They are the primary source for guns acquired by criminals, theft is #2, bought legally (some criminals do not have a felony record)is #3.
Tell us what laws would do that and not violate the 2nd Ad?
No, there are almost NO "people out there who love to see guns in the hands of criminals and children killed in accidents to get any such laws passed." There are many tens of millions of honest law abiding gun owners, who do NOT want guns in the hands of criminals- but want to own a gun themselves.
Your analogy is like saying all those who wanted Prohibition ended “loved to see people die of cirrhosis and drunk driving”.
With the current SCOTUS, probably none. As long as 2A is interpreted as no restrictions whatsoever, it will continue to act as a suicide pact.
There are a lot of laws that we can have that would allow them to own a gun themselves that would keep them out of the hands of criminals, but they fight against those laws, as well as openly impugn nefarious motivations to anyone who advocates for them.
If the laws they are against will still allow them to have guns, but keep them out of the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, and young children, then it only stands to reason that they want guns to be in the hands of the criminal, the irresponsible, and young children.
And most of them actually want stricter gun control laws. I’m not talking about them, I’m talking about those who fight against laws that would help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the incompetent, and small children.
Well, no, it would be more like saying that anyone who wants stricter gun control laws just hates guns and wants to punish gun owners.
Any law that would require them to register, secure, insure, or report change of ownership of their gun.
Is “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands.” the words of someone who will follow a law that requires them to turn in their gun? Seems a pretty common sentiment with gun rights advocates.
So, as I said, law abiding gun owner, until they decide they don’t like the law.
When was the last time the 2nd was interpreted as not having any restrictions? Last I checked, a waiting period on the purchase of a firearm was considered to be completely constitutional. Being required to to go through a background check before purchasing a firearm is also constitutional. These are restrictions, right?
Do you think that those will hold up? Do you think that the guns rights advocates will be happy with those restrictions? Or do you think that they will continue to chip away at any and every restriction, trumpetting “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”?
Where does it end, when will the gun rights advocates be satisfied that guns are easy enough to get in this country that they do not have to continue to challenge laws that have been on the books for a hundred years?
I take it you haven’t checked recently, or at all, if that’s what you think.
Let’s say I see @pkbites, he’s at his house, in his garage, and he’s got a cool looking gun. I can say, “Hey, can I buy that gun from you?” he can say, “Sure, $600”. I give him $600 and walk away with my brand new gun. No waiting period, no background check.
Admittedly I’m not too pleased with the waiting period. The waiting period is no a violation of anyone’s rights, but I don’t believe it saves any lives and doesn’t serve any legitimate purpose. But we’ve had waiting periods for, what, nearly 30 years now? And background checks have been a thing for quite a while now and I don’t really hear a lot of people pushing against them.
Gun rights advocates aren’t a monolith who walk hand-in-hand on every question. But most gun rights advocates I know don’t object to background checks to prevent criminals from purchasing firearms. It’s a bit more divisive when it comes to non-FFL people selling a fiream, like if i sold one to a friend, but, again, not everyone is on the same page. They might object to having to wait 5 days to purchase a firearm, but the idea of a criminal background check isn’t one they generally object to.
Or I go to Bass Pro see a rifle I like and buy it. There’s a background check.
We had a law in New York for 100 years that got shot down just a bit ago by SCOTUS. Having laws on the books for quite a while does not insulate them from being chipped away by gun advocates.
No, but they typically do vote as a monolithic block.
So, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. You admit that there is at least some who object to requiring a background check for non-FFL sales. Which means that a background check is something that they do object to.
Do you think that gun rights advocates would in general be supportive of requiring background checks for non-FFL sales or not?
I don’t get your point. I said that there was an option that lets you avoid a background check, and your counter is that you can choose to get a background check if you want to. My point is that if you don’t want a background check, then you don’t have to get one.
Do you object to a background check for non-FFL sales? If so, then you object to background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.
And did that law in any way prevent criminals from going armed?
Here you had productive, law abiding citizens willing to do what it took, including going through your precious background checks, in order to be able to protect themselves and the law said NO, unless you are wealthy or a celebrity you may not. Meanwhile the criminal element said fuck you and your law and carried as they pleased.
Your 100 year old law did nothing to fight crime and in fact created more victims of crime and was unconstitutional.
Do laws against murder in any way prevent criminals from killing people?
Once again, it’s so weird that someone who takes money from the government supposedly to uphold the law to be arguing against the concept of laws.
Nice tabloid spin.
Yes, and now if a criminal is carrying, the police can’t do shit about it.
It was not unconstitutional until the current right wing SCOTUS ruled it to be.
Why do you support criminals having easy access to guns, and children killing themselves in accidents with them?
ETA: Also, you missed the entire point in your need to have your little diatribe, which was the @Odesio seemed to be claiming that laws that had been on the books for a long time were safe from being chipped away by gun rights advocates, and I was pointing out that was not the case.
This is what I find very odd about gun control debates.
If someone is let out of prison by a parole board and kills someone, we don’t hear suggestions that the parole system can’t protect people, so we should just get rid of it. It’s always a suggestion that the rules for parole need to be tightened up.
But if someone kills someone with a gun, the response from the gun supporters is that’s proof that laws restricting guns can’t possibly work, so they should be repealed.
I don’t recall SCOTUS ruling that felons were allowed to carry guns.
In fact,
The thing about the New York City case is that in many areas of the state CCW permits are easy to obtain. If people who go through the hoops to get such permits are the problem, why wasn’t there a push to eliminate such permits?
Cite what? That police can no longer consider someone carrying a gun to be in violation of the law and investigate them based on that?
I mean, do you want me to cite the court case that we were just talking about, or what?
I think that your “if” there is doing a lot of work, and the work it is doing is in building a strawman.
In any case, you are once again missing the entire point, in that it was claimed that laws that had been on the books for a long time were safe from pro-gun advocates. I used this as a counterexample to prove that claim false. Your argument against the basic concept of laws is a hijack that I will no longer entertain.
This is false. The Supreme Court did not rule on permit-less carry. In places where a permit or license is required to carry the police most certainly can investigate if an armed person has the required permit or license to be armed.
Do you believe that convicted felons are being issued permits to carry firearms?
So your contention that the police cannot do anything about an armed criminal is ridiculous.
So, you are okay with police stopping anyone they see on the streets of New York with a gun and asking to see their permit?
No, but I see that if there are lots of people carrying firearms, then it’s hard to tell who is carrying illegally.
Okay, so cop sees a person carrying a gun. They don’t know if they have a permit, they don’t know if they are a criminal. Unless you are saying that the cops should stop them and demand to see their permit, then your claims that this doesn’t affect the ability for cops to keep criminals from carrying guns is what is ridiculous.
So, which is it, harass all these law abiding gun owners legally carrying, or tacitly allow criminals to carry guns?
Look, I’m just saying that we should work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and secure them so that children don’t hurt themselves with them. You are of course, free to disagree.
If the law in NY requires a license or permit to carry a firearm a police officer has every duty to investigate if an armed person is so permitted.
In My state one only needs a license to carry concealed. I cannot detain someone for open carry unless I reasonably believed they are under 18 or I have reason to believe they are someone who cannot legally possess a firearm.
But, if for some reason I detect someone is carrying concealed in pubIic have every right to detain them and demand to see a CCL and run it to see if it’s current.
If it were up to me the only permit to carry would be the 2nd.
So, you are saying the the police should stop every person they see armed, and ask to see their permit.
That’s fair.
What criteria would you use to determine that?
Thank you for that. As this entire discussion stemmed from @Odesio claiming that gun rights advocates won’t go after current or at least well established laws, it’s good that you have provided an example that proves him wrong.
While I have your ear, would you also support striking down background checks for FFL sales?
If NY law requires a license or permit to carry a firearm, why wouldn’t a peace officer ask to see it if they were dealing with someone they knew to be armed? I’m not talking about doing random searches.
What criteria would I use? How about someone I know to have a felony conviction or a domestic violence conviction and I see them with a firearm.