MedicineBow
New member
Whether anyone likes it or not, it's hard to imagine some constitutional bar to having to undergo an indentity check to buy a firearm.
2nd Amendment Regulation
- Thread starter Webleymkv
- Start date
- Status
I never equated them. I just said that they can all be dangerous, depending upon what they are used for and how. I can't help it if you see strawmen in your pet peeves.
I never said that losing some of your rights means you lose them all. You can't be waterboarded in prison, even you are Charles Manson. I call your strawman arguement and raise you one.
I think we should definitely separate felonies. The threat to society by some felonies is certainly higher than others. The punishments should reflect that. I guess we disagree on that one.Quote:
I know that NICS is different from registration. I never said it wasn't. It could lead to registration at some point in time, when liberals have more power. NICS may be touted as a "reasonable" way to "help" keep firearms out of the hands of those who are legally prohibited from possessing them. However, if it was all that effective, our violent crime rates where guns are used as a tool in the commission of a crime, should have dropped considerably after the NICS was implemented. I have never seen any data which would support that. Bill Clinton's administration claimed that 600K felons and other prohibited persons were stopped from purchasing a gun by the Brady Law in its very first year. You'd think there would have been a step function (negative) with respect to the lowering of violent crimes in which firearms were used as tools during the crime. I've not seen the data showing this to be the case.
My gut feel is that we have to live with the NICS. On it's face, it appears reasonable and not too dangerous with respect to our liberties. Clinton was keeping names for up to 180 days, which is defacto registration. Do we believe those lists were destroyed or scrubbed? Only if you really trust the federal government to have the protection of our rights as a high priority. I'm not convinced. There are too many people who believe that the NICS actually prevents prohibited people from acquiring guns. As you mentioned, they can still get them illegally, and we don't seem to be able to stop that. So, we'll have to live with NICS, because it at least "appears" as though we're doing something, even if it isn't very effective.
__________________
In a legal sense, anyone who is rejected by the NICS should be arrested for a felony. For you see, if you are prohibited from possessing a firearm, it is a felony to attempt to purchase one. Also, they don't run the NICS check until AFTER you have filled out the yellow paper, (4473). On the form 4473, there is a statement that says, if you lie on this form, that too is a felony.
Well, if some guy with a criminal record, which prohibits him from possessing a firearm, comes into a gun shop to buy a gun, what happens? If he tells the truth on the 4473 form, the gun shop owner would not be required to run an NICS on him. He should tell the guy that he cannot sell him a firearm and that's the end of it. We know that most criminals won't tell the truth on the 4473. They may be ignorant, but they're not stupid to that extent. So, they have to lie on the 4473. The dealer then runs them through the NICS. If they come back "DENIED" due to a criminal record or other disqualifying factor, they've obviously lied on the 4473 and they have just committed a felony in doing so. This is a felony punishable by one year in federal prison, because they've just committed a "federal" felony offense. How come we don't have a bunch of these yahoos behind bars in the federal prison system?
I'll tell you why. Most criminals don't buy their guns in gun shops or at gun shows. They have someone else, who doesn't have a record, buy for them. Or they buy them from criminal friends who have received them illegally, through theft, smuggling, or straw purchases. The NICS is virtually ineffective at stopping prohibited persons from getting a firearm.
Well, if some guy with a criminal record, which prohibits him from possessing a firearm, comes into a gun shop to buy a gun, what happens? If he tells the truth on the 4473 form, the gun shop owner would not be required to run an NICS on him. He should tell the guy that he cannot sell him a firearm and that's the end of it. We know that most criminals won't tell the truth on the 4473. They may be ignorant, but they're not stupid to that extent. So, they have to lie on the 4473. The dealer then runs them through the NICS. If they come back "DENIED" due to a criminal record or other disqualifying factor, they've obviously lied on the 4473 and they have just committed a felony in doing so. This is a felony punishable by one year in federal prison, because they've just committed a "federal" felony offense. How come we don't have a bunch of these yahoos behind bars in the federal prison system?
I'll tell you why. Most criminals don't buy their guns in gun shops or at gun shows. They have someone else, who doesn't have a record, buy for them. Or they buy them from criminal friends who have received them illegally, through theft, smuggling, or straw purchases. The NICS is virtually ineffective at stopping prohibited persons from getting a firearm.
Last edited:
CGSteve8718
New member
Once again, it is about principles, and as far as those are concerned, this Marine agrees with airman USAFNodak.
Better than making a distinction on felonies, we need to outright eliminate "felonies" that seem all too arbitrary and capricious to begin with. That WiFi article was insane. In essence, the man who used an unsecured connection is the same as an armed bank robber?
Another thing that is arbitrary and capricious is the all encompassing asset seizure forfeiture guidelines. I don't know if it's an exaggeration or what, but I'm sure you've all heard of how one things leads to another on what the authorities can take away from you. Arrests and confiscations should be limited to the persons and items directly related to the offense, and no more.
The one thing I will agree with TNGent is about the "doing time" part. However, what myself and others are trying to say is, what constitutes "crime" now is too far reaching. I have also said this in other threads, if the offense is so severe that they would have their 2A rights revoked, why would they be released from incarceration to begin with?
As I've discussed with TNGent before on the issue of select fire weapons, it is definitely a slippery slope that will lead to more restrictions, and prohibitions. If that sounds like paranoia, another AWB bill just was written and is waiting and hoping to be passed...there are lever gun and other CAS guns in there.
If you feel they are so dangerous, then the next logical step is to also view semi auto repros of military arms to be equally dangerous. Crimes with select fire weapons are nonexistent, and the only time there were any, was in conjunction with equally asinine legislation (Prohibition) and the main reason for continued crimes with them (if they were available again) would also be because of another equally failed, and asinine legislation (War on Drugs).
Better than making a distinction on felonies, we need to outright eliminate "felonies" that seem all too arbitrary and capricious to begin with. That WiFi article was insane. In essence, the man who used an unsecured connection is the same as an armed bank robber?
Another thing that is arbitrary and capricious is the all encompassing asset seizure forfeiture guidelines. I don't know if it's an exaggeration or what, but I'm sure you've all heard of how one things leads to another on what the authorities can take away from you. Arrests and confiscations should be limited to the persons and items directly related to the offense, and no more.
The one thing I will agree with TNGent is about the "doing time" part. However, what myself and others are trying to say is, what constitutes "crime" now is too far reaching. I have also said this in other threads, if the offense is so severe that they would have their 2A rights revoked, why would they be released from incarceration to begin with?
As I've discussed with TNGent before on the issue of select fire weapons, it is definitely a slippery slope that will lead to more restrictions, and prohibitions. If that sounds like paranoia, another AWB bill just was written and is waiting and hoping to be passed...there are lever gun and other CAS guns in there.
If you feel they are so dangerous, then the next logical step is to also view semi auto repros of military arms to be equally dangerous. Crimes with select fire weapons are nonexistent, and the only time there were any, was in conjunction with equally asinine legislation (Prohibition) and the main reason for continued crimes with them (if they were available again) would also be because of another equally failed, and asinine legislation (War on Drugs).
And it imposes prior restraint on law-abiding citizens in an exercise of a fundamental constitutional right to boot.
Sure, prosecute violent felons caught in possession of firearms, why not? Perhaps a lifetime ban on ownership by violent felons is justifiable, since their rights will have been removed by due process of law.
But to impose restrictions and waiting periods on people who have done nothing wrong or illegal whatsoever seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
mvpel posted:
Especially when we see that it has done nothing to affect the rates at which violent crimes are committed, including those crimes where the criminals used guns as tools during the commission of their crimes. The strict scrutiny invoked by the wording of the Second Amendment, means the government has to have a very, very, compelling arguement for why the right is being limited or "infringed" upon. The Second Amendment says the right "shall not be infringed", but we can argue that later. For now, what is the compelling government arguement? That a prior restraint on law abiding citizens is positively affecting the safety of our society at large? Where's the proof? I'd like to see the data on how crime was affected by implementing the NICS. It was not affected, despite the lies that Clinton spread about how many felons had been caught trying to purchase firearms. 600K? Right. And he never had sexual relations with Monica, or harrassed Paula Jones, Jaunita Broderick or Kathleen Willey.
Especially when we see that it has done nothing to affect the rates at which violent crimes are committed, including those crimes where the criminals used guns as tools during the commission of their crimes. The strict scrutiny invoked by the wording of the Second Amendment, means the government has to have a very, very, compelling arguement for why the right is being limited or "infringed" upon. The Second Amendment says the right "shall not be infringed", but we can argue that later. For now, what is the compelling government arguement? That a prior restraint on law abiding citizens is positively affecting the safety of our society at large? Where's the proof? I'd like to see the data on how crime was affected by implementing the NICS. It was not affected, despite the lies that Clinton spread about how many felons had been caught trying to purchase firearms. 600K? Right. And he never had sexual relations with Monica, or harrassed Paula Jones, Jaunita Broderick or Kathleen Willey.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I think you are equating them and they are not the same. Firearms are dangerous and are designed mostly to kill things. Since the chain saws and machete were not designed to do that I think there is your strawman. Lots of things can kill people but firearms are different and we gun owners should acknowledge that.
The example of the WiFi smells bad to me. I think we may have an overzealous prosecutor who was probably trying to get the guy to plead out. I doubt he has a felony on his record. White collar crimes are bad too and I have no problem with Dennis Kozlowski never owning a gun again or not being able to vote. Same goes for Elliott Spitzer. Legislatures decide what constitutes a felony. Change the law if you don't like it but I don't like thieves and have no problem if they can't own guns or vote. If they clean up their acts later they can petition and pay a lawyer to get their rights back.
I think that train left the station, it is constitutional. Heller and subsequent rulings will not I think throw out the NICS.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Steve,
and finally:
There are some slippery slopes out there regarding civil rights but full auto isn't one of them. I think the real argument that the antis have with so called assult weapons is the large magazine capacity although they often get confused on semi auto operation of a firearm. That said, I don't think that a heavy regulation on full auto will translate into losing all semi-auto firearms. We've had the full auto regulations in effect for 70 plus years and we still have semi-autos. I think there is a very clear and defineable difference with full auto and that is why I like Gura's standard involving the lineal decendants of the musket in his argument. The full auto folks ain't gonna get the NFA overturned thru the courts and I doubt they could ever muster support for it's repeal. I liked this quote:
and finally:
How should we be restricted?
I used to say, when I was younger and w/out a family, that I should be able to own whatever sort of ordinance I choose. I have not broken any laws, don't plan too, so i should not be restricted in any way. But now I see thing in a different stand point.
The 2nd Ammendment was written back before the thought of an automatic weapon, grenades, rocket launchers, hell even a rifle that fired a bullet from a little case. So the authors were not/could not have even fathomed the need to restrict them.
I think this country, as a whole, is has done right by us in that aspect. I mean now, as to what we have, the extremist states excluded. I can and do own assault style rifles, handguns, long range rifles. There are permits I can obtain for Fully automatic weapons if I choose. I don't see the need for anymore fire power than that. I can't imagine trying to defend my household against that kind of firepower. So I'm good with what we have right now.
About felons and Background checks. If there weren't back ground checks, a felon could walk in and buy a weapon, anywhere. He wouldn't need to go thru the difficulties of obtaining it illegally. But I'm against background checks at gun shows, a little off I know. I don't really like anyone to know what I have, peroid. But that is just me. Do I think that a gun show is the perfect way for someone that should not have a gun, to obtain one? Sure. That's what I would do.
But I don't concider my rights violated by an extra 10 minute wait to walk out with firearm. Waiting periods suck though. They serve no purpose except to annoy the gun purchaser.
I used to say, when I was younger and w/out a family, that I should be able to own whatever sort of ordinance I choose. I have not broken any laws, don't plan too, so i should not be restricted in any way. But now I see thing in a different stand point.
The 2nd Ammendment was written back before the thought of an automatic weapon, grenades, rocket launchers, hell even a rifle that fired a bullet from a little case. So the authors were not/could not have even fathomed the need to restrict them.
I think this country, as a whole, is has done right by us in that aspect. I mean now, as to what we have, the extremist states excluded. I can and do own assault style rifles, handguns, long range rifles. There are permits I can obtain for Fully automatic weapons if I choose. I don't see the need for anymore fire power than that. I can't imagine trying to defend my household against that kind of firepower. So I'm good with what we have right now.
About felons and Background checks. If there weren't back ground checks, a felon could walk in and buy a weapon, anywhere. He wouldn't need to go thru the difficulties of obtaining it illegally. But I'm against background checks at gun shows, a little off I know. I don't really like anyone to know what I have, peroid. But that is just me. Do I think that a gun show is the perfect way for someone that should not have a gun, to obtain one? Sure. That's what I would do.
But I don't concider my rights violated by an extra 10 minute wait to walk out with firearm. Waiting periods suck though. They serve no purpose except to annoy the gun purchaser.
The M16 is much more of a lineal descendant of the musket than any other arms. The 2nd Amendment, if it protects anything, protects military arms in private hands. If we're talking strict scrutiny, not your druthers, how would NFA ever survive? Gura's argument here is simply untenable. I know why he did it, live to fight another day, but it's wrong.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Actually I think it is quite reasonable. Mainly because the nature of weaponry and warfare has changed and that would survive strict scrutiny. Technology and lethality to be short. These weapons restricted by the NFA were designed for pure military use (except maybe suppressors) and have no suitable civilian use. They are I maintain poor for self defense and hunting as well. They have only a military use.
Now:
Mr. Dellinger from DC would agree and then say that unless you are in the military you have no right to bear arms. The SCOTUS correctly separated the militia clause from the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Therefore, Gura argued correctly when asked if any firearms could be restricted that yes those not in common civilian use or suitable for civilian self defense could be regulated. The "druthers" issue you spoke about then comes into play when we say civilians have a right to military arms because it becomes your "druthers" on where to stop or regulate so now we all have nukes.
Bad premise, worse conclusion. What made the founding father's so amazing is their ability to write a Constitution that has the ability to stand the test of time.
If not for FDR, we would still have a government that resembled their conception. It certainly is the government they intended to limit. If not for FDR failing his oath, we would still have their conception of a government.
I live in a state that represents where the slippery slope will get you, P.R. of Kali.
Everything is illegal, including our current military semi-auto battle rifle....
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
No guns allowed in California? Wow!
Seriously, wpcexpert makes a good point. Muskets are not the same thing as grenade launchers. Public safety demands that we regulate some dnagerous things and we have to draw lines with firearms. I maintain weapons in common use by civilians meet that criteria.
Do the strict scrutiny analysis then, spell it out.
I said, "in private hands," if he agrees to that he loses.
This is constitutionally nonsensical. If the government is successful enough at regulating something long enough then they can right ahead doing it even if later a right is found. "Separate but equal survived for 80 years, so go right ahead with it"? Strange jurisprudence.
Not my druthers, but strict scrutiny jurisprudence. Full auto arms are standard issue to every infantry on earth or nearly. Nukes ain't, never have been, only been used twice in all history, they don't fill the current role of the musket.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Well, I am not a lawyer but here goes. First I would delink as Gura did the requirement to bear arms being only related to service in the militia. Then I would say that the right to bear arms emcompasses personal self defense. I would argue that weapons in common use by civilians now are sufficient for these purposes of self-defense. Full auto were designed purely for military uses and therefore the government might well ban or regulate them as a reasonable limitation of the second amendment.
Here is another quote from the Second Amendment Foundation:
Lots of other weapons are too. Grenade Launchers, Stinger Missiles, Land mines. Should they be protected by the 2a?
Not true. Engineer units had 'em and did you ever hear of the Davy Crockett?
That's only part of the equation. Firstly, where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only to personal self defense? If you want to rewrite history for yourself, fine, but don't rewrite it for me or for the founders. The "military purposes" vs "personal defense" dichotomy is one invented in the last century by the gun-grabbers primarily as a result of the horribly-worded Miller case. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment as written unless you read the Militia clause as a reference to an organized militia and as a limit on the operative clause, neither of which is tenable.Tennessee Gentleman said:
How does regulating full-auto serve the government's interest in preventing federal crimes? Seeing as how so few crimes are committed with full-auto firearms, and even fewer are committed with full-auto firearms legally owned by private citizens, it's very hard to make a case that any sort of regulation on full-auto weapons is necessary to achieve ANY objective, much less one that is constitutionally permissible.
Same with explosives. Bad people who are going to blow up things really don't care about the law, and explosives are not so hard to make that regulations can/will effectively stop them from being made.
Then someone comes along with the argument that just because it's hard to catch or stop people doesn't mean we shouldn't try. That's a fine argument when dealing with actual malum in se criminal transactions like violent crimes. Even though we may not be able to stop most murders, going after the perpetrators, no matter the success rate, is justifiable. There is a victim.
Going after people who own, buy, or make firearms or explosives is something else entirely. There is no evidence just from that that they intend to hurt anyone, and if there is, how about pursuing the matter on the basis of the (imminent) commission of a violent crime, rather than possession of inanimate objects?
Jermtheory
New member
thank you!
ive been on the verge of attempting to make the same points...but i was hoping someone would come along and do it more coherently than i would have.
Originally posted by Antipas
I totally agree, which is why I didn't say in my post that a person should be barred for felony conviction (but rather violent crime, chronic drug/alcohol abuse, and mental instability) as there are many felonies that a person may commit that don't necessarily make them a danger to society. Barring based on felony conviction could work well, but only after a serious re-evaluation of just how heinous a crime can be a felony.
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
The problem is that restrictions on full-auto and most types of explosives are, in one way or another, punishing people for a crime that they have not yet committed. It is not overly hard to own or operate a machinegun, greanade, or even rocket launcher safely with no harm to anyone else. So long as I have a proper range in which to operate them (which is required for a flintlock rifle or bow and arrow), no one is put at risk by my lawful use of them. Why should I be restricted (and therfore punished) when I have not and am not harming or infringing upon the rights of anyone else? The Constitution is an elastic document and was made that way so that it could survive the changes of society over time (as it has for the past 200+ years). I find it very hard to believe that the brilliant men with such foresight to make an elastic constitution couldn't fathom advances in weapons design enough to consider them when they penned the 2nd Amendment.
Fully-automatic weapons and explosives can be relatively easily obtained and/or fabricated by illegal means. If someone wishes to commit the serious crime of attacking your home with such an illegal weapon, I very highly doubt that a firearms or explosives crime is among their concerns. This being the case, why should you or I have to bear such a heavy legal and financial burden to lawfully defend ourselves from those who are already more than willing to break the law?
The mention of the militia was, I believe, put in the 2nd Amendment to give the reasoning for the Amendment's existance rather than to specify it's execution. The reason that our right to keep and bear arms is so important is so that our country can be more effectively defended against an invading army or tyrannical government (afterall, a militia is the citizenry of a country, not the regualr army). Certainly such forces would be equiped with military style weapons, thus the civilian's right to own the same or superior weapons is essential to adequately defend against them.
Nukes are a very different thing than firearms and most types of explosives. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to safely own and operate a nuclear device. Because the mere ownership and operation of such devices (along with chemical and biological agents and certain extremely volitile explosives) presents a significant public safety hazard, I think it's reasonable to restrict them. Frankly, the whole nuke issue in such an argument is little more than a red herring.
So long as their responsible ownership and operation does not present a public safety hazard, yes they should.
I totally agree, which is why I didn't say in my post that a person should be barred for felony conviction (but rather violent crime, chronic drug/alcohol abuse, and mental instability) as there are many felonies that a person may commit that don't necessarily make them a danger to society. Barring based on felony conviction could work well, but only after a serious re-evaluation of just how heinous a crime can be a felony.
Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
The problem is that restrictions on full-auto and most types of explosives are, in one way or another, punishing people for a crime that they have not yet committed. It is not overly hard to own or operate a machinegun, greanade, or even rocket launcher safely with no harm to anyone else. So long as I have a proper range in which to operate them (which is required for a flintlock rifle or bow and arrow), no one is put at risk by my lawful use of them. Why should I be restricted (and therfore punished) when I have not and am not harming or infringing upon the rights of anyone else? The Constitution is an elastic document and was made that way so that it could survive the changes of society over time (as it has for the past 200+ years). I find it very hard to believe that the brilliant men with such foresight to make an elastic constitution couldn't fathom advances in weapons design enough to consider them when they penned the 2nd Amendment.
Fully-automatic weapons and explosives can be relatively easily obtained and/or fabricated by illegal means. If someone wishes to commit the serious crime of attacking your home with such an illegal weapon, I very highly doubt that a firearms or explosives crime is among their concerns. This being the case, why should you or I have to bear such a heavy legal and financial burden to lawfully defend ourselves from those who are already more than willing to break the law?
The mention of the militia was, I believe, put in the 2nd Amendment to give the reasoning for the Amendment's existance rather than to specify it's execution. The reason that our right to keep and bear arms is so important is so that our country can be more effectively defended against an invading army or tyrannical government (afterall, a militia is the citizenry of a country, not the regualr army). Certainly such forces would be equiped with military style weapons, thus the civilian's right to own the same or superior weapons is essential to adequately defend against them.
Nukes are a very different thing than firearms and most types of explosives. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to safely own and operate a nuclear device. Because the mere ownership and operation of such devices (along with chemical and biological agents and certain extremely volitile explosives) presents a significant public safety hazard, I think it's reasonable to restrict them. Frankly, the whole nuke issue in such an argument is little more than a red herring.
So long as their responsible ownership and operation does not present a public safety hazard, yes they should.
- Status