Anti-gun control folks, a question

[UncleBeer]

With a gun, on the other hand, if i undertake the same process of buying something from a licensed dealer and then selling it on to a third party, i have no such assurance. Also, the absence (in some states) of any law requiring a criminal record or background check on that third party leaves the system open to the sort of problems that don’t apply to car stereos and stamp collections.

Actually, you do. If you, as a private party, sell a firearm to another private party, it is required by federal law that you be reasonably certain the purchaser can legally own that gun. That is, legally, you cannot knowingly sell, or otherwise provide, a firearm to any person you have cause to believe would be rejected by the standard NICS background check.

In any case, I thought you were asking what sort of things we should be doing to reduce firearm thefts since that’s almost certainly the largest manner in which firearms are “transferred” from a legal to an illegal possessor. And what I think we should be doing is exactly the same things we’re doing to theft of all other personal possessions. That is, the gov’t shouldn’t have much obligation at all. It is incumbent on the owner to take reasonable precautions. In fact, I’m not sure the gov’t has any obligation here, or should it. Not am I sure the gov’t is even capable of doing anything - other than incarcerate offenders when caught and convicted. This would, at least, (and obviously) prevent them from stealing more shit for the period of their incarcerations.

But maybe I misunderstood you.

[UncleBeer]

As if your opinion, because you are a lawyer, is so much more valid and correct than everyone else’s.

In minty’s defense - and gawd knows how it pains me offer such - his opinion on a point of law is probably more valid than most people’s, even he’s a little smug about it at times. After all, if I need to consult on the technical specifications of particular piece of telecommunicatons equipment, say an passive optical splitter, I’m not gonna rely too heavily on the information I’d get in GQ, unless I knew one of the respondees to be familiar with optical splitters through his professional experience, vocational training, or collegiate education.

[ExTank]

@minty green

Stop being such a prick, amigo. Reasonable people are capable of disagreeing on these matters.

You forgot “well-regulated.”

Scroll throught he U.S. Code; in addition to the broad Constitutional powers for “calling forth the militia,” I’m reasonably sure you’ll find statutory provisions for calling forth such. SOunds like the “well regulated” is already in hand. With Selective Service, the IRR registry, and VA admin., I’m sure the federal gov’t and states have a very good hand on whom they might call up in time of need, should the NAtional Guard ever come up short. That it hasn’t happened doesn’t give the gun-grabbers the right to legislate the 2nd. into irrelevance.

@mintygreen

Given that it’s pretty clear the founders were talking about state militias, one wonders what relevance the federal definition has to the question at hand, aside from the fact that it’s much more efficient to cite a single federal statute than the patchwork of state definitions. And do keep in mind the significant body of federal case law that holds the Second Amendment is no impediment whatsoever to the state governments establishing whatever gun control restrictions they please.

Google “state militias” and tell me how many official state militias you find.

Well that about wraps it up for the gun control debate. Thanks for clearing things up for us!
[/QUOTE]

No problem; I’m happy to dispel your lawyerly deceits for the common rabble you hold in contempt.

[catsix]

UncleBeer said:
In minty’s defense - and gawd knows how it pains me offer such - his opinion on a point of law is probably more valid than most people’s, even he’s a little smug about it at times.

I really don’t think his opinion of the Constitution or whether or not the Supreme Court was right or wrong in a decision is any more valid than mine. His smugness is just a further turnoff.

After all, if I need to consult on the technical specifications of particular piece of telecommunicatons equipment, say an passive optical splitter, I’m not gonna rely too heavily on the information I’d get in GQ, unless I knew one of the respondees to be familiar with optical splitters through his professional experience, vocational training, or collegiate education.

I’d just go read the technical specifications myself. It may take me longer to understand it, but at least then I know I’m getting the facts. As far as my opinion of the Supreme Court’s decisions regarding firearms, and this asinine belief that the commerce clause is supposed to allow the prohibition of private ownership of specific items, I think this is just one of those cases where the federal government cannot be trusted. And I refuse to forget that the federal government includes the Supreme Court. They have a sort of conflict of interest when it comes to interpreting the Constitution in matters of limiting the government’s power.

[ElvisL1ves]

@ExTank

Google “state militias” and tell me how many official state militias you find.

Gawdamighty. They’re called the National Guard, son.

[minty_green]

@catsix

Did you receive a different copy of the Constitution than me? The Constitution I read provided for the Congress to be able to ‘regulate interstate commerce’ in general, not to be a back door into abridging rights specifically protected.

As explained above – probably while you were composing your post – later-enacted amendments trump the Commerce Clause power to the extent that the two provisions conflict. However, given that courts up to and including the Supreme Court (see the Miller case) have held that the “militia” clause imposes a substantive limitation on the scope of the keep-and-bear-arms guarantee, there is little reason to believe that a properly-drafted federal gun control law would violate the Second Amendment, leaving Congress able to do pretty much whatever it wants with its Commerce Clause power.

Really? It does [have constitutional power to regulate the ownership of all or nearly all firearms]?

Really. It does. The Federal Firearms Act has been repeatedly upheld by the courts against all sorts of challenges.

I really don’t see what that clause has to do with the private ownership of firearms. Anyway, the simplest solution to that problem is to operate a manufacturing plant within each state and sell only to that state’s residents.

Make sure you get all the raw materials from inside that state too. And even then, please be aware that the Supreme Court long ago rejected the notion commerce was not “interstate” merely because it did not involve a border crossing. As far back as Gibbons v. Ogden, the Court (via Chief Justice Marshall) held that Congress’ interstate commerce power included all “internal concerns which affect the states generally.” Basically, the Commerce Clause power has been held to extend to all matters that affect interstate commerce, regardless of whether they actuall involve a border crossing. That’s why Congress can, for instance, regulate racial discrimination in the service of food at a private restaurant (see Katzenbach v. McClung).

Or, y’know, make my own firearms at home.

Sorry, but you can’t evade Congress’ Commerce Clause powers just by making and consuming your own products. I refer you to the infamous case of *Wickard v. Filburn*, in which the Supreme Court held that Congress had power to regulate the production of wheat even when the farmer intended to consume the wheat entirely on his own farm, without selling any of it to anyone else. Since the guns you propose to make in lieu of buying them on the open market would, particularly in aggregate with all the other folks who could make their own guns in defiance of the federal regulation, affect the broader interstate market for guns, Congress has the power to regulate even your homemade gun.

Well, I’m just a little bit sick of the smug way you tend to act regarding these Constitutional debates.

Drop the post hoc rationalization. You weren’t even addressing me when you sneered that the people who disagree with you have “an inability to read and comprehend plain English.”

As if your opinion, because you are a lawyer, is so much more valid and correct than everyone else’s.

My “opinion” is no more valid and correct than anyone else’s. But you’re not asking about my “opinion.” You’re asking about something called “the law,” and yes, my explanations of what the law is are much more valid and correct than yours, since I do actually know whereof I speak on that subject.

[minty_green]

@ExTank

Scroll throught he U.S. Code; in addition to the broad Constitutional powers for “calling forth the militia,” I’m reasonably sure you’ll find statutory provisions for calling forth such. SOunds like the “well regulated” is already in hand.

Yes, the National Guard is quite well-regulated. No quibbles from me on that one. Of course, the National Guard’s eligibility to keep and bear arms isn’t really being questioned by anyone, but there you have it.

No problem; I’m happy to dispel your lawyerly deceits for the common rabble you hold in contempt.

Contempt? You call people who disagree with you a bunch of names, and I’m the one holding people in contempt? Goodness gracious, I’m going to have to ponder on this one a little while.

[Una_Persson]

What does “well regulated” really mean?

I find this interesting. It’s from the good old talk.politics.guns FAQ, which I’ve posted at various times over the past 5 years.

The issue of what “well regulated” meant to the Framers is a much simpler question to resolve. To the modern reader, “well regulated” has acquired the primary connotation of_government_regulation, rather than that of “efficient” or “well functioning” which it had in the 18th Century. About the only common usage today of “regulate” in this sense is found in those commercials dealing with “occasional irregularity,” and as such, modern dictionary definitions, especially such as are found in legal dictionaries, have little relevance to the issue.

The first dictionary of American English usage, published by Noah Webster in 1803, gives no entry for “well regulated,” but does include an entry for “regulars,” which Webster defines as “standing troops, [as] opposed to militia.” The Oxford English Dictionary includes as one of the definitions of “regulated” a meaning which directly applies to troops, that of “properly disciplined,” and includes a citation to a 1690 article in the_London Gazette._ Indeed, Alexander Hamilton uses “well regulated” in this same martial sense in_Federalist #6_when he writes that ancient “Sparta was little better than a well regulated camp…” --in other words “an armed camp.” The British Whigs, whose arms right incorporated in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was the antecedent for similar (but more generous) provisions in the Bills of Rights of the American states, and later the Bill of Rights of the United States, thought of a “well-regulated militia” as a check on the power of the King, and that the RKBA was an individual right, just as was the right to petition the King. The great English jurist Sir William Blackstone wrote of the right to keep and bear arms as just such an individual right in his 1765 _Commentaries on the Laws of England,_and termed it the “fifth auxiliary right” of the subject, and as important as those of “applying to the courts of justice for redress of injuries,” “the right of petitioning the king,” and the statutory “limitation of the king’s prerogative,” all of which served to “protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.”

Andrew Fletcher, a Scottish Whig, in his_Discourse on Government with Relation to Militia’s,_[sic] wrote of the necessity of “well-regulated militias” to defend not only against invasion by a foreign force, but against the “danger of slavery at home,” a prospect that seems unlikely if “well-regulated” means anything other than “properly disciplined.” While “regulated” and “regulation” can certainly be said to have “government regulation” among their meanings at the time of the writing
of the U.S. Bill of Rights, that connotation was far from as dominant at that time as it has become today, in an age when self-regulation was the rule, and a well-regulated militia" was “the body of the people, trained to arms.” Indeed, one of the most important characteristics of a “well-regulated militia” as it was understood by the British Whigs, and by the American Founding Fathers, was that it be a “general militia” composed of the majority of citizens of the republic, rather than a “select militia” or armed minority of troops who could impose their will on a disarmed people, as the standing army of the King had done upon his subjects. The term “regular army” (as opposed to “irregulars”) gives some idea of the type of discipline and order which the authors of the Second Amendment were trying to evoke with respect to the militia, which they saw as the best available alternative to the dangers and expense of a standing army.

You know, I think I’ve debated this issue with several people in here in the past, who don’t seem to remember any of this.

I find this interesting as well. There’s quite a bit of opinion mixed in with it, but at the same time there are some good points, especially with respect to the first draft.

The history of the drafting of the Second Amendment also makes clear that “the right of the people” means a civil right belonging to each individual citizen. The first proposed draft of the amendment as written by James Madison reads:

     "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not
      be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia
      being the best security of a free country; but no person
      religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled
      to render military service in person."

In addition to clarifying that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns owned for “sporting purposes” like hunting (see Gun Control Act of 1968, Appendix I.), this earlier draft clearly illustrates that the “person” whose religious scruples require that he_not_“bear arms” would not be compelled to do so by the Congress, and that the “person” referred to in the text is an individual, and not a group.

This version of the Second Amendment also closely reflects the spirit of the First Amendment’s clauses dealing with religious freedom, in that the Congress should have no power to prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms, but neither should it have the power to compel those persons we would today call “conscientious objectors” to do so. It’s unlikely that Madison intended this earlier draft of the Second Amendment to prohibit the Congress only from calling up all the Quakers and other pacifists _en_masse_as a militia, but rather that each individual would respond to the nation’s call as their individual consciences dictated, and that they would “keep and bear” their private weapons to that end. Indeed, the Militia Act passed by the Second Congress in 1792 did require exactly that, and such a requirement was in force for well over 100 years (see 2.0). This is not to say that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon the existence of an organized militia, or that_only_military weapons are constitutionally protected, since, as with the other enumerated rights found in the Constitution, the right is assumed by the Framers to be pre-existing. Just because the right to “peaceably assemble” is protected by the First Amendment explicitly for the political purpose of petitioning the government “for redress of grievances”, this does not mean that_only_political speech and political gatherings are constitutionally protected. The authors of the Bill of Rights explicitly rejected any such narrow construction of the rights of the people, by means of the Ninth Amendment. The Senate, in revising Madison’s proposal, rejected adding the words “for the common defence” to the amendment by a vote on September 9th, 1789; clearly implying that the right intended to be protected in the Second Amendment is a right to bear arms broader than simply for militia service. The Bill of Rights is about limiting the power of government, not the freedoms enjoyed and exercised by We the People, and consequently it should not be subject to such a narrow interpretation in any of its provisions. The Bill of Rights sets forth the_minimum_standards which its authors felt define a “free state”. Ironically, Madison’s “religious scruples” clause was deleted because of fear that the government could misuse those words to disarm whomever_it_defined as “religiously scrupulous”.

And of course, there is the issue of the comma, the hyphen, and the capitalization:

In summary: Archaic punctuation, usage, and peculiar grammar (though certainly no more peculiar than many modern legal documents) to some degree obscure the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. As in any human endeavor, mistakes can be made, and from time to time here on t.p.g., the authors of this particular bit of the Bill of Rights get flamed over whether there is in fact (or ought to be) a hyphen in “well regulated” (and/or fewer commas overall) so as to clarify the Amendment’s meaning to modern readers.

The choice of the adjective “unalienable” rather than “inalienable” in the Declaration of Independence has scarcely received more notice than the issue of proper punctuation in the Second Amendment. Confusion over the punctuation dates back to the very drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights, since some sources give the text of Amendment II as

“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.”

with only one comma, and no internal capitalization. This version is found in the Senate Journal for Sept. 25th, 1789, and in the Library of Congress’ annotated version of the U.S. Constitution, as well as in the ratification document for the Bill of Rights as passed by the State of New York. Another version of the Second Amendment, this one reading

     "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."

can be found in the first volume of_U.S. Statutes at Large,_which was published by the Congress in 1861 (note the capitalization of “State” but not “militia” or “arms,” and the single comma).

The trouble is, the more commonly referenced version, which reads

     "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."

is the version which can be found on permanent display at the National Archives, since it’s in the Federal Government’s original engrossed copy of the Bill of Rights which was signed by Speaker of the House Frederick Muhlenberg and Vice-President John Adams, and that is the version which was copied and submitted to the states for ratification. This is also the version found in the U.S. Code Annotated, and it appears to be the version which was ratified, but given that the one-comma version is the one that the Congress passed and published, it would appear that any of the versions can be considered correct, and the Great Comma Controversy is unresolved (and perhaps unresolvable).

[ExTank]

Now here’s where mintygreen and Elvis are not only exposed as liars, but Fucking Liars.

Googling “state militias” returns the following results on the first page:

Militia Links Nope, not the National Guard.

U.S. & Texas Law on Independant Militias Again, not the National Guard.

Fort Liberty Still, no National Guard.

U.S. Law governing militias, naval militias and state militias A mention of the Notional Guard, in showing how it’s NOT the state militia.

A Well Regulated Militia A non-National Guard website, basically an op-ed.

Exposing the Second Amendment: Federal Preemption of State Militia Legislation Nope, still no National Guard website.

Much more of the same until page 2, where halfway down the Army National Guard finally makes an appearance. Page 3 mentions the Florida National Guard, and the Army National Guard again; on page 5, a private website mentions the North Carolina National Guard. Over half-a-dozen pages, real State militias and private militias claiming to be state militias unaffiliated with the U.S. National Guard outnumber National Guard references over 10-to-1.

And interestingly enough, no U.S. or State National Guard websites mention Perpich v. Dept. of Defense. For a refresher, Perpich was a case decided by the Supreme Court in 1990 affirming that the National Guard was a Federal reserve force, and not subject to the whims of the states; that was also the year the Supreme Court ruled that in the matter of the Constitution and its amendments, the term “the people” means the people; you, me, everyone.

And Elvis?

Expository: of, relating to, or containing exposition <expository writing>

Hmm… let’s try this:

Exposition:
1. a setting forth of the meaning or purpose (as of a writing);
2a. : discourse or an example of it designed to convey information or explain what is difficult to understand.

Fucking tit; go play your wordgames with someone who doesn’t speak English as a first language, you disingenuous dickhead.

U.S. v Miller simply said that there was no evidence before the court that a sawed-off shotgun was ordinary military equipment, and that the milita, comprising the body of citizenry capable of bearing arms, was armed with military equipment that was considered “ordinary” for the time.

Subsequent District Court cases (U.S. v. Case, 1st. Circuit Court, 1942, and U.S. v Tot, 3rd. Circuit Court, 1942) pulled a bunch of legal bullshit out of their collective asses with first, in Case, a “state of mind” criteria stating that, “the right to keep and bear was restricted to people as a prerequisite to maintaining a Second Amendment claim, have in mind the maintenance and preservation of the militia as his or her paramount concern,” and then in Tot, “It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.” (Wow; I guess the infallible Supreme Court Justices didn’t agree with that in deciding Perpich)

Ex-cuuuse me?! What writings were they reading from? Not The Federalists; not the minutes of the Convention, not the journals and writings of the various members of the Convention and it’s subsequent ratification debates! I would be curious to find these anti-individual rights writings from which the 3rd. Circuit based this ruling.

These both turn on it’s ear the Miller criteria that the weapons simply be of a type suitable for militia use, as in, “ordinary military equipment,” of which they only excluded sawed-off shotguns with a barrel of less than 18" in length, but which they found that the militia was all able bodies citizens capable of bearing arms and subject to being “called forth.”

[minty_green]

Goodness gracious, Una, that attempt to define “well regulated” that you just quoted was pretty darned misleading, so much so that I question the original author’s good faith.

First, it completely ignores the undeniable fact that the framers used “regulate” in its ordinary sense of “control by rule or law” elsewhere in the original text of the Constitution. Again, see Article I, section 8, where it makes no sense whatsoever to claim that the writers really meant Congress had the power to make commerce and the value of currency “efficient” (notwithstanding catsix’s embrace of that nonsensical position).

Second, who gives a darn if “The first dictionary of American English usage, published by Noah Webster in 1803, gives no entry for ‘well regulated’”? Did the dictionary give a definition for the verb regulate? I guarantee you it did, and I further guarantee you that the first definition for that word was some version of the ordinary “control by rule or law,” not “make efficient.”

Third, it’s awfully misleading of the author to point out that the OED "includes as one of the definitions of ‘regulated’ a meaning which directly applies to troops, that of “properly disciplined,’” since the first definition in the OED is, in fact, some version of the ordinary “control by rule or law” meaning.

Finally, even assuming that the founders really did intend “regulated” to mean something like “made efficient,” one can hardly overlook that “regulate” is a verb that requires somebody or something to accomplish the aforementioned regulating. Who’s responsible for making sure the well-regulated militia is, in fact, well regulated? The text itself is silent, of course, but given once again that the Constitution does in fact speak of state militias being under the control of the federal government (see Art. I, § 8 and Art. II, § 2), I think it hard to escape the textual conclusion that the state and federal governments would be in charge of regulating the militias.

[minty_green]

@ExTank

Now here’s where mintygreen and Elvis are not only exposed as liars, but Fucking Liars.

Didn’t you used to be, like, not a hysterical name-calling nutball? You know, somebody with whom it was once possible to engage in civilized discourse?

[ExTank]

[QUOTE=Soul Brother Number Two]
I’ve been wanting to do this for a while, but I keep forgetting. The latest thread on guns, the fearmonger one, reminded me.

According to the ACLU website, the Supreme Court made up its mind in 1939 (US vs Miller) regarding their interpretation of the Second Amendment. These are the final two paragraphs of the brief found here:

Police Practices

"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states’ rights to maintain and train a militia. “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument,” the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case." (bolding mine)

This, to my mind, make it obvious that regulation and control of Americans’ use and ownership of guns is allowable, reasonable and legal. Those that would stand behind another interpretation of the Second Amendment are wrong, according to the Supreme Court.

[QUOTE]

First, the ACLU is hardly an objective source when it comes to gun control; a bunch of liberal anti-gunb wankers at best. Secondly, you’re reading the ACLU’s interpretation of what Miller actually said. They’re basing this interpretation not on the wording of MIller, but subsequent District Court cases who, as you can see from my previous post, creatively interpreted Miller themselves.

U.S. v. Miller Read for yourself and don’t rely on what other people tell you.

And “anti-control” is a loaded term and inaccurate. Outside of a few radicals with no legislative influence, no one is arguing against the governemt’s ability to regulate the possession of firearms, but to what extent these regulations can go.

The problem is that in many jurisdictions here in the U.S., progressively restrictive laws have been used to ban certain types of firearms, and national-level anti-gun politicians (many of them hypocrites with gun collections of their own, and either Concealed Carry permits for themselves or their bodyguards) have espoused openly their admiration of this approach to attaining national-level bans on select categories of firearms. The problem there is that once you establish these “select categories,” there’s little to stop that list from growing (as it has in several jurisdictions elsewhere) over time until everything is banned.

We get accused of slippery slope argument when we claim this; quite often by the same people who claim that a ban on partial-birth abortions will soon lead to total bans on all abortions; or that a ban on certain types of pornography will soon lead to the abolition of the 1st amendment; or that allowing the government to investigate people with certain means, or that maintaining files on them, will lead to the effective abolition of the 4th. amendment.

Most of these arguments are staples of the ACLU’s legal arsenal.

The stunning level of intellectual hypocrisy displayed would be laughable if it weren’t for the scope of the publicly stated intentions of gun control organizations and politicians.

[mhendo]

@UncleBeer

Actually, you do. If you, as a private party, sell a firearm to another private party, it is required by federal law that you be reasonably certain the purchaser can legally own that gun. That is, legally, you cannot knowingly sell, or otherwise provide, a firearm to any person you have cause to believe would be rejected by the standard NICS background check.

Wow. I have to be “reasonably certain”? Well, that calms all my fears then. I mean, under guidelines as clear and easily-followed that, it’s quite clear that weapons are extremely unlikely to end up in the wrong hands.

Just how, pray tell, am i supposed to tell that the guy who wants to buy my gun is someone who “would be rejected by the standard NICS background check”? Is there some distinguishing characteristic that marks all people with criminal records so that an amateur like me can spot them by appearance and demeanor alone? Is there a course i can take? Is there a handbook?

As i said earlier in this thread, i have, since moving to the US, become considerably more sympathetic to the arguments of law-abiding gun owners. Five years ago, i wouldn’t have shifted even an inch from the “no-one needs a gun, no-one should have a gun” position. But i continue to believe firmly that every single gun sale should be recorded, that every single gun sale, private or otherwise, should involve an actual background and criminial record check, rather than just some lame-ass requirement that people make a guess about whether the gun buyer is a criminal.

Some states do indeed have such a requirement, and this is what i meant when i said earlier in the thread that gun availability to criminals is, to a certain extent, measured by the lowest common denominator of state legislation. It is currently possible, in some states, to buy a gun legally with no background check or criminal record check. This should not, in my opinion, be the case.

[drachillix]

@mhendo

It is currently possible, in some states, to buy a gun legally with no background check or criminal record check. This should not, in my opinion, be the case.

Please enlighten us as to the states in which you can legally purchase a handgun without any NCIS check

[BobLibDem]

I normally don’t gamble, but I would wager that less than 5% of the population has ever changed their minds about gun control. The two sides can read the exact same words and come to polar opposite conclusions. About all that ever happens is that people insult each other’s intelligence and everyone gets angry. Since it is humanly impossible to change someone’s mind about gun control and what the Second Amendment says, why do you try?

[minty_green]

@drachillix

Please enlighten us as to the states in which you can legally purchase a handgun without any NCIS check

Given that federal law only requires NICS checks on sales conducted through gun dealers, and not private sales, it seems obvious that no NICS background check is required for a private sale unless state law provides otherwise. Hence, there would appear to be any number of states where you can legally purchase a handgun (via private sale) without any NICS check.

[minty_green]

@BobLibDem

I normally don’t gamble, but I would wager that less than 5% of the population has ever changed their minds about gun control. The two sides can read the exact same words and come to polar opposite conclusions. About all that ever happens is that people insult each other’s intelligence and everyone gets angry. Since it is humanly impossible to change someone’s mind about gun control and what the Second Amendment says, why do you try?

You’re forgetting that the majority of people are actually quite fluid on gun control issues, neither strongly for or strongly against gun control legislation. As you note, nobody’s going to change their mind when they’re fully entrenched on one side or another of the issue, but a whole lot of other people are up for grabs.

Having said that, I don’t particularly care about changing people’s minds. I just detest the misstatements of the law that these threads routinely spawn, and will be damned if I’m going to let them go uncorrected.

And ExTank? Please take note of the distinct difference between federal district courts (i.e., trial courts) and federal circuit courts (i.e., appellate courts). Although district court rulings are of relatively little precedential value, circuit court rulings are as good as gold unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.

[enipla]

I agree BobLibDem. The more I here from the anti-gun folks, the more I disagree with them.

But, the AWB died, so someone must be listening.

[enipla]

@minty green

but a whole lot of other people are up for grabs.

You really think so? I don’t see that at all.

I may be able to convince someone that a particular gun law is unnecessary, but in the end, since they don’t own guns, or like guns, and are usually afraid of guns, I think they will vote for it anyway. Just a hunch.

[enipla]

Heh. Looks like I just contradicted myself. I just don’t think a ‘lot of people are up for grabs’.