Not true.....over half of the guns I own could never be tracked back to me by serial number.  I have inherited many guns, and bought many from priovate individuals...in my state we no longer need a permit to purchase from a private individual...haven't for years.  There is nothing linking the SN of those guns to current owners.

The simple issue here is that it varies state to state.  If you're going to register, it needs to be uniform across every state.

 

2012-12-27 11:16 AM
in reply to: #4549882

User image

Expert
1484
1000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
tuwood - 2012-12-27 9:04 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 10:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

I know the local police tout registration as a way to track a gun back to its rightful owner if its stolen, but I don't think that's the case.  If my gun is stolen and used in a crime the serial number can be tracked back to me already.  I'm not sure if they have to go to the manufacturer or where it comes from, but they absolutely can track it back to me already.

The other piece is if my gun is stolen and found by the police on somebody I suspect there's a chance somewhere between 0% and 0% that I'll actually get my gun back.  lol



Registration will try to catch the gun show and private party type sales. Half of the firearms we have I bought privately. I have the "bill of sale" paper work to show that, but there's no requirement on either side (seller or buyer) in my State to report the sale. Personally if I sold one privately I'd submit the sale to the State. I'd want there to be no question that I sold it on particular date and released responsibility. Right now I'd go sell to our local firearms shop and take the lower sale price as payment for the shop to own the transfer process and accountability. I am surprised there's no language to try and close the "gun show loophole". Why not require buyer and seller to complete the transaction a FFL location that brokers the transfer and background check process? You'd need to pay the FFL for their time, most do this today for out of state sales anyways, and you might be surprised just how many FFLs there are around you. I know I was when I looked them up, there's tons of guys who do FFL transfer as a side business. Again, this would just keep honest people honest, and for me I'd know for sure that the firearm I'm buying is not stolen.

Totally agree that if I had one stolen out of our house I'd expect to never see it back. All of ours are locked up or being carried but we have had items stolen out of our garage before which makes me worry that if we get hit again they come into the house. Now I keep old range targets in the garage where you can not miss them...





2012-12-27 11:17 AM
in reply to: #4549767

Master
5557
50005002525
, California
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Big Appa - 2012-12-27 8:13 AM

magic - 2012-12-27 8:10 AM After looking at the summary for all of thirty seconds I'm interested to read the entire proposal. Why are Thumbhole stocks in there? Does that mean all of the high accuracy .22lr rifles out there are now scary? (I'm being sarcastic). In general I think that calling out items to be banned by name or make and model does not really work. Why don't they work on defining what's acceptable (requirements) and not on listing out what they don't like. If she was a business or functional analyst working for me defining system or process requirements I'd let her go. The summary looks to close some of the holes in the prior ban but still seems to be focused on things that look scary.

Because this is about votes and perception not about addressing the problem or fixing anything.

Actually my first thought was that it's about money.  When you have a list "exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons", I guarantee the list in the original draft will not be the same as the bill progresses.  How do you think manufacturers get their best-sellers on that list?  Oh that's right... kickbacks.

2012-12-27 11:23 AM
in reply to: #4549906

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:15 AM
Left Brain - 2012-12-27 12:11 PM
tuwood - 2012-12-27 11:04 AM

Not true.....over half of the guns I own could never be tracked back to me by serial number.  I have inherited many guns, and bought many from priovate individuals...in my state we no longer need a permit to purchase from a private individual...haven't for years.  There is nothing linking the SN of those guns to current owners.

The simple issue here is that it varies state to state.  If you're going to register, it needs to be uniform across every state.

 

True......."If" being the operative term.  I'm not sure how I feel about it.

2012-12-27 11:25 AM
in reply to: #4549857

User image

Champion
16151
50005000500010001002525
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 11:51 AM

I really don't want to keep posting on gun threads.  Getting tired of it.  But I disagree with a bunch of this, mainly for two reasons:  complexity and ways to get around it.  I think if you want to keep it easy, simple and agreeable, then possibly something along the lines of this:

  • Ban any firearm that has the capacity to hold more than 16 rounds.  Most standard semi-automatic handguns have a 15-round magazine and allow for 1 more in the pipe.  That comprises a majority of the handgun market and would be fair.  No one for target, home defense, sport, hunting, etc. uses a firearm that needs more.  We're talking probably a million-plus semi-auto handguns out there using the 15+1 design.  Shotguns are typically 8 in the tube.  Hunting rifles, even less (4-6 round boxes for bolt-action).  (Sorry Saiga 12-gauge with the 100-round drum owners!  Yeah, it may be uber-cool, but one of those in the hands of an Adam Lanza?  Dread the thought!)
    .
  • What to do about rifles?  One of two things:
    • Easier:  Don't try to call out the Bushmaster AR-15 vs say, a Ruger 44 or Remington 750 hunting rifle.  All are semi-automatic.  Is it the semi-automatic nature, or the magazine capacity?  How much less dangerous is an AR-15 with a 16-round magazine than a 30-round magazine?  That might be the question.  Don't target the specific gun, try to limit it's destructive potential.  Neuter it, so to say.
    • Difficult:  Limit rifles to bolt-action and lever-action only.  The question here being, is the AR-15 so dangerous because it can fire 30 rounds, or that it can fire 30 rounds QUICKLY?  Banning semi-automatic rifles means up to 16 bullets with a bolt or lever action in between each shot.
      .
  • Ban certain types of ammunition such as armor piercing, etc.  Anything that wouldn't be used for target, hunting, sport, or simple home defense.  This one should be fairly easy.
    .
  • Set a date limit on what is considered "antique".  Say, anything made before 1940 is exempt.  Don't punish collectors.  Sure a 1938 Thompson submachie gun is still extremely dangerous, but in mint condition, it's worth a lot of money.  You don't here about mass killings with these simply because the owners protect their investment and keep them very secured and locked away (mainly for fear of theft).
    .
  • Make the backgrouond check process much more stringent and mandatory.  Include mental health screenings.  If someone living in the home where the guns would be kept would fail the mental health screening threshhold, no one in the home would be allowed to possess a firearm.  If it takes 2 months of checks and screenings to make a purchase, it takes 2 months.  Federalize it so that it's the same across all 50 states.
    .
  • Include a written and practical exam by a licensed instructor prior to the first purchase.  If we do it for obtaining a drivers license...
    .
  • All individual-to-individual sales must go through a broker and go through the same background check process.
    .
  • Nothing is grandfathered, it defeats the purpose.


I don't like calling anythign out by name.  It's too easy to get around.  I would prefer to target the spec.  And the most important aspect is the mental health background check.  I still believe Americans have the Constitutional right to purchase and possess a firearm.  But if the process to do so is longer and more complicated to ensure safety, so be it.  You'll still get to have your gun.  You'll just have to go through a lengthier process to prove you are capable and appropriate to have it.

Granted - these are just some brainstorm thoughts.  A place to start.  I'm not cemented on some of it.  It'll take a pragmatic approach in the conversation.  But the most important element I woud say is to keep it simple and keep it common sense.

 



This lays out what I feel is a fair and useable set of rules. I think it's a good set of regulations to get us to a safer set. I know nothing is perfect; I'm not looking for perfect. But what Bigfuzzy describes hits the balance well.

I would like to ban private sales and require a gun shop to get involved. Much akin to a notary does for real estate and the DMV for autos. A used, privately purchased sale should be as stringent as a new sale.
2012-12-27 11:26 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Actually I have no proof of ownership. I have no transfer papers, I got my weapons from my grandfather who had an FFL in a state that had no registration.

Don't think I'm too keen on sky lining that fact by trying to register with the Feds...
2012-12-27 11:33 AM
in reply to: #4549909

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
magic - 2012-12-27 11:16 AM
tuwood - 2012-12-27 9:04 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 10:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

I know the local police tout registration as a way to track a gun back to its rightful owner if its stolen, but I don't think that's the case.  If my gun is stolen and used in a crime the serial number can be tracked back to me already.  I'm not sure if they have to go to the manufacturer or where it comes from, but they absolutely can track it back to me already.

The other piece is if my gun is stolen and found by the police on somebody I suspect there's a chance somewhere between 0% and 0% that I'll actually get my gun back.  lol

Registration will try to catch the gun show and private party type sales. Half of the firearms we have I bought privately. I have the "bill of sale" paper work to show that, but there's no requirement on either side (seller or buyer) in my State to report the sale. Personally if I sold one privately I'd submit the sale to the State. I'd want there to be no question that I sold it on particular date and released responsibility. Right now I'd go sell to our local firearms shop and take the lower sale price as payment for the shop to own the transfer process and accountability. I am surprised there's no language to try and close the "gun show loophole". Why not require buyer and seller to complete the transaction a FFL location that brokers the transfer and background check process? You'd need to pay the FFL for their time, most do this today for out of state sales anyways, and you might be surprised just how many FFLs there are around you. I know I was when I looked them up, there's tons of guys who do FFL transfer as a side business. Again, this would just keep honest people honest, and for me I'd know for sure that the firearm I'm buying is not stolen. Totally agree that if I had one stolen out of our house I'd expect to never see it back. All of ours are locked up or being carried but we have had items stolen out of our garage before which makes me worry that if we get hit again they come into the house. Now I keep old range targets in the garage where you can not miss them...

That makes a lot of sense.  I purchased all of my guns new, mostly from Cabellas, so I suspect mine would be easier to track back to me.  I did just purchase a rifle via gunbroker (online auction) from a guy in CA so I suspect that one would be a little harder to track back.



2012-12-27 11:37 AM
in reply to: #4549940

User image

Expert
1484
1000100100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
tuwood - 2012-12-27 9:33 AM

magic - 2012-12-27 11:16 AM
tuwood - 2012-12-27 9:04 AM

NXS - 2012-12-27 10:56 AM The only reason for registration, is for later confiscation. 

I know the local police tout registration as a way to track a gun back to its rightful owner if its stolen, but I don't think that's the case.  If my gun is stolen and used in a crime the serial number can be tracked back to me already.  I'm not sure if they have to go to the manufacturer or where it comes from, but they absolutely can track it back to me already.

The other piece is if my gun is stolen and found by the police on somebody I suspect there's a chance somewhere between 0% and 0% that I'll actually get my gun back.  lol

Registration will try to catch the gun show and private party type sales. Half of the firearms we have I bought privately. I have the "bill of sale" paper work to show that, but there's no requirement on either side (seller or buyer) in my State to report the sale. Personally if I sold one privately I'd submit the sale to the State. I'd want there to be no question that I sold it on particular date and released responsibility. Right now I'd go sell to our local firearms shop and take the lower sale price as payment for the shop to own the transfer process and accountability. I am surprised there's no language to try and close the "gun show loophole". Why not require buyer and seller to complete the transaction a FFL location that brokers the transfer and background check process? You'd need to pay the FFL for their time, most do this today for out of state sales anyways, and you might be surprised just how many FFLs there are around you. I know I was when I looked them up, there's tons of guys who do FFL transfer as a side business. Again, this would just keep honest people honest, and for me I'd know for sure that the firearm I'm buying is not stolen. Totally agree that if I had one stolen out of our house I'd expect to never see it back. All of ours are locked up or being carried but we have had items stolen out of our garage before which makes me worry that if we get hit again they come into the house. Now I keep old range targets in the garage where you can not miss them...

That makes a lot of sense.  I purchased all of my guns new, mostly from Cabellas, so I suspect mine would be easier to track back to me.  I did just purchase a rifle via gunbroker (online auction) from a guy in CA so I suspect that one would be a little harder to track back.



yeppers.

When the wife and I bought our first handgun from a local dealer, it came with used cartridge. Shows the bullet is on file incase it's ever used in a crime.

I've bought one shot gun and two rifles from local shops, they had not been fired and the bullet kept like the handgun. Rest of the hand guns and my AR I got used or privately.



2012-12-27 11:43 AM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

So Bigfuzzy and Pit are OK with a rule that says you can't own or posses a gun if someone in your house doesn't pass the mental health criteria for owning a gun.  (What ever that may be)

I'm just curious, how could this ever be Constitutional?  You are advocating for limiting someone's personal Constitutional rights to possess a firearm (Which the US Sup Ct. has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right) because of the actions of someone else?  Not their own actions, or their own status, but rather restricting a right based upon the status of someone else.

So are there any other Constitutional rights you're willing to restrict not based upon the person who wants to exercise those rights, but rather based upon their relationship with another individual?

In many states those convicted of felonies lose their right to vote.  If someone lives in a house with a convicted felon should they too lose their right to vote?  How about someone who marries a convicted sex offender should we limit their ability to be around children simply because they are married to a sex offender?  How far are you willing to go in the name of public saftey?

The notion that someone's rights,  and priviledges can be restricted, not based upon something they did, but rather on something that someone in their house did I find abhorrent and offensive to such a degree as to be the antithesis of our very foundations of freedome and liberty.

You are punishing someone for an act of another person.  Not just punishing them, but depriving them of a Constitutionally protected right based upon something someone else did, or based upon the status of another individual. Not something the potential gun owner did, not based upon the potential gun owners status, but rather based upon something someone else did.  The only connnection being that they live in the same household together.  It's abhorrent, and draconian, clothed in the notion of public safety.

When we as a free society agree that we are willing to go this far, we have abducated our freedoms.  We have agreed that public safety, in whatever guise or form that takes, is far more important to us than our individual rights and liberties.

I'm not a slippery slope, chicken little type guy; but I find even the notion of this type of infringement upon personal liberty to be utterly horrifying and freightening.  If we can restrict someone's personal liberties based upon something another person does, then do we poses any freedom at all, especially when this restriction is done in the name of "public safety"

2012-12-27 12:08 PM
in reply to: #4549968

User image

Master
2277
2000100100252525
Lake Norman, NC
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

Wow!  "Lighten up Francis."

I wrote, "If someone living in the home where the guns would be kept would fail the mental health screening threshhold, no one in the home would be allowed to possess a firearm."  I guess should have written, "no firearm can be kept in that home."   I don't mean that you lose your right to own a gun, just that it can't be kept in a home where that individual lives.  Say Adam Lanza's mother had to store her guns somewhere else.  It may have been just as easy for Adam Lanza to go there and try to get them, but it's one more step.  It's not readily accessible in the house.  Just thinking about how you can make it just a little bit more difficult for someone who is severely mentally ill to get their hands on one.  It's just a matter of accessability.

The same can be said for keeping firearms locked up.  In NC, it is against the law to keep a firearm unlocked and accesible inside a home with children.  It's a felony.  So you can just as easily lose that "Constitutional right" by getting caught with an unlocked gun in a house with kids.  This is NC, not Mass.  Is that draconian and abohorrent?

We don't live in a free society.  We have laws.  And owning a gun is not a protected Constitutional right.  Many states, and towns have laws and ordinances, and there are actions and situations that a person can do that restrict and/or take away their ability to purchase, own, and store firearms.

 

2012-12-27 12:25 PM
in reply to: #4550017

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 12:08 PM

Wow!  "Lighten up Francis."

I wrote, "If someone living in the home where the guns would be kept would fail the mental health screening threshhold, no one in the home would be allowed to possess a firearm."  I guess should have written, "no firearm can be kept in that home."   I don't mean that you lose your right to own a gun, just that it can't be kept in a home where that individual lives.  Say Adam Lanza's mother had to store her guns somewhere else.  It may have been just as easy for Adam Lanza to go there and try to get them, but it's one more step.  It's not readily accessible in the house.  Just thinking about how you can make it just a little bit more difficult for someone who is severely mentally ill to get their hands on one.  It's just a matter of accessability.

The same can be said for keeping firearms locked up.  In NC, it is against the law to keep a firearm unlocked and accesible inside a home with children.  It's a felony.  So you can just as easily lose that "Constitutional right" by getting caught with an unlocked gun in a house with kids.  This is NC, not Mass.  Is that draconian and abohorrent?

We don't live in a free society.  We have laws.  And owning a gun is not a protected Constitutional right.  Many states, and towns have laws and ordinances, and there are actions and situations that a person can do that restrict and/or take away their ability to purchase, own, and store firearms.

 

I'm not sure what you're meaning by owning a gun not being a protected Constitutional right.  It most certainly is a constitutional right.

I know your intentions are good, but I just don't think it's possible without horribly violating the constitution.  As an example, if I have a roommate who is a felon I can still own guns, but he just can't have access to them.

2012-12-27 12:31 PM
in reply to: #4550017

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 1:08 PM

Wow!  "Lighten up Francis."

I wrote, "If someone living in the home where the guns would be kept would fail the mental health screening threshhold, no one in the home would be allowed to possess a firearm."  I guess should have written, "no firearm can be kept in that home."   I don't mean that you lose your right to own a gun, just that it can't be kept in a home where that individual lives.  Say Adam Lanza's mother had to store her guns somewhere else.  It may have been just as easy for Adam Lanza to go there and try to get them, but it's one more step.  It's not readily accessible in the house.  Just thinking about how you can make it just a little bit more difficult for someone who is severely mentally ill to get their hands on one.  It's just a matter of accessability.

The same can be said for keeping firearms locked up.  In NC, it is against the law to keep a firearm unlocked and accesible inside a home with children.  It's a felony.  So you can just as easily lose that "Constitutional right" by getting caught with an unlocked gun in a house with kids.  This is NC, not Mass.  Is that draconian and abohorrent?

We don't live in a free society.  We have laws.  And owning a gun is not a protected Constitutional right.  Many states, and towns have laws and ordinances, and there are actions and situations that a person can do that restrict and/or take away their ability to purchase, own, and store firearms.

 

1.  Oh, I understood what you wrote.  And I stand by my assertion.  And I understand what might have not happened in the Conn. case if the firearms weren't kept in the house.  However, I'm not an "ends justifies the means" type of guy. 

2.  You're wrong owning a gun is and individually protected right of the US Constitution.  You're just flat out wrong on that. In fact the most recent US Sup Ct case involving firearms just settled the question in the affirmative that the 2nd Amendment is and individual right, not a collective right.  Thus there is in fact an individual right to own a firearm.  As a Constitutionally protected right, like all rights, it can be infringed upon by regulations, provided the government demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in restricting the right and the restriction is done in the least intrusive manner.  To say there is no Constitutional right to own a firearm is just plainly and factually wrong.  Sorry.  You are misunderstand the difference between a "Right" and "valid restrictions on that right".  But just because there may be restrictions doesn't mean there isn't a right.  For instance, there are restrictions on speech, generally: time, place, manner restrictions.  But to say because there are valid time, place, manner restrictions does not mean there is no Constitutionally protected right of free speech.  You've just missed the mark on this one.

3.  There is a huge difference between the access regulations/laws that most states have (keeping guns out of reach of minors) and prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm in their home because of the actions or status of another. 

4.  But if you're an "ends justifies the means" type guy, then it just doesn't matter.  Keep us all safe regardless of how you have to accomplish it.



2012-12-27 12:51 PM
in reply to: #4549968

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Brock Samson - 2012-12-27 10:43 AM

So Bigfuzzy and Pit are OK with a rule that says you can't own or posses a gun if someone in your house doesn't pass the mental health criteria for owning a gun.  (What ever that may be)

I'm just curious, how could this ever be Constitutional?  You are advocating for limiting someone's personal Constitutional rights to possess a firearm (Which the US Sup Ct. has ruled that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right) because of the actions of someone else?  Not their own actions, or their own status, but rather restricting a right based upon the status of someone else.

So are there any other Constitutional rights you're willing to restrict not based upon the person who wants to exercise those rights, but rather based upon their relationship with another individual?

In many states those convicted of felonies lose their right to vote.  If someone lives in a house with a convicted felon should they too lose their right to vote?  How about someone who marries a convicted sex offender should we limit their ability to be around children simply because they are married to a sex offender?  How far are you willing to go in the name of public saftey?

The notion that someone's rights,  and priviledges can be restricted, not based upon something they did, but rather on something that someone in their house did I find abhorrent and offensive to such a degree as to be the antithesis of our very foundations of freedome and liberty.

You are punishing someone for an act of another person.  Not just punishing them, but depriving them of a Constitutionally protected right based upon something someone else did, or based upon the status of another individual. Not something the potential gun owner did, not based upon the potential gun owners status, but rather based upon something someone else did.  The only connnection being that they live in the same household together.  It's abhorrent, and draconian, clothed in the notion of public safety.

When we as a free society agree that we are willing to go this far, we have abducated our freedoms.  We have agreed that public safety, in whatever guise or form that takes, is far more important to us than our individual rights and liberties.

I'm not a slippery slope, chicken little type guy; but I find even the notion of this type of infringement upon personal liberty to be utterly horrifying and freightening.  If we can restrict someone's personal liberties based upon something another person does, then do we poses any freedom at all, especially when this restriction is done in the name of "public safety"

I whole hartedly agree... and I will add he does not want to deny ones rights due to the act of another.... but because the other does not pass some sort of litmus test prescribed by the state. The other person has not even done anything.

"Jim Crow" laws were struck down for the exact same reason... you can't restrict rights based on some set of rules or hoops you make somebody jump through. Liberals had a COW because conservatives wanted people to present a valid state ID to vote this past election... just a ID, which would basically say you are a citizen... OH the HORROR... you can't do that!

 

 

 

Brock, can you explain something for me... Basically the Constitution says the Federal Government can't infringe... but it never said States can't. States can regulate arms, just as long as it isn't an out right prohibition thereby trumping the Constitution.... Heller

Do you feel that a Federal ban of all semi-auto weapons is Constitutional?

This legislation is basically doing that, and those that are owned must be registered and can never be transfered, and there fore will eventually never exist.

So, with the intent of the 2A, to allow individuals the right to own weapons consistent with personal arms for militia use... do you feel an out right ban is Constitutional by the Federal Government? And if it isn't, what would satisfy regulation of such arms without flat out banning them?



Edited by powerman 2012-12-27 12:53 PM
2012-12-27 12:54 PM
in reply to: #4549857

User image

Expert
839
50010010010025
Central Mass
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 8:51 AM
  • Ban any firearm that has the capacity to hold more than 16 rounds.  Most standard semi-automatic handguns have a 15-round magazine and allow for 1 more in the pipe.  That comprises a majority of the handgun market and would be fair.  No one for target, home defense, sport, hunting, etc. uses a firearm that needs more.  We're talking probably a million-plus semi-auto handguns out there using the 15+1 design.  Shotguns are typically 8 in the tube.  Hunting rifles, even less (4-6 round boxes for bolt-action).  (Sorry Saiga 12-gauge with the 100-round drum owners!  Yeah, it may be uber-cool, but one of those in the hands of an Adam Lanza?  Dread the thought!)

Yeah, cause this is so scary

The Lever Action Henry has a tube magazine that holds up to 21 rounds - if you load it was 22S rounds (only room for 15 22LR rounds)

 

Winchesters and other Henrys hold a max of 15 in the tube magazine, it's just that the 22 holds 15 22LR and there are shorter cartridges out there...

2012-12-27 1:00 PM
in reply to: #4550071

User image

Champion
7821
50002000500100100100
Brooklyn, NY
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced
Brock Samson - 2012-12-27 12:31 PM

Bigfuzzydoug - 2012-12-27 1:08 PM

Wow!  "Lighten up Francis."

I wrote, "If someone living in the home where the guns would be kept would fail the mental health screening threshhold, no one in the home would be allowed to possess a firearm."  I guess should have written, "no firearm can be kept in that home."   I don't mean that you lose your right to own a gun, just that it can't be kept in a home where that individual lives.  Say Adam Lanza's mother had to store her guns somewhere else.  It may have been just as easy for Adam Lanza to go there and try to get them, but it's one more step.  It's not readily accessible in the house.  Just thinking about how you can make it just a little bit more difficult for someone who is severely mentally ill to get their hands on one.  It's just a matter of accessability.

The same can be said for keeping firearms locked up.  In NC, it is against the law to keep a firearm unlocked and accesible inside a home with children.  It's a felony.  So you can just as easily lose that "Constitutional right" by getting caught with an unlocked gun in a house with kids.  This is NC, not Mass.  Is that draconian and abohorrent?

We don't live in a free society.  We have laws.  And owning a gun is not a protected Constitutional right.  Many states, and towns have laws and ordinances, and there are actions and situations that a person can do that restrict and/or take away their ability to purchase, own, and store firearms.

 

1.  Oh, I understood what you wrote.  And I stand by my assertion.  And I understand what might have not happened in the Conn. case if the firearms weren't kept in the house.  However, I'm not an "ends justifies the means" type of guy. 

2.  You're wrong owning a gun is and individually protected right of the US Constitution.  You're just flat out wrong on that. In fact the most recent US Sup Ct case involving firearms just settled the question in the affirmative that the 2nd Amendment is and individual right, not a collective right.  Thus there is in fact an individual right to own a firearm.  As a Constitutionally protected right, like all rights, it can be infringed upon by regulations, provided the government demonstrate a compelling governmental interest in restricting the right and the restriction is done in the least intrusive manner.  To say there is no Constitutional right to own a firearm is just plainly and factually wrong.  Sorry.  You are misunderstand the difference between a "Right" and "valid restrictions on that right".  But just because there may be restrictions doesn't mean there isn't a right.  For instance, there are restrictions on speech, generally: time, place, manner restrictions.  But to say because there are valid time, place, manner restrictions does not mean there is no Constitutionally protected right of free speech.  You've just missed the mark on this one.

3.  There is a huge difference between the access regulations/laws that most states have (keeping guns out of reach of minors) and prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm in their home because of the actions or status of another. 

4.  But if you're an "ends justifies the means" type guy, then it just doesn't matter.  Keep us all safe regardless of how you have to accomplish it.



A convicted sex offender is prohibited, in some places, from living within a certain distance from schools, playgrounds, etc. That means that, presumably, anyone who, whether by choice or necessity, lives with the sex offender, is also required to adhere to those restrictions as long as they’re in the same residence with the sex offender.

I’m sure that there are people who are not sex offenders, or even criminals, who are adversely affected by this law—who have to live in out-of-the-way places, probably surrounded by other sex offenders, but the law exists to protect the public from a potentially dangerous individual.

No one is saying that a person who lives with a person with a violent felony conviction or a serious mental illness shouldn’t be allowed to get a license or to own guns. But I agree that they should not be able to keep them at home. They can keep them at a locker at a gun range, store them in a bank vault, or keep them at a locked safe at their place of business.

If a woman lived with a paroled convicted murderer or armed robber, you'd have no problem with her keeping guns in the same house? That it would be a violation of his parole for him to carry or use one of her guns would be small consolation to the person he killed.
2012-12-27 1:10 PM
in reply to: #4549705

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Assault Weapons Ban being introduced

As long as everyone realizes that nothing proposed here or in the new law is going to have a single effect on the murder rate in this country I'm good with the discussion.  But if there is anyone who thinks this will make a difference in the number of gun murders per year....you're delusional.

In fact, there a5re more guns in our society now than at any other timein our history....and gun deaths have been in a steady decline for two decades.

I know it all feels good.....but it's a MONUMENTAL waste of time, energy, and money.



Edited by Left Brain 2012-12-27 1:12 PM
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Assault Weapons Ban being introduced Rss Feed  
 
 
of 8