Gun Control Is A Failure
- Thread starter BillCA
- Start date
Wildalaska
Moderator
Gee another special comment
WildsomefolksjustdontgetwhatamericaisAlaska TM
FirstFreedom
Moderator
1. The NICS check (were Lautenberg gutted from it) I support because (a) I think it helps to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and (b) it doesn't violate the 2A because it doesn't (in my view) infringe the right (of those whom are traditionally afforded the right - non-felons) to keep and bear arms.
2. ANY type of law however, which attempts to ban or restrict the TYPE of gun we can own, or the PLACES we can carry them clearly violate the spirit and letter of the constitutional protection: "the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed". MOST laws (but not all) beyond the NICS check are violative of the 2A. Whether they're prudent as a measure to make us safe is irrelevant until such time as the 2A is amended or repealed entirely. Such laws are unconstitutional, since the right is FUNDAMENTAL, and therefore the strict scrutiny test applies, which is a very difficult hurdle to overcome. WA is wrong on that as usual (assuming that you are claiming some lower burden than strict scrutiny applies, as I'm sure you are - right, WA? If OTOH, you claim that strict scrutiny IS the proper test for gun laws, then I humbly apologize). But with FUNDAMENTAL rights, strict scrutiny applies, and the RKBA is clearly fundamental, based on the history of the right, it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights, and it's inclusion in the Bills of Rights in 10 of the 13 original colonies states' constitutions, when those colonies became states. Can't wait to hear WA's explanation for what the RKBA is not "fundamental". At least, in the same way that when you have to puke, you can't wait til its over.
2. ANY type of law however, which attempts to ban or restrict the TYPE of gun we can own, or the PLACES we can carry them clearly violate the spirit and letter of the constitutional protection: "the right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed". MOST laws (but not all) beyond the NICS check are violative of the 2A. Whether they're prudent as a measure to make us safe is irrelevant until such time as the 2A is amended or repealed entirely. Such laws are unconstitutional, since the right is FUNDAMENTAL, and therefore the strict scrutiny test applies, which is a very difficult hurdle to overcome. WA is wrong on that as usual (assuming that you are claiming some lower burden than strict scrutiny applies, as I'm sure you are - right, WA? If OTOH, you claim that strict scrutiny IS the proper test for gun laws, then I humbly apologize). But with FUNDAMENTAL rights, strict scrutiny applies, and the RKBA is clearly fundamental, based on the history of the right, it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights, and it's inclusion in the Bills of Rights in 10 of the 13 original colonies states' constitutions, when those colonies became states. Can't wait to hear WA's explanation for what the RKBA is not "fundamental". At least, in the same way that when you have to puke, you can't wait til its over.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Start eating crow, see below. I've been contending that since before you were born btw
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2520348&postcount=87
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2519792&postcount=20
WildletshearsomemeaculpasAlaska TM
So maybe we should let the blind drive? I don't think so. Rights were meant to be exercised responsibly by our founding fathers. An individual right does not mean that you can do anything you wish to do. Is letting criminals and those "adjudicated" as mentally defective own firearms an act of a responsible person? Too many times we view individual rights as being absolute without any restrictions.
It is a sad state of affairs that we now have any type of firearms legislation. However, what is the alternative means to keep guns out of criminals and mentally deficient people? I'm not to sure that I want criminals and crazy people walking into gun shops and buying firearms.
You folks propose another way to do it......Im all ears.
Yes we have laws against murder and armed mayhem but criminals and those mentally deficient don't follow them for some reason.
Even with all this horrible gun control legislation in place I can walk into a place that sells firearms and walk out in less than 20 minutes depending on the amount of customers with my choice of firearm. I can order a firearm on the Internet and have it shipped to a FFL near me. I can write a letter and do it by mail or even by fax. I can purchase a fully automatic weapon in this country. My right under the SA has not been effected to own and bear a firearm.
With technology and progress comes bigger ways to make mistakes. What the NRA sought to do with the new bill after the VT shootings was to help ensure that this event never happened again while putting in safeguards to ensure that those people SA rights were protected from being found mentally defective unless it was by due process of a duly constitute authority to do so. It even gives Vets some remedies under the law and a chance to appeal and regain the SA rights. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.
:justanotherusefulidiot:
It is a sad state of affairs that we now have any type of firearms legislation. However, what is the alternative means to keep guns out of criminals and mentally deficient people? I'm not to sure that I want criminals and crazy people walking into gun shops and buying firearms.
You folks propose another way to do it......Im all ears.
Yes we have laws against murder and armed mayhem but criminals and those mentally deficient don't follow them for some reason.
Even with all this horrible gun control legislation in place I can walk into a place that sells firearms and walk out in less than 20 minutes depending on the amount of customers with my choice of firearm. I can order a firearm on the Internet and have it shipped to a FFL near me. I can write a letter and do it by mail or even by fax. I can purchase a fully automatic weapon in this country. My right under the SA has not been effected to own and bear a firearm.
With technology and progress comes bigger ways to make mistakes. What the NRA sought to do with the new bill after the VT shootings was to help ensure that this event never happened again while putting in safeguards to ensure that those people SA rights were protected from being found mentally defective unless it was by due process of a duly constitute authority to do so. It even gives Vets some remedies under the law and a chance to appeal and regain the SA rights. Sounds like a win-win proposition to me.
:justanotherusefulidiot:
FirstFreedom
Moderator
WA
Then mea culpa for wrongfully imputing to you an stance; very sorry.
But then if strict scrutiny applies, then how is anything gonna be held up? No law ever holds up under strict scrutiny (or extremely rarely at least). You say that "reasonable" laws are constitutional. Of course the question is what is reasonable? And that reasonableness depends on the level of scrutiny applied. And as a practical matter, the level chosen is where the rubber meets the road - that decision is "for all the marbles" - strict scrutiny is the death-knell for any law, since the law must be strictly or narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, and the gov't has the burden of proof on both counts. There's no way that 80%+ of the gun laws in this country could hold up under strict scrutiny, unless the SCOTUS changes their application of that test.
The sad reality (in my cynical opinion) is that the SCOTUS will find an individual right, but since they cannot visage the widespread law-invalidating result of a strict scrutiny ruling, will weasal their way into a 50-page convoluted nonsensical opinion which will ultimately conclude that rational basis applies, notwithstanding fundamental-ness (or they will simply find "non-fundamental" more likely). Laws are ALWAYS (IINM) upheld under rational-basis. All the legislature has to do is put a purpose in the preamble and rational basis is met. An individual right coupled with rational basis has the EXACTLY identical practical effect as that of no individual right -the federal congress and all 50 states' legislatures can do exactly as they please. It's a toothless, ghost right if rational basis applies - the same as if the right never existed at all. Now, it may be interesting to see if they squirm around and apply some type of intermediate scrutiny, and that would be infinitely better than rational basis, but still not consistent with jurisprudential integrity, due to the right's clear status as fundamental.
Then mea culpa for wrongfully imputing to you an stance; very sorry.
But then if strict scrutiny applies, then how is anything gonna be held up? No law ever holds up under strict scrutiny (or extremely rarely at least). You say that "reasonable" laws are constitutional. Of course the question is what is reasonable? And that reasonableness depends on the level of scrutiny applied. And as a practical matter, the level chosen is where the rubber meets the road - that decision is "for all the marbles" - strict scrutiny is the death-knell for any law, since the law must be strictly or narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, and the gov't has the burden of proof on both counts. There's no way that 80%+ of the gun laws in this country could hold up under strict scrutiny, unless the SCOTUS changes their application of that test.
The sad reality (in my cynical opinion) is that the SCOTUS will find an individual right, but since they cannot visage the widespread law-invalidating result of a strict scrutiny ruling, will weasal their way into a 50-page convoluted nonsensical opinion which will ultimately conclude that rational basis applies, notwithstanding fundamental-ness (or they will simply find "non-fundamental" more likely). Laws are ALWAYS (IINM) upheld under rational-basis. All the legislature has to do is put a purpose in the preamble and rational basis is met. An individual right coupled with rational basis has the EXACTLY identical practical effect as that of no individual right -the federal congress and all 50 states' legislatures can do exactly as they please. It's a toothless, ghost right if rational basis applies - the same as if the right never existed at all. Now, it may be interesting to see if they squirm around and apply some type of intermediate scrutiny, and that would be infinitely better than rational basis, but still not consistent with jurisprudential integrity, due to the right's clear status as fundamental.
No.
I'm saying that "gun control" as we know it today is a failure of public policy. Are there some provisions that might make sense? Sure, and they're constitutional, such as not allowing felons to vote, hold an elected position or own guns.
As a matter of public policy to deal with crime, however, "gun control" is a failure. It is ineffective, largely unenforced and confusing to most people.
How about a 16 year old? A 19 year old? Does it make a difference if the 12 year old is carrying an M16, a single action .45 or a .22 derringer?
Laws are merely words on paper and cannot enforce themselves. Laws have only three results:
1. Notifiy the population which acts are proscribed and their punishments.
2. Deter crime by making the penalty outweigh the risk.
3. Allow us to punish violators after the fact.
No law can prevent someone from committing the crime if they don't care about the consequences.
Strict Scrutiny - it would, indeed, be a shame if SCOTUS declares the 2A an individual right and then says it's exempt from strict scrutiny. It would be inconsistent with other decisions regarding the BoR.
Under strict scrutiny, however, I could foresee a change to the NICS system legsislation. If NICS is unavailable for some "reasonable" period (i.e. more than 1 hour) the sale could proceed and it would be up to authorities to recover any gun sold to a prohibited person after the fact. Procedures would need to be created to allow people to clear up confusion within NICS when their name is similar to another's who is prohibited (I imagine a lot of John Michael Smith's having this problem).
Also under strict scrutiny, I'd expect certain laws to fall quickly, such as once-a-month limits, bans on certain military style rifles, limits on magazine capacities, requirements for purchase/ownership permits and some others. Some NFA limitations are subject to challenge and may be overturned (SBR's for example).
I expect that registration will remain constitutional, as well as restrictions on carrying loaded guns in public without a permit of some kind. I expect that courts will maintain the FFL requirement to sell guns. I suspect they may allow state requirements for such idiotic laws as magazine-disconnectors and visible loaded-chamber indicators, however.
Like any other major decision, there will be a period when the rules are changing frequently and we can expect to see the anti-gun lobby crank up some very wierd attempts to patch things up (can you imagine a law requiring military style rifles to be pink? I can see 'em trying that.)
BillCA said:
True. The concept of a body of law pertaining to possession of certain pieces of hardware and unwelcome behavior before an actual offense, in the interest of preventing crime, has led to the escalation in number and severity of offenses, but has changed nothing.
State defined offenses transitioning to federal offenses with attendant increase in penalty seem to be a part of the problem. That with the attitude that a harsh enough penalty associated with circumstances that meet a definition of intent, that supposedly will prevent the offense before it happens is also part of the problem.
The problem? Crime prevention. 'Just my opinion. There's nothing wrong with the concept of crime prevention, but how do you codify that?
I notice a cavalier use of the term felon here on TFL and in this thread. The Congress and the 24 hour news channels use the term felon in a way that presupposes a Goblin-agent of hell here on earth. I suggest searching for a more descriptive term for offenders who cannot be trusted with the right to keep and bear arms. I don't suggest a specific replacement term, just suggest searching for one that is more accurate. Justice is not the sole territory of the courts. In fact it is more difficult to find it there than ever. What is legal is not necessarily just or right.
So debate concerning just exactly how we can make a broken approach and concept work for us is flawed in a fundamental way. It is playing the game of those that have changed and are still changing our language and hence the meaning of our words and ultimately our intent.
Crime prevention, as implemented in statute, ordinance and national code today, has us all in danger of becoming felons. And it cheapens the concept of felony offense and of crime prevention. They used to mean something, in a manner of speaking.
'Just my 2 cents.
I will now move this thread to L&P ... somewhat late, but nevertheless here we go.
True. The concept of a body of law pertaining to possession of certain pieces of hardware and unwelcome behavior before an actual offense, in the interest of preventing crime, has led to the escalation in number and severity of offenses, but has changed nothing.
State defined offenses transitioning to federal offenses with attendant increase in penalty seem to be a part of the problem. That with the attitude that a harsh enough penalty associated with circumstances that meet a definition of intent, that supposedly will prevent the offense before it happens is also part of the problem.
The problem? Crime prevention. 'Just my opinion. There's nothing wrong with the concept of crime prevention, but how do you codify that?
I notice a cavalier use of the term felon here on TFL and in this thread. The Congress and the 24 hour news channels use the term felon in a way that presupposes a Goblin-agent of hell here on earth. I suggest searching for a more descriptive term for offenders who cannot be trusted with the right to keep and bear arms. I don't suggest a specific replacement term, just suggest searching for one that is more accurate. Justice is not the sole territory of the courts. In fact it is more difficult to find it there than ever. What is legal is not necessarily just or right.
So debate concerning just exactly how we can make a broken approach and concept work for us is flawed in a fundamental way. It is playing the game of those that have changed and are still changing our language and hence the meaning of our words and ultimately our intent.
Crime prevention, as implemented in statute, ordinance and national code today, has us all in danger of becoming felons. And it cheapens the concept of felony offense and of crime prevention. They used to mean something, in a manner of speaking.
'Just my 2 cents.
I will now move this thread to L&P ... somewhat late, but nevertheless here we go.
Answer is I don't know how to determine what age or type of gun should or should not be allowed and I think you point out the quandry for the courts and general population. I think that most, but not all, people agree that there sould be some kind of restriction but few can agree on what kind. To think that 2A provides anyone full access to any weapon they want is not the correct interpretation of either the wording or intent of it. A strict literal interpretation of 2A could mean that prisoners in jail should be allowed to have guns to defend themselves from other prisioners but I doubt that very few would argue for that. So where do we draw the line and determine what is reasonable?
You can claim all you want to that Gun Control is a failure and few people will argue with you about it but what to do about it is a different story. The anti's want more laws passed, the pros want laws repealed and unfortunately there is no happy medium. The legislature and courts will decide and make no one happy.
I agree - my post illustrates this
I just made this post, which illustrates your point about gun control in a very sad way...
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264248
I just made this post, which illustrates your point about gun control in a very sad way...
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=264248