So where's the gun control debate?

[44 AMP]

Now her support for the right to own and possess firearms for felons convicted of a non violent crime might look good on paper --- But does a federal judge have the right to make the determination that the convicted felon has committed a non violent offense?

I'd say they don't have to. THAT decision has already been made when they were convicted.

I think the issue is about how we have a literal trainload of crimes where no one was physically injured, or violently harmed and yet are classed as felonies.

The one size fits all (effectively) permanent lifetime ban on legal firearm possession for ALL felons became law in 1968. It is not a time honored tradition with roots going back to English common law, it is some thing enacted within living memory and done much more broadly then the stated reasons at the time. I think there is good and valid reason to question the validity of that law as passed, but that's just one point among many.

I would caution all to remember that what one might personally supports or thinks is a good idea is not any guarantee that is how the judge will rule.

She just might possibly be one of those (increasingly rare people) who can and do rise above their personal opinions to rule based on the law.

if she's not placed on the court, we'll never know for sure, will we...

 

[Ignition Override]

TruthTellers: you summarized so much of the situation superbly.

 

[TruthTellers]

TruthTellers: you summarized so much of the situation superbly.

It's easy when it's all so obvious. The Republicans in Congress will NEVER allow an anti gun law (except maybe bump stocks) to ever pass in a body they control because that's the end of their congressional career, but once they get power they drag their feet when it comes to repealing any law, be it the NFA, GCA, or the ACA.

I'm not going to accept it anymore, I expect any Republican running to not take guns away, so seeing all these Trump rallies where he says, "I'm gonna protect your 2A rights!!!" but he never talks about supporting repealing parts of the NFA and GCA and Hughes tells me he either doesn't know anything about them or he does and doesn't want to touch them.

If somebody is going to run for office who says they'll defend 2A, then I want them to tell me why they don't support repeals of those laws. If they say you have a right to my AR, then why don't I have a right to shorten the barrel to 10 inches without having to go thru infringements of an unconstitutional tax, registering my gun with the gov't, and waiting months and months to be allowed to make my guns barrel shorter?

If it's that they think those laws are good, then they're frauds giving lip service because it's the NFA and the machine gun laws that are what future Presidents under pressure due to the latest string of mass shootings are going to use to put AR's and AK's under the NFA umbrella and Congressional Republicans, whether already in control of both houses or the next time they are, they'll get back in power saying they'll make it so semi auto guns can never legally be an NFA item solely for being a semi auto, but they'll never get it passed. Romney will walk out and give a thumbs down just like McCain did and AR's, Glocks, etc. will be on the NFA forever.

If Republican Congressman think altering the NFA, GCA, and Hughes are losing topics then clearly it's a topic worth debating because in general I do not think the average American cares about barrel lengths for rifles/shotguns being an issue. They're smart enough to know that a gun of any barrel length is deadly, so what's the deal? Same for the sporting purposes clause. The idea of that in 68 was cut off supply of cheap guns because we didn't have background check systems like we do now. Besides, all that did was lead to companies like Raven, Jennings, etc. making their own cheap guns here in the US.

If the reason the Republicans don't want to push it is because they feel that SCOTUS is the most effective branch to deal with making changes to those laws, then why is it that none of them ask the justices nominated by a Republican president what their opinion is on the NFA, GCA, and Hughes?

It's all very simple stuff because the Bill of Rights is itself very simple. If people want to restrict certain weapons from being owned the way to do it is thru amending the Constitution. It would take much more than a simple majority to do it and if say the 28th Amendment outright banned civilian ownership of machine guns, at least it would take 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 states to approve that, thus showing a clear and overwhelming majority are in agreement.

What it comes down to is neither side is all that good for us. We always get stuck choosing the lesser of all evils.

 

[Targa]

There doesn’t need to be a debate. When asked the Democrats are no longer trying to sugar coat it, they will flat out tell you that they are coming for our guns and for the FFL’s of dealers to disarm society.

 

[44 AMP]

Understand that "protecting" is not the same as repealing. And that, depending on the politician, as long as you are still allowed to own some kind of gun (and only one) then your 2nd Amendment rights have not been violated.

Lots of us see it differently, but all that matter to the politicians is our votes.

IF everyone who wanted or ever thought someday they might want some item covered under the NFA 34, voted as a single unified block, AND only voted based on that issue alone, we MIGHT have the political power to be noticed. but not necessarily listened to.

Our arguments are lucid, logical, reasonable, and valid, TO US. TO the rest of the nation, we're fringe types and not worth listening to, because the anti side of the issue is constantly telling them that, and has been for generations.

This is the fundamental downside to democracy, right or WRONG, majority rules.

 

[zukiphile]

It's easy when it's all so obvious. The Republicans in Congress will NEVER allow an anti gun law (except maybe bump stocks) to ever pass in a body they control because that's the end of their congressional career, but once they get power they drag their feet when it comes to repealing any law, be it the NFA, GCA, or the ACA.

Emphasis added. You are not recalling that accurately. One of the first votes on the House when the repubs retook it in 2011 was an ACA repeal. Guess who controlled the Senate?

If the issues of the NFA and GCA were that close a call, that would be amazing progress.

I'm not going to accept it anymore, I expect any Republican running to not take guns away, so seeing all these Trump rallies where he says, "I'm gonna protect your 2A rights!!!" but he never talks about supporting repealing parts of the NFA and GCA and Hughes tells me he either doesn't know anything about them or he does and doesn't want to touch them.

...Or, he knows that proclaiming his support for a right even Alan Gura doesn't think you have is election poison.

If somebody is going to run for office who says they'll defend 2A, then I want them to tell me why they don't support repeals of those laws. If they say you have a right to my AR, then why don't I have a right to shorten the barrel to 10 inches without having to go thru infringements of an unconstitutional tax, registering my gun with the gov't, and waiting months and months to be allowed to make my guns barrel shorter?

If you can't support a widely acceptable gun rights position (current restrictions, but no more), are you effectively supporting the Robert Francis O'Rourke position (Hell yes, I'll take your AR)?

You aren't wrong: I don't want a machine gun with a 10 inch barrel, but if you do, you should have your right to it protected and it's no skin off my nose.

As an electoral tactic 100% purely my position or you are dead to me is a formula for failure. Bill Buckley's idea was that you should vote for candidate closest to your position who also has a plausible chance of being elected.

 

[TruthTellers]

Understand that "protecting" is not the same as repealing. And that, depending on the politician, as long as you are still allowed to own some kind of gun (and only one) then your 2nd Amendment rights have not been violated.

Lots of us see it differently, but all that matter to the politicians is our votes.

IF everyone who wanted or ever thought someday they might want some item covered under the NFA 34, voted as a single unified block, AND only voted based on that issue alone, we MIGHT have the political power to be noticed. but not necessarily listened to.

Our arguments are lucid, logical, reasonable, and valid, TO US. TO the rest of the nation, we're fringe types and not worth listening to, because the anti side of the issue is constantly telling them that, and has been for generations.

This is the fundamental downside to democracy, right or WRONG, majority rules.

Majority rules, but the entire purpose of the constitution was to protect the rights of the minority.

We are the minority and our rights have been infringed for almost a century.

 

[TruthTellers]

You aren't wrong: I don't want a machine gun with a 10 inch barrel, but if you do, you should have your right to it protected and it's no skin off my nose.

As an electoral tactic 100% purely my position or you are dead to me is a formula for failure. Bill Buckley's idea was that you should vote for candidate closest to your position who also has a plausible chance of being elected.

Never said I wouldn't vote for them, just that I want to know where their thoughts really lay.

 

[zukiphile]

Never said I wouldn't vote for them, just that I want to know where their thoughts really lay.

That's a fair point and a legitimate desire. How would a candidate tell you about his problems with the NFA and GCA without having his position caricatured by his opponent to sink him?

Say I run to be a congressman for your district. I announce that I think (as I do) the NFA tax to exercise a fundamental constitutional right is entirely contrary to our notions of the propriety of taxes on other rights, like voting, and isn't supported by any authority granted to Congress in the COTUS. Isn't it inevitable that I spend the rest of my losing campaign responding to accusations that I want adjudicated defectives walking into schools and killing all the children?

Would you ultimately be happier if I moderated the expression of my thoughts, won the election, and looked for ways to improve matters as they arose?

 

[44 AMP]

Our biggest problem getting the "R" side off their ass and actually doing something FOR us is simply that the "D" side has openly declared they are against private civilian firearms ownership.

The "R"s see that and look at us and (sometimes literally) say, "where else are you gonna go??"

All they have to do is promise to hold the line and they get our vote. Even when they don't hold the line, they get our vote. What's their motive to do anything other than what they already are??

nada

 

[TruthTellers]

^ Which is why I say that SCOTUS and the judiciary is where all gun control goes to die because that's the only branch that's going to do anything considering they have lifetime appointments. Gun control when it comes to Congress is like a petri dish where it's cultured and encouraged to grow.

One reason even if Trump loses re-election, his presidency will likely be a success in terms of protecting the 2A with all the judges he got affirmed on district and appeals courts.

 

[zukiphile]

Our biggest problem getting the "R" side off their ass and actually doing something FOR us is simply that the "D" side has openly declared they are against private civilian firearms ownership.

The "R"s see that and look at us and (sometimes literally) say, "where else are you gonna go??"

All they have to do is promise to hold the line and they get our vote. Even when they don't hold the line, they get our vote. What's their motive to do anything other than what they already are??

nada

An argument so compelling that most of their constituents believe it.

This isn't the only context in which people of a minority opinion look to the two dominant parties and blame them for for leaving that minority shut out. However, those parties aren't owners of an exclusive right to dominate elections. People who vote shape both those parties. My libertarian friends may ask, "Why won't Rs do anything about Social Security?!". The answer is that the program is so ingrained in our culture, that even R voters will electorally crucify candidates who are seen to threaten it.

Is there any part of the country in which a solid majority of people see the NFA as a major problem? Is there a region in which GCA is viewed as federal over-reach by enough people to win an election? Until there is a congressional district in which TT, 44AMP and zuk are most of the voters, probably not.

I'd suggest that this is a cultural problem that manifests in electoral politics, but that the two party condition isn't the cause of the problem that what I believe is a minority position. "There oughtta be a law" is a normal human reflex, the harm from which the BOR is designed to reduce.

As recent events illustrate, even free speech as a cultural value isn't unassailable. Maintaining the cultural value that the only real remedy for bad speech is better speech takes continuing maintenance, like a lawn. Bad arguments and weeds will always return.

That continuing maintenance on 2d Am. rights means meeting the arguments and opponents as they arise with the most plausibly effective response. That's more nebulous and less satisfactory than making people confront the stupidity of the NFA, and it usually feels like a game of great effort and little progress.

In a general way, the current viral issue seems to hamper the cultural value that more government and more rules are a harm to be avoided. However, the summer events should help to illustrate how relying on the state police power for your safety can be foolish.

Which is why I say that SCOTUS and the judiciary is where all gun control goes to die because that's the only branch that's going to do anything considering they have lifetime appointments.

The optimist in me hopes that adding Barrett to the Court will set the scene for milestones to follow up on Heller and McDonald.

 

[TruthTellers]

The optimist in me hopes that adding Barrett to the Court will set the scene for milestones to follow up on Heller and McDonald.

IDK what powers the Chief Justice has in being able to block cases from getting granted cert, but given how obsessed Roberts is with trying to prevent the court from looking politically motivated with its rulings (to the detriment of law itself) he'll pull out every stop he can on a 2A case because the topic as hot as gun control is so hot it may as well be radioactive.

When Heller went thru SCOTUS in 2008, gun control was nowhere near as big an issue then as it is now, so Roberts being in the majority for it was not some decision that really meant anything then. It will for future cases when things relating to AWB, mag capacity restrictions, etc. are ruled on and Heller is cited.

Given that Roberts was part of the majority for it then I feel he's desperate to side with the liberals because if he sides with the conservatives for stuff that has a direct effect on gun laws in states like NY, Mass, Cali, and Illinois, the political cartoons and press would put his picture next to every mass shooting that occurs for the rest of his time on the bench and say he was the one to blame because he could have banned *insert gun, magazine, ammo here* and he didn't.

I think the conservatives know this and that's why they have denied cert and the liberals... IDK why they haven't seen thru it. My guess is that it's a topic so hot Roberts has made it known in one way or another that whichever side grants cert, he'll vote against it to spite them.

So, the way the rest of the justices should have played it all along was for all 8 of them to grant it cert and see where Roberts stood then.

 

[gbclarkson]

So where's the gun control debate?

Biden's, and the general Democratic Party's, gun control platform does not drive debate topics. The moderators determine the questions. News cycles guide debates. Gun control is just not a currently sexy topic for televised debate. A small silver lining from all of the Covid-related school closures is a decreased opportunity for us to experience a school shooting. No school shootings; gun control becomes a secondary issue. We Americans tend to have short attention spans.

There are simply more pressing issues right now: Covid, racial inequity, climate, and the NFC east. We should all hope and pray that there is not another mass-shooting event that re-prioritizes gun control back into first place of issues.

Just my $2/100...