gun control rant thread

A whole bunch of new gun laws coming down the pipe

at least 14 bills being considered in in CO

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/colorado-legislature-to-consider-14-to-20-gun-control-bills/

and 18 of them in NJ

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/new-jersey-introduces-18-civilian-disarmament-bills/

No idea how many bills will be used, but NY plans to make their laws the toughest in the nation. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-new-york-governor-cuomos-seven-point-plan-for-civilian-disarmament/

And according to Mr. Biden our illustrious President will probably handle some of gun control with Executive Orders. I never realized Executive Office powers included the ability to ignore a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe they can work on the 1st Amendment next or maybe the 4th.

JoeyM wrote: A whole bunch of new gun laws coming down the pipe at least 14 bills being considered in in CO http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/foghorn/colorado-legislature-to-consider-14-to-20-gun-control-bills/ and 18 of them in NJ http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/new-jersey-introduces-18-civilian-disarmament-bills/ No idea how many bills will be used, but NY plans to make their laws the toughest in the nation. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/01/robert-farago/breaking-new-york-governor-cuomos-seven-point-plan-for-civilian-disarmament/

I am glad I live in Alabama.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

I'm glad I'm here in Indiana......they're working on a bill that ignores any federal infringement on the second amendment.....so long is its built here, bought by those who live here, and never leaves the state. As stated before, we're looking at being in on the upcoming states rights debate.

Toyman01 wrote: And according to Mr. Biden our illustrious President will probably handle some of gun control with Executive Orders. I never realized Executive Office powers included the ability to ignore a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe they can work on the 1st Amendment next or maybe the 4th.

Executive Orders must comply with existing federal law. Any attempt to do otherwise will lead to a Constitutional crisis and go to the Supreme Court. What happens there is a crap shoot, but my bet is that it's decided as a states' rights issue.

After that, it will suck to be a firearm owner in a blue state.

Toyman01 wrote: ...I never realized Executive Office powers included the ability to ignore a Constitutional Amendment...

Clearly, putting restriction on weapons (or "arms") is not considered a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Or are you saying the arms restrictions are a violation and no one has been able to challenge that obvious violation for how ever long there have been restrictions? (how long has it been? I don't know at least 80 years?)

Realistically, the amendment seems to read as no restrictions, but most everyone agrees that that would be a very bad idea. A common sense "spirit of the law" kind of thing I suspect.

yamaha wrote: .....they're working on a bill that ignores any federal infringement on the second amendment....

That's an interesting angle but it seems like it is a violation of the 14th amendment. Or does the 14th only apply rights, not laws?

...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;...

Refers to "privileges", but does not mention laws or restrictions. Yes, that will be an interesting fight.

aircooled wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: ...I never realized Executive Office powers included the ability to ignore a Constitutional Amendment...

Clearly, putting restriction on weapons (or "arms") is not considered a violation of the 2nd amendment. Or are you saying the arms restrictions are a violation and no one has been able to challenge that obvious violation for how ever long there have been restrictions? (how long has it been? I don't know at least 80 years?) Realistically, the amendment seems to read as no restrictions, but most everyone agrees that that would be a very bad idea. A common sense "spirit of the law" kind of thing I suspect.

I think what he's refering to is Biden saying they can pass gun laws by Executive Order rather than through Congess

So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament?

Not saying this to pick fights, but rather to be able to prove to my ultra anti-gun aunt that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue, and sensationalist ultra-right-wing pundits are not representative of the average gun enthusiast.

(Personally, I think things like laws on safe storage of firearms make a lot of sense. Perhaps add a class of firearms license, easier to obtain than a concealed carry permit, for people who want to keep loaded firearms for home defense.)

Bobzilla wrote: I still want a Daewoo.

my bro-in-law picked up a daewoo 9mm Beretta 92 clone... nice shooting little gun

I'm hoping the executive orders end up doing things like giving the ATF some teeth back (they're not allowed to use computers to do ownership history research and they're barely allowed to do checks on gun dealers, among other insane restrictions) and making penalties for gun crimes harsher.

Toyman01 wrote: And according to Mr. Biden our illustrious President will probably handle some of gun control with Executive Orders. I never realized Executive Office powers included the ability to ignore a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe they can work on the 1st Amendment next or maybe the 4th.

Can you elaborate or are you just assuming the president will work against gun rights? I expect the opposite.

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament? Not saying this to pick fights, but rather to be able to prove to my ultra anti-gun aunt that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue, and sensationalist ultra-right-wing pundits are not representative of the average gun enthusiast. (Personally, I think things like laws on safe storage of firearms make a lot of sense. Perhaps add a class of firearms license, easier to obtain than a concealed carry permit, for people who want to keep loaded firearms for home defense.)

I would suggest a national ccw program, less regulations on weapons (except explosive devices), and harsher punishment for gun crimes.

Two days ago, two people were sentenced to prison for crimes involving guns.
Armed robbery: robbed a white castle with a water gun. Got 15 years.
Armed criminal action (i assume): Shot an "assault rifle" at police. None were harmed. Got 4 years.
WTF?

N Sperlo wrote:

Toyman01 wrote: And according to Mr. Biden our illustrious President will probably handle some of gun control with Executive Orders. I never realized Executive Office powers included the ability to ignore a Constitutional Amendment. Maybe they can work on the 1st Amendment next or maybe the 4th.

Can you elaborate or are you just assuming the president will work against gun rights? I expect the opposite.

Just passing on something Biden told reporters yesterday.

Gents, I don't have a problem with gun regulation at the state level. When the feds decide they can ignore parts of the Constitution "for the good of the people", what's to keep the next guy from pitching the entire thing?

If you want federal regulation of guns, do it by the book and get the Constitution changed. There's a process for that.

In reply to Toyman01:

The reason I ask is that you are insinuating that the executive orders will be used to interfere with an amendment. Is there something you're holding back?

http://www.rollcall.com/news/gun_control_will_see_action_biden_vows-220655-1.html

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. told gun control advocates Wednesday that President Barack Obama will act on guns — and he said that could include executive actions.

Executive orders may not demand that illegal or unconstitutional actions be taken. But that probably won't stop Obama from trying.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

Thanks. Much more informative. Nothing against you, toyman, but when you bring forward something that raises my eyebrow, I need more info.

The Article said: Obama has already called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban, require background checks for all gun purchases and ban high-capacity clips.

Who doesn't do background checks?
What is a clip?

berkeleying media.

N Sperlo wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament? Not saying this to pick fights, but rather to be able to prove to my ultra anti-gun aunt that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue, and sensationalist ultra-right-wing pundits are not representative of the average gun enthusiast. (Personally, I think things like laws on safe storage of firearms make a lot of sense. Perhaps add a class of firearms license, easier to obtain than a concealed carry permit, for people who want to keep loaded firearms for home defense.)

I would suggest a national ccw program, less regulations on weapons (except explosive devices), and harsher punishment for gun crimes. Two days ago, two people were sentenced to prison for crimes involving guns. Armed robbery: robbed a white castle with a water gun. Got 15 years. Armed criminal action (i assume): Shot an "assault rifle" at police. None were harmed. Got 4 years. WTF?

This. We don't need MORE gun control. Enforce what we have and let people defend themselves.

Yeah, it's pretty typical posturing by both Biden and the news media.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

As passed by the Congress:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If Obama (or any other President) were to try to infringe on gun ownership by law abiding citizens (which is part of a Supreme Court ruling on the issue) then the EO would be in conflict with the Constitution and therefore have no power. The Supremes have already, on more than one occasion, said that nothing in the Second Amendment says there can't be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership (that's the well regulated part) and that's why convicted felons etc cannot legally own a firearm. To take away the right of gun ownership will require an amendment to the Constitution and the chances of that are somewhere around nil.

I mean, those wussies in Congress don't even have the balls to fix Social Security, how would they ever take on gun ownership?

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament? Not saying this to pick fights, but rather to be able to prove to my ultra anti-gun aunt that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue, and sensationalist ultra-right-wing pundits are not representative of the average gun enthusiast. (Personally, I think things like laws on safe storage of firearms make a lot of sense. Perhaps add a class of firearms license, easier to obtain than a concealed carry permit, for people who want to keep loaded firearms for home defense.)

I would say some requiring background checks on person to person sales, a national concealed carry permit (so there isn't this random assortment of laws), a bit of firearms safety in school (like Cooper's rules of gun safety and how to check that a weapon is unloaded to help prevent accidental deaths) and a better mental health system in the US.

N Sperlo wrote:

The Article said: Obama has already called on Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban, require background checks for all gun purchases and ban high-capacity clips.

Who doesn't do background checks?

Private person to person sales I would guess.

In reply to 93EXCivic:

Yea, as I recall now, in my state, all you need is a bill of sale. If you sell to a felon, its your problem. My partners sell to each other, but we're all armed, so its a little obvious we can purchase guns.

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament? Not saying this to pick fights, but rather to be able to prove to my ultra anti-gun aunt that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue, and sensationalist ultra-right-wing pundits are not representative of the average gun enthusiast. (Personally, I think things like laws on safe storage of firearms make a lot of sense. Perhaps add a class of firearms license, easier to obtain than a concealed carry permit, for people who want to keep loaded firearms for home defense.)

As a gun owner, and a person that believes that I have the common sense and maturity to own, store, and handle a firearm in a responsible manner, I would say that making the databases used by the background check system at the FBI would make most sense. like has been mentioned, if you're on the "no-fly" list you can still buy a gun. it would probably take a modification of HIPAA, but basically make the database keep track of the same stuff that you are asked on the firearm purchase form. "have you ever been declared mentally incopetent?" obviously the thought that someone might be on this list was enough to deter Adam Lanza from even trying to go through the background check in the days before his attack on Sandy Hook.

as for safe storage laws, i think that should be left up to each individual owner to decide. how would your "loaded defense gun" license be enforced? the only way would be spot checks, which would likely use police resources that are already overtaxed, and likely violate the 4th amendment. also keep in mind that not all states require you to have a permit to own a firearm.

Strizzo wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: So, out of curiosity, are even the staunchest pro gun rights folks on this board adamantly opposed to any kind of additional gun control? Are there ideas for gun control that you would consider? Or is any step to limit things just a slippery slope towards disarmament? Not saying this to pick fights, but rather to be able to prove to my ultra anti-gun aunt that the vast majority of gun owners are reasonable, responsible people who are open to dialogue, and sensationalist ultra-right-wing pundits are not representative of the average gun enthusiast. (Personally, I think things like laws on safe storage of firearms make a lot of sense. Perhaps add a class of firearms license, easier to obtain than a concealed carry permit, for people who want to keep loaded firearms for home defense.)

as for safe storage laws, i think that should be left up to each individual owner to decide. how would your "loaded defense gun" license be enforced? the only way would be spot checks, which would likely use police resources that are already overtaxed, and likely violate the 4th amendment. also keep in mind that not all states require you to have a permit to own a firearm.

Baron, I think the biggest issue people will have is the fact everytime something bad happens with a firearm, they've tried(and sometimes succeed) in reducing what we can and can't have. For most firarms owners, the "give up a little more" thing isn't going to fly again.

Personally, if anything.....and if both sides were reasonable(they are not), they'd trade off perhaps another waiting period and have the database keep track of mental health(hard to do)....In exchange for a nationwide carry permit that is reasonably attainable and no new restrictions on weapons/magazines). That'd be a fair compromise, but it won't happen. One side is tired of being asked to "Give give give", and the other side won't look at the real problem.....since this is occurring, neither side is going to work with the other

I think this whole upcoming debate will be a dark time for America.

Edit: I agree with Strizzo on the pointlessness of storage laws......its already bad enough that the ATF can just show up on your doorstep if you have a C&R license.....