Acceptable actions of Congress concerning gun laws

C

cold dead hands

Moderator
How many here believe that the laws enacted by Congress by in 1934, 1968, 1986 and 1994 are acceptable when it comes to the 2A?

As near as I can tell there appear to be three camps.

Camp one proclaims that any gun law other than the 2A is illegal.

Camp two says that any gun law is the law and laws must be obeyed wether they like them or not.

And camp three being folks who see some laws as restrictive and rediculous while maintaining that other laws are quite necessary and they are glad they exist.

I am more so inclined to agree with camp one than any other on any given day since I believe gun control is a failure and an obvious attempt to subjugate the masses by a government that no longer respects the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while being a servant of the people.

The only reason for my next set of statements is that most state CCW permit applicants are run through the FBI background checks before approval is given to carry, so the feds do affect state issued permits.

The only gun law issue I can barely agree with is the state CCW system. Not because it weeds out potential bad guys from carrying guns, but because it at least makes you prove you know how to shoot the weapon at a target with a minimum of proficiency, thus lowering the chances of some innocent party taking a bullet from Mr. Spray and Pray. Even at that I still believe anybody should be able to bear arms. If they aren't considered dangerous enough to keep in prison or a looney bin, then let them carry.

My personal feeling about letting people carry is strictly that you should have to prove a minimum proficiency to carry. Issue a simple card (law enforcement need not even be involved for the testing, just two approved witness signitures that you are not a rotten shot. Approved signers could be a varied combo of range officer and civilian or NRA hunting course teacher or what have you.)

What camp do you live in?
 
Camp one and camp two. Laws other than 2nd Amendment are in fact illegal, but keeping myself on the right side of the law is a responsibility--I'm no good to anyone if legally impaired, plus it would be hypocritical for me to attempt to differentiate myself from criminals when making legal arguements if I'm somehow placed in their category.
 
Camp3 and camp2.

But I would get rid of a LOT of existing laws.

As to how the Federal government can legally pass laws if the 2nd amendment is ruled a personal/individual right ... that's a different issue. I guess they'll just keep using their interstate commerce rights and their taxing authority to do any darn thing they want.
 
none of the above.

state ccw sucks when the law is written poorly and allows sheriffs or police chiefs to decide issuance. look into Iowa,California and New York.

it shouldnt take a specific law to allow ccw in most states
only real case I have seen is Missouri where a law is required due to the Missouri constitution which is kinda a sad thing as open carry should be legal.

its bad enough innocent until proven guilty is on its head.

rights vs privilege is another issue. only 2 states of 50 come close to recognizing a right. even if you have shall issue you are not exercising a right its a privilege. that being said the Capital of the nation is totalitarian to gun ownership of citizens as is Chicago in both Firearms are BANNED! Forbidden for the unclean citizens only for those in power that have closed rights and privileges for others and actively seek the prosecution of anyone daring to violate such unjust laws. yet those that write the laws have excluded themselves and protectors from the laws. San Francisco wanted to add themselves to the list of Chicago and Washington D.C..

people fear if we are not under numerous redundant laws without the occasional or constant appearance of an authoritarian enforcer there will be anarchy.
 
Last edited:
This is one issue that cuts both ways for me. Let me explain.

If the majority of the people in the USA with guns were reflected by the folks I know, no laws would be needed. We hunt a little, we also police our brass, we have self control, we don't drink when around loaded firearms. We teach youngsters respect and safe handling techniques.

In a very sense, you could safely store a machinegun or a LAWS rocket at their homes.

Unfortunately, that is not the picture of America. I doubt you'll ever be able to trust a banger with even a 10/22. And there's my problem.

I do not see any need or the restriction for law abiding citizens. And I also see that there is a faction that will never do one common sense thing with firearms no matter what statute is in place.
 
The second amendment is the supreme law of the land. The second amendment is the part of the constitution that ensures the survivability of the rest.

The amendment says "....shall not be infringed."

There are no acceptable reasonable restrictions to the second amendment. None. Nada. Zilch.

Every time a reasonable restriction is enacted that infringes on the RKBA someone somewhere dies as a result of the infringement.

The infringement, no matter how many people deem as a reasonable restriction will never change anyone's behavior.

"One man's reasonable restriction is another man's death sentence". - Anygunanywhere.

Anygunanywhere
 
Camp One, that's what the Second Amendment protects. Any laws to the contrary are null and void on their face*.


* Marbury vs. Madison, US Supreme Court.
 
begs the question!

If you are in the camp where the 2nd amendment is the only rule to follow how to do view the criminal code that takes away that right?
 
And if you are in camp1 ... if I want to setup an all night vending machine selling cheap machine guns (such as SKS rifles set to slam fire with the firing pin welded in place) outside every elementary school, should that be illegal?

How about if I want to set up a charity that gives a Glock to every felony prisoner released from prison, even if on probation?

Sorry ... there are limits even to the term "shall not infringe." Because the "right" that can't be "infringed" on still has to be defined, if not historically than at least by the mores of the current culture.
 
I disagree with your release-from-prison scenario. If someone is "deemed" safe enough to release, let them be armed. SENTENCING laws should be revised. Not gun laws.
 
Absurd arguments prove nothing. The antis and grabbers have used absurd arguments to lead us to where we are now. Absurd arguments are the same as emotional arguments in that they are not based on facts.

Rights are absolute. When you talk about rerstrictions to RKBA you are using the prior restrant argument. Prior restraint makes something illegal because somethng might happen. Prior restraint never stopped any illegal behavior.

Prior restraint is what the grabbers use to remove you of your rights.

Anygunanywhere
 
If you are in the camp where the 2nd amendment is the only rule to follow how to do view the criminal code that takes away that right?
Click to expand...

And if you are in camp1 ... if I want to setup an all night vending machine selling cheap machine guns (such as SKS rifles set to slam fire with the firing pin welded in place) outside every elementary school, should that be illegal?

How about if I want to set up a charity that gives a Glock to every felony prisoner released from prison, even if on probation?

Sorry ... there are limits even to the term "shall not infringe." Because the "right" that can't be "infringed" on still has to be defined, if not historically than at least by the mores of the current culture.
Click to expand...
These strawmen arguments for implied limitations are getting tiresome.

Rights are protected for the law abiding, one cannot have rights access during the commission of a crime. Rights access for children are controlled by parental consent and always have been, it's been part and parcel of the knowledge of rights for at least six centuries, probably longer.

The knowledge of rights access for law abiding adults has been an intrinsic part of rights for as long as the concept of rights has existed.

As far as felons who've completed their sentences, full rights access should be restored the moment they're out of prison. If they can't be restored due to excessive danger, then their sentences were too short.

There is no limit to "infringed", if there were a limit then that would be an implied government power and government could decide how far that power goes, yet another self granted government power.

There are no implied powers in the Constitution, and no grant of power to government is to be found in the Second Amendment.
 
I am a firm believer in CRIME CONTROL and NOT GUN CONTROL!!! The reason so many unconstitutional anti-gun laws get passed is that no one challenges them. If you think about it, to pass any of these laws requires that you & I be presumed guilty of something simply because we choose to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. I am not a legal scholar, but I do believe that constitution states something about the presumption of innocence!!!??? In the mean time, the 1 to 5 % of the population committing 100% of the crime is let off for "good behavior"!!! Every rookie LEO I know, knows who the BG's are within their first year on the job. Politicians pretend not to know who the BG's are in order to pander to the public!!! That's the real disgrace.:mad:

Sorry for venting here, I'll go to my room now.:rolleyes:
 
Unfortunately, that is not the picture of America. I doubt you'll ever be able to trust a banger with even a 10/22. And there's my problem.
Click to expand...

people will use your problem and fears against you and others, how else do you think Chicago and Washington D.C. got to Banning guns.

its Hegelian dialect of PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION. sadly its flawed solutions.

Economist Ludwig von Mises identified three features of government intervention in the domestic economy: (1) unintended consequences, (2) negative consequences from the policymakers' standpoint, and (3) proliferation of new interventions as correctives for past interventions. The same applies in foreign policy. All foreign policies bring results not intended by those who author the policies. And some of those results are regretted by the policymakers. Further, the undesirable consequences are frequently grounds for further intervention.

start talking about bad apples you best be prepared to delve into the topic of psychology.

Psychopathology. The branch of psychological knowledge that is concerned with mental diseases and disorders.

Psychophysics. The division of psychology that studies the physiological aspects of mental phenomena and in particular the quantitative relations between stimuli and the resultant sensations.

psychologist heavily influence this country and others just look up Edward Bernays.

the goal is confusion or fear the quick fix is comfort and order a breath of rationale the end result a temporary stimulus to sooth addicts and move on to the next fix.
 
I guess I'm somewhat old-fashioned here.

  • Prisons need to be places of discipline, not country clubs.
  • Time in prison should feel like a cross between college and a Marine boot camp.
  • Prisons should house violent offenders and career criminals
  • Lesser offenders work to support prisons or state construction/infrastructure projects.
  • Recidivism is heavily punished. You only get one chance.
  • Felons lose their rights to concealable firearms. Can still use long guns.
  • Mental incompetents can't drive, can't fly planes, can't own guns.
  • Punish for the misuse of arms, not for paperwork errors.
  • Shooting an armed thug committing a felony is not actionable by the state.
  • You want a mortar? Cannon? Sure, with non-explosive ammo.

If the State/Fed wants a background check, then it has to be properly completed it 30 minutes or less -- or you take the gun home.

Kids bringing guns to school? Only if unloaded and stored with the administration and picked up later.

Schools are in the education business, let them educate on gun safety and marksmanship (requires a 180-degree turn).

Minors carrying handguns? Might require a proficiency test and a written test on legal and moral use and a youth-license (think of a stringient CCW class).
 
get convicted and stay in jail forever

If I'm following the trend of the statements posted I'd have to say the opinion is: once convicted the should all stay in prison. No-one released should ever have any restraints on what they can do, where they can go or what they can own. If they are released they go back to having full rights and privileges across the board. Seems rather draconian to allow no middle ground.

I don't believe that what people believe or even want. The California three strike rule definitely keeps them in jail. Has it made is a safer world. We can't keep placing people in prison and keeping all of them there forever.

We definitely have an overabundance of gun laws on the books. The problem seems to be never fully implementing most of them; nor revising them once they are proven ineffective or unenforceable. We allow violations of gun laws to be traded off for some lesser crime all across the country. Perhaps the laws simply need to be changed so no trade offs are allowed and all violations prosecuted.

Murder is a great example of overeactive gun laws. For some reason there seems to be a tendency to make killing some one more of a crime if you used a gun than if your bludgeoned them to death.

The Constitution is not the only laws of the land. If it was it might become an awful place to live. Even our founders had beliefs and practices they did not write into the Constitution. They lived in communities that had laws never considered under the Constitution. Some of those laws have gone by the wayside as America became of age.

We have no rights without responsibilities being attached to them.
 
These strawmen arguments for implied limitations are getting tiresome.

Rights are protected for the law abiding, one cannot have rights access during the commission of a crime. Rights access for children are controlled by parental consent and always have been, it's been part and parcel of the knowledge of rights for at least six centuries, probably longer.
Click to expand...

These arguments about mythical absolute rights that are so holy that no restrictions at all can be legislated against them are getting tiresome.

There are some reasonable limits to free speech (libel, etc.) and even religion (can't do human sacrifice) and there will be to the 2nd amendment as well. As long as law abiding citizens can effectively arm themselves the intent and spirit of the law has been upheld.

If there is no law limiting what I can sell and where I can sell it, then I CAN setup my vending machine with welding firing pins on SKS rifles across the street from elementary schools.

The point about once a prisoner is released from prison they should get all of their rights back is valid, I just personally don't agree with it. For one thing, right or wrong most prisoners are currently released on probation, which means they are effectively still under control of the state. They have very few rights during this period -- you don't even have to get a warrant to search their premises, because for all practical purposes they are still in jail.

I think rights should be restored to the majority of people released from prison, even including voting rights. But the best way to retain your rights is just to to commit a felony, which doesn't seem like too much to ask.
 
How 'bout this concerning the 2nd:

The Right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

No exceptions. I think the CMP was acceptable congressional action concerning guns. Anything that provides funding to help support that well-regulated militia is OK. CMP did that. The rest are infringements.
 
I feel like I have to be Camp One. But only because I have seen the government at work. It's makes sense to me that there should be a few (FEW, not many) restrictions on firearms and who they go to. But I also know that once you open that hole in the dam, all the water eventually coming out. I don't want to concede a small point, because the next one the liberals will ask for will be larger, and so on, until there is no freedom left. But that applies to the whole bill of rights. You agree not to say something on TV, but then the week after, they ask you to not say something else, then all of a sudden, you have complete government censorship. Warrantless wiretaps on international phones possibly linked to terrorism, no problem, but then they will want that on national phones, then all phones, then you have to call a government relay station to make any phone call. What is it they call it?... Avalanche effect? So, I can't support a smaller law, even if I agree with it, because they will always want more.
 
Politicans and guns.

I'm right in line with Mr. L. Neil Smith and his article "Why did it have to be guns"

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.com

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top