So you’ve wiped out all the gun laws of CA, NY, NJ, and IL. Somehow I think we’ve just entered fantasy land. I’m fine with that then.
For 75 years we haven’t had Heller and McDonald. I think with the right foundations, these things could get litigated away. I’m not holding my breath, and this may be in the 10+ year time frame, but there’s no reason for it not to happen with the right legal team and the right plaintiffs.
this is wrt restraining orders. I understand reasonable people can disagree, but it is trivially easy for a vindictive person to get a restraining order against you, and then you are now a prohibited person for life. That is shit. I agree people should intent on committing acts of violent aggression not be able to possess firearms. There is no due process to eliminating your right to firearms based solely on a restraining order.
Seems fine, depending on how it is applied.
Hey, you magically poofed away all the laws in several states, I think you can apply some magic and change the constitution. Places where confiscation has happened like CA and LA, those folks should be penalized heavily with no immunity shield.
I doubt that is why anyone thinks we need a registry but it is pretty clear that registration is constitutional.
Upon transfer of ownership. For sales, the point of sale. Other transfers don’t require registration but the gun stays in your name until you transfer registration(remember you can only transfer possession of a gun to someone with a gun license).
I don’t think we have that problem here. We already know how to run a registry, we have one at the federal level and we have several at the state level. They all seem to work pretty well. I think you are seeing insurmountable complications and uncertainty in a system that we have already had for the better part of a century.
It depends on what you think is reasonable. The Christmas morning loophole doesn’t exist. If I give something to a minor that is too young to own a firearm, then I am effectively giving it to his parents.
If I sell you a gun, or give you a gun, we go to the DMV, Police station, FFL, Post office, etc. and pay a nominal fee (all they do is run your license to check if its valid and then change the name on the form) to make sure your license is valid and then register the gun to your name.
If I just lend you the gun (after checking your license) then I can keep it in my name as long as I want (how long do you want to be on the hook for a gun that someone else possesses)?
You don’t think a chain of title would make it a lot easier to figure out who those straw purchasers are?
Its not about restricting how people get guns, its about creating and maintaining a chain of title to a gun to reduce gun trafficking. Almost every gun used in crime is bought at from an FFL.
I agree we need to enforce the laws we already have. But licensing and registration makes it a lot easier to enforce rules than a system where gun ownership is largely anonymous. I mean think of it, the main reason most gun nuts hate the idea of registration is because they don’t want the government to know they have the guns and confiscate them in some dytopian future. Well, that anonymity works for criminals too. The chain of title that a registry provides makes it a LOT easier to shut down gun trafficking.
The fact is, gun crime is a problem in many communities. Not just for the criminals who get shot, but also for the innocent civilians who get robbed/mugged/carjacked/beaten at gunpoint; for the innocent bystanders who get caught in the crossfire; and for the kids who grow up in a culture of gun violence, only to repeat the cycle when they become teenagers. Growing up in an inner city, watching constant gun violence, seeing people get killed and shot at, it’s got to be nearly impossible to escape such a stressful environment and go on to lead a normal life.
For all of those reasons, making it harder for criminals to get guns is a noble goal, and to his credit, I think Damuri Ajashi’s registration and licensing plan would be moderately effective. The additional upshot of it is that the “non-problem” of gun violence affecting suburban people, which we know is actually a problem because suburban people feel the need to arm themselves against it, might actually become a non-problem. If gun violence is less of a problem, then fewer law-abiding citizens would feel the need to own guns. And if there are just plain fewer guns out there, then there will be fewer successful suicides (which is a good thing), and fewer gun accidents, like little kids shooting each other (which is a very good thing).
[/quote]
+1
I would add, there is a difference between trying to reduce suicide by reducing the desire to own guns and reducing suicide by trying to ban particular types of guns.
I think this “should be” the crux of the gun nut argument. I am ready to defend the notion that these things are likely to reduce gun violence by reducing straw purchases and inadvertant private sales (or other transfers of guns) to prohibited persons.
The gun grabbers (for the most part) are probably going to think that any sort of regulation or speed bump to gun ownership is a good thing with varying degrees of regard to whether they are how effective they are in reducing gun violence.
That is what preemption means. If you want to pass gun laws you have to do it at the federal level.
What part of Heller makes you think that machine guns and suppressors would be protected by the second amendment? I read Heller to recognize an individual right to bear arms (for self defense). I also read it as endorsing all manner of restrictions. I think this would include restrictions on machine guns (but perhaps not suppressors and sbr’s).
Are restraining orders for life?
You can get restraining orders lifted cant you?
Well, I would like testing requirements as well but there seems to be a lot of resistance to that idea. Some people have compared it to ljteracy tests to vote.
Its much easier to get a federal law passed than get the constitution amended. Just passing a federal law could poof those local laws.
Yeah I know but I just wanted to point out that you tale the good withthe bad if you take it at all.
the “Dangerous and unusual” part. It would depend on good litigation, but it’s possible.
They are not for life, and you can get them lifted. Compare the effort it takes to get it lifted vs. the effort it takes to have one layed. I don’t think due process is satisfied with the current way restraining orders and firearms interact.
Sure anything is possible but you almost made it sound inevitable. I think its highly unlikely that they overturn a 75 year old law and let people start buying machine guns from commercial manufacturers in order to protect the individual’s right to self defense.
A cop can get a warrant to search your home based just on what a cop says. The critieria for a restraining order is usually higher than that. You don’t have to be able to face your accuser for due process to be satisfied. You have the opportunity to face them after you have been accused. You only have to go to court once, your accuser has to go twice.
You may not like the fact that there are a few bad apples that abuse the system but the incidence of gun violence committed by those subject to a restraining order is orders of magnitude higher than the general population. This is a reasonable and rational rule to further a compelling state interest.
I don’t know if there is a way to get where we want to go without some sort of compromise.
So restraining order eliminating fundamental civil right is like the DUI checkpoint exception to the fourth amendment? I’m fine with a temporary restriction on firearm possession in most of these cases, but the process should be more rigorous.
With the Heller and McDonald 5, along with most of the state laws, gun rights are winning. Why would there need to be compromise? And if there is to be compromise, let the other side offer something.
I’m waiting to see what Chicago comes up with for its version of compromise now that they’ve been bitch slapped by the court.
What’s a “military grade” weapon? The Beretta M9 is the standard US Army sidearm; it’s a semi-automatic pistol. Do you mean howitzers and mortars and stuff?
And Damuri - what makes you think license and registration would be the panacea against gun violence? California already has this for all pistols for quite some time, and long guns next year. Since long guns are not the source of the vast majority of gun violence, I think that CA is a good example of what you propose. CA also has an assault weapon ban, a magazine capacity limit, and every single sale, private, or dealer, must go through an FFL and a 10 day wait. Wouldn’t you expect to see noticeable differences between CA an other states without license and registration?
In what way? You usually have to make a statement under penalties of perjury so there are consequences if they are just making stuff up.
I think we can all agree that it is too easy for criminals to get their hands on guns and we can bitch and moan about enforcement of current laws all we want but our current laws are very hard to enforce. You would have to believe that several administration from both sides of the political spectrum that disagreed on everything else agreed that we should be really bad at enforcing gun laws.
I realize that from a purely partisan perspective, the gun nuts are giving up a lot more than the gun grabbers.
Assuming that you agree that criminals have too much access to guns, what would you propose?
I suspect they will come up with something like what DC has.
I don’t think it would eliminate gun violence. I think it would give us the opportunity to bring it down to the lowest level possible without unduly encroaching on the second amendment.
I think California or any of the 48 contiguous states are a bad example (I think any gun control in the 48 contiguous states is severely diluted by the interstate highway system (or just walking). I would be interested to know how many guns used in crimes were registered (as a percentage of all registered guns) as opposed to how many guns not subject to registration are used inc rime as a percentage of all guns that are not subject to registration.
I think that Hawaii will be interesting. Hawaii is seeing a huge spike in gun licenses and gun sales. Lets see if the gun violence rate in Honolulu skyrockets to the same levels as Washington DC, NYC and Chicago.
All you ever need to know about the NRA is summarized in their choice of keynote speaker for their convention…Glenn Beck. The right becomes more and more removed from touch with reality every day. Do you know they endorse giving kids as young as 5 their own rifles? their parents aren’t old enough to be trusted with guns, let alone the little tykes, kids who love to wait until Mom and Dad aren’t looking, then play at shooting their kid sister.
Insane in the membrane (Insane in the brain! )
Insane in the membrane (insane in the Brain! )
Insane in the membrane (crazy insane got no brain! )
Insane in the membrane (insane in the Brain! )
Insane in the brain in the brain (it’s because I’m loco)
Insane in the Brain in the brain (it’s because I’m loco)
Insane in the brain in the brain (insane) it’s because I’m loco
You really believe this? Girlfriend is pissed off at ex-boyfriend. She says, he threatened me, I need a restraining order. Bam, loss of 2nd amendment rights with a long road to restore them. Consequences for girlfriend? None.
It’s not only from a partisan perspective. Objectively this is the case. Registration is a gun control holy grail (I exaggerate, but just a little). In exchange, I want national shall issue with no restrictions in any public space, including quasi public spaces like businesses open to the public. Only private clubs would be able to restrict. Anywhere that wants to restrict would need to provide a level of security that ensured no one entering was armed, and also safe storage. No more gun free anywhere zones. Then we’re talking about something that has some parity. Less than that I’d tell the other side to pound sand.
More permissive carry laws, and more prisons. And no more war on drugs, in fact, complete legalization of all drugs.
I doubt it and I think you don’t understand the Illinois legislature. The Illinois legislature is made up of a majority pro gun rights folks. All they have to do is wait out the clock. If the other side proposes DC style regulations, they can tell them to go fuck themselves and Illinois becomes constitutional carry at the end of June. If they are smart, Illinois will go shall issue with state preemption and Rahm Emmanual can complain to high heaven. I’m hoping that Maddigan appeals to SCOTUS and that’s how we get nation wide carrry now that Kachalsky is dead.
Gun violence is pretty low, IMO, and is isolated mostly to criminals. I don’t think license or registration infringes on the 2nd, but that’s still not a reason to not oppose them.
So, the largest state in the union has all of the rules in place you suggest, and more, and it’s not a good example? The rational that, hey, ‘it failed, so we need to do it more’ is not persuasive. Yes, guns can walk across the border. But that would be illegal. Just like not registering the weapon would be too. In other words, it would impact law abiding folks, and criminals will continue to get their weapons the same way they do now.
I think culturally Hawaii is vastly different than DC and pretty much any metropolitan area in the US. No matter what happens there, it wouldn’t be predictive of other areas. And they are still pretty damn hard to get a weapon there.