Perhaps kiddie porn could be on point, but the argument would need to be on 1st amendment grounds for speech. I do not think kiddie porn falls under the umbrella of 1st amendment protection, and that’s consistent with current jurisprudence. The analogous argument would have to be about other things that don’t fall under 2nd amendment protection. But that’s not the argument that wolfpup is making. The thrust of his arguments thus far are that the 2nd only protects activity in a militia, and I think that there haven’t been bans.
Assembly may work for examples about where a person can carry, but the bans I listed were about the things themselves, not the location they could be possessed. The assembly example would have to be about assembling anywhere. My understanding is that large demonstrations have logistical challenges that are verified with the permitting, not a challenge to the activity itself. That would be content based restrictions and need to pass strict scrutiny.
Automatic weapons may be heavily regulated rather than banned in some states, but they are certainly banned in other states. And since the protection is federal, that too should fall.
All that being said, the best analogy I can think of is to books or the press printing newspapers.
I thought my response was clear, but I’ll itemize and respond to each one.
*When the government confiscates any type of magazine*
“Government confiscates” seems to be a favorite phrase of libertarians as it combines two of their trigger keywords, but anyway, I think this refers to making high-capacity magazines illegal for general purchase. ISTM that this acknowledges a risk/benefit tradeoff, where something of little or no legitimate use has greatly exacerbated fatalities in mass shootings. This is not a gun ban.
*When the government confiscates any type of rifle*
Same reasoning, if this is something that presents an excessive public danger with limited benefit. This is not a gun ban.
*When the government makes it illegal to buy a pistol based on what color it is*
I’m not sure what this is about. I vaguely recall some law somewhere that required toy guns to be brightly colored so they would not be mistaken for real guns. Perhaps this is a converse, making it illegal to disguise a real gun to look like a toy. I’d have to know more to comment, but this is not a gun ban.
*When the government requires magic non existent technology in order to purchase a firearm*
I don’t know what this about, but I doubt that it’s an accurate description. If it was, there wouldn’t be any guns wherever it applies.
*When the government prohibits the purchase or possession of the most popular rifle in the country*
Popularity has nothing to do with the risk/benefit tradeoff described above. This is not a gun ban.
When any gun is banned.*
I presume this means “when any specific gun is deemed not to meet the risk/benefit tradeoff described above”. This is not a gun ban.
Let me reiterate what I said before. Restrictions or bans on certain gun features or types of guns that have been proven to be excessively dangerous and have little practical value is not a “gun ban”; licensing requirements and the disqualification of unfit individuals is not “gun ban”; it’s called gun control. That it inconveniences or antagonizes gun rights advocates doesn’t make it a “ban”. To repeat, this kind of politically architected Orwellian distortion of language that contrives to call reasonable regulation a “ban” is counterproductive to the kind of policy discussion that is important to have on this subject.
This is not the discussion we were having. To make sure, I went back to my original comments and what they in turn were responding to. The discussion to which I was responding concerned the question brought up by UltraVires of whether or not the UK or Australia had “banned guns”. I pointed out that since the citizens of both countries are able to possess guns, they obviously have not “banned guns”.
You appeared to have a different definition and formulated a series of hyperbolically paraphrased descriptions of what I presume you believe to be gun control measures enacted in those or other countries, and asked me if I considered that to be “banning”. I described, as clearly as I could, that I certainly did not.
Your next reply was to ask whether or not those measures would be constitutional! :eek: This is a completely different question. This is not just moving the goalposts, it’s changing the game. The first question, originally raised by UltraVires and then in further detail by you, was fully addressed. Neither Australia nor the UK have banned guns.
On the understanding that this is now a new and different question, sure, I’ll play along. Would gun control measures like that, which are not bans, be constitutional? My non-professional opinion based on observation and readings and my best guess of what your descriptions mean is that most or all of it would have been, and was, constitutional before the Heller ruling, but may not be afterwards as long as Heller stands.
You can limit the discussion to lawyering the constitution and its precedents if you like, but as I’ve said, in the larger context of principle and the kind of society we want to live in, many scholars and analysts consider Heller an extremely activist and wrong-headed ruling. The kind of society we want to live in is not an arbitrary criterion or a philosophical rumination: According to an older CDC study of 13 industrialized nations, and the more recent study of 23 of them, the US loses more children to gun deaths than all the other countries put together, and that’s before even getting into the broader statistics of the adults that guns kill. Surely there are common values here. Heller has taken a tragically mistaken interpretation of an archaic constitutional guarantee and entrenched it in law. It’s going to seriously thwart efforts at responsible gun control and directly result in many thousands of preventable deaths. This is surely a discussion worth having.
Why is that a “proper” analogy? A better analogy is that certain types of dangerous speech, such as inciting violence or uttering threats, or revealing classified information, are banned without creating any slippery slope or looming censorship. Huckleberry Finn is not dangerous. Inciting violence is. Guns are. The argument of “let the government regulate anything in any way and pretty soon it will all be banned” is just silly.
As for my car analogy, you’re technically right that it’s not explicitly constitutionally protected, but the ability to own a car and the right to drive is so fundamental and necessary to most of our lifestyles and to our livelihoods – far, far more necessary than owning a gun – that no government in any countries like ours could or would ban cars or driving, and if they did, such a ridiculous and far-reaching ban would not stand. Yet cars and driving are seriously regulated in all the ways I described. It’s quite an apt analogy.
Look, the 1st Ad protects Freedom of Speech and a free press. But there are some minor exceptions. Kiddie Ponr, yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre, advocacy of the use of force,Incitement to suicide, etc. All rare, and something that the run of the mill poster, speaker or newspaper has nothing to worry about running afoul of. (of course there are exceptions, like the insane DA that had a couple arrested for nude pictures of their baby in a tub, etc)
Just like guns are prohibited to felons, Minors, etc*, ID must be given in most sales, interstate transfers are regulated, possession of rocket launchers, bazookas, and such are prohibited, and sales of machine guns are closely regulated and even prohibited in many states. All rare and something that the run of mill gun collector shouldnt have to worry about running afoul of. (of course there are exceptions like…) Many states have waiting periods, restrictions on how many guns you can buy per period, etc.
SCOTUS: “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Oh, I got it, it’s just that it is the sort of joke that is only funny if you value guns more than people.
Just as there are racist jokes out there that will make racists roar in laughter, while others are accused of just “not getting the joke”, it does require a different value system to find humor in what you posted.
In CA they banned the *possession *of any magazine (or gun) that holds more than 10 rounds. Not the sale, which I would be in favor of- *possession. * You had to surrender those (without compensation) or face a felony arrest. The courts have blocked this. But this was a “gun ban”.
“When the government requires magic non existent technology in order to purchase a firearm”: One example. Altho, in theory, such technology exists , it is by** no means technologically feasible **to use in a gun, thus in effect it is another “gun ban”:
wiki: "On May 17, 2013, the state attorney general began enforcing a new law requiring that semi-automatic pistols incorporate microstamping.[39] With this technology, very small markings are engraved, using a laser, on the tip of the firing pin and on the breechface of the firearm. When the gun is fired, these etchings may be transferred to the primer by the firing pin, and to the cartridge case head by the breechface, using the pressure created when a round is fired. If successful, this imprints two identifying numbers, unique to that gun, on each spent cartridge casing.[40] This requirement applies to new guns being added to the California Department of Justice’s roster of handguns certified for sale; semi-automatic handgun models already listed on the roster are not required to incorporate microstamping. Note of interest - this law was passed in 2007 and the wording in the law stated that it shall become effective when there are at least two companies, unencumbered by a patent, employing this technology. To date, no manufacturer offers this technology in firearms available to the public.[41]
The AR 15 may appear dangerous, and may appear way too often in headlines about mass shootings, but by no means is it a “excessive public danger with limited benefit.” As such weapons are used in a tiny % of violent crimes or murders. Banning something not based on actual danger, but by headline is indeed a “gun ban”.
Take a look at this wiki page:
Many many gun laws in CA-* none of which has had the slightest detectable effect on reducing violent crime. *
For example: “*On November 8, 2005, San Francisco voters enacted Proposition H, a total ban on the manufacture, sale, transfer or distribution of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco, as well as a ban on the possession of handguns within the city by San Francisco residents (excepting police officers, security guards and the like). The ban did not prohibit possession of weapons other than handguns, nor did it prohibit residents of other cities from possessing handguns in San Francisco. While this measure made San Francisco the third major U.S. city, following Washington, D.C. and Chicago, to enact a ban on handguns, San Francisco’s ban extended further, not implementing a grandfather clause found in Chicago’s and Washington D.C.'s laws that protected existing gun owners. Proposition H stated that handgun owners in San Francisco must turn over their handguns to the police by the end of March 2006, have them confiscated, or move outside the city limits.” * True this law was struck down by the courts, but it was a Gun ban, pure and simple.
Yes, some gun nuts are against any restrictions, but I have not seen anyone seriously suggesting that dangerous felons or kids should be allowed to buy guns or that we have a right to own a bazooka. OTOH, there are plenty of gun haters or those with Hoplophobia who would love to* ban all guns. * So there are extremists in all political hot topics. Kevin Williamson said that women who have abortions should be hanged. But that’s frankly ridiculous. Anyone who claimed they should have the right to own their own atomic bomb is also ridiculous. Have you seen any court cases recently on minors or bazookas? (There was one on felons, a guy who got convicted long ago of a non violent, non jail time felony- but in general, event the NRA is not in favor of gun sales to most felons)
That’s true, private gun sales only require ID in some states. In other states, if that person is known to you, or if there is no reason for you to suspect they are a prohibited person, you can sell the gun to them.
The problem with requiring every gun sale to go thru a Background check is that only gun dealers are allowed to do them, and of course they charge large amounts of money to do so. So the widow of a police officer, shot dead in the line of duty, would be forced to sell her deceased husbands guns to the gun store at a very significant loss.
The ATF can jiggle the regulations as to what constitutes a “dealer” right now, they have had that ability since the 60’s. In fact they know of several guys who make a good living doing strawman sales, to Mexico or felons, yet they do nothing.
Rather than penalize the widow for having the temerity to have a dead husband, why not go after those guys?
There are those on this very message board who would like to see the machine gun registry opened up, and also those who do think that things like bazookas should be covered under the 2nd. That there are people who advocate for extreme positions should not prevent moderates from debating in good faith.
And that’s the loophole right there. If I just met you, and all I know about you is that you really admire my gun and want to buy it, what reason do I have to suspect that they are a prohibited person?
Or, she could keep them. But yeah, if she wants to sell weapons that he owned, then having to go through proper channels would be preferred to her just selling it to the first person who offers her enough money. If we want to make a specific program for police widow(er)s where background checks are done for free through the police, then we can look at that.
But, as it is, you are talking about a rare edge case that can have its own solution as a reason why we cannot deal with the vast majority of problem transfers.
Because they are hiding behind the same exact (lack of) regulations that allow her to sell her gun to anyone without a background check.
I’ve said before, in lieu of a background check, a CCW or possibly another piece of ID that shows the bearer to have gone through a background check already would be acceptable.
But, the fact that you don’t have to ask for any sort of ID before selling someone a gun is a loophole that allows some “law abiding” gun owners to make a good living strawman selling to Mexico or to felons. After all, you have to have an ID to buy groceries, right?
Yes, that’s true “That there are people who advocate for extreme positions should not prevent moderates from debating in good faith.” but you are the one bring up the extremist positions like they are common.
Or she could sell them to her husbands partner of 20 years… not.
The thing is, " gun show loophole" sales just haven’t be shown to be enough of a issue to even make the ATF do anything about them, even tho they certainly can.
Most private sales are between two friends or transfers between relatives, like a Dad giving his son a .22 for a birthday present. They are a bugaboo, not a real law enforcement issue.
No, I am not. I only bring up the extremest position on the gun advocate side when the extremist position on the gun control side is invoked as a reason why we cannot have a conversation about gun control. Most of the pro gun posts in this (and nearly every gun control) thread have brought up the idea that advocates for gun control want to ban all guns, an extremist position that is brought up as if it were common.
Why would she not be able to? As I stated, I would have no problem with having a pre-qualifying background check, which I would assume that a police officer would qualify for.
They most certainly cannot, because the loophole is created by people who insist that they should be able to give and sell guns to friends and family without needing a background check.
No, most of us dont think that anywhere near of a majority of people in favor of gun control want to ban all guns. In fact poll after poll show a small wavering majority goes back and forth but in general want only mild gun controls- several of which are already law and a number of which I have no issue with.
However, a majority of people in San Francisco voted to ban all handguns- without even compensation. So, dont pretend gun grabbers aren’t out there.
Yes, you would have no problem, but CA Law does. Incidentally, I personally knew of this very situation, which is why I bring it up.
No, there is no such loophole and it wasn’t “created.” It’s always been legal (except in CA and a few other areas) to transfer guns via a private party sale. Since 1968, *dealers *had more restrictions.
I think this is the disconnect. It seems that if the government bans a gun, but it undertakes a risk/benefit analysis, you do not consider it a ban. Why is that? Wouldn’t it still be a ban, but one that rests on some kind of justification? Lots of things are like this. Child pornography is banned, and for good reason. Just because there is good reason doesn’t transform the ban into not a ban. It seems nonsensical to say a ban is not a ban if it is based on sufficient justification.
In this case, you have the fact pattern wrong. This isn’t about making standard capacity magazines illegal for purchase. This is about criminalizing possession of already legally purchased magazines. CA has done this. They were legal to purchase, then after a time, CA made it illegal to possess and commanded its residents to destroy them, or removed them from the state. No compensation. But for you, that’s not a ban?
Same as above. You are saying a ban is not a ban if it is justified. That’s nonsense, of course it is a ban. Why not own it?
CA attorney general first required people to register their legally purchased SKS rifles. After doing so, CA then made it illegal to possess these rifles, and used the register to demand they be destroyed or removed.
This isn’t about realistic looking toy guns. The XD-45 semi auto pistol is available to purchase in CA in black color, but the bi-tone black/silver of the exact same model is illegal to purchase because it is not on the CA not unsafe handgun roster. It cannot be added to the roster because it does not have micro stamping technology, which does not exist. Glock makes a certain model that is available on the roster, with a right handed mag release. They also make that same model with an ambidextrous mag release that is popular with left handed shooters. That model is not on the roster and is illegal to purchase in CA. Even when the plaintiff bringing suit was born without a right hand, the 9th circuit ruled against him. But that’s not a ban, even though those firearms are banned, right?
It’s pretty accurate. CA requires all new model semi auto handguns to have micro stamping technology. There is no working micro stamping technology. As a result, no new model semi auto handguns are legal to sell in CA. The technology they require is non-existent, like magic. There are currently only 307 models of semi auto handguns available for purchase in CA, and of those, 210 are duplicates with only cosmetic differences. No new models are allowed, because they are banned.
This is the same as above. A ban is not a ban when there is a risk/benefit trade off. That’s humpty dumpty level sophistry.
Here, this doesn’t even have the transparent fig leaf of the risk benefit analysis. You simply declare a ban is not a ban. Up is down, 1984 is real, and we’ve always been at war with East Asia. And this is the crux of the problem. Simple terms are redefined to fit your narrative. Actually, I suspect it’s going to be the crux of gun control advocate’s problems with Kavenaugh on the court. Bully for me. And now just yesterday the 9th circuit has ruled against the CA handgun roster challenge. I’m excited to see it go for cert.
Yes, and to illustrate your point you gave the car as an analogy. But since cars are a horrible analogy to guns, your examples are without merit. And secondly, you have a non standard definition of ban, so it can mean whatever you want it to mean.
Yes, I see that now that you use the word ban in way that is different than the actual definition. Good luck with that I guess. And those weren’t measures enacted in other countries. All of those things have been enacted within the US. As I wrote above, I’m hopeful that each and every one of these goes to SCOTUS, and they get obliterated. I’d feel even better if Ginsburg were to leave the court. It can’t come too soon.
I’m not making a slippery slope argument. I’m making a ‘we’re already here’ argument. But sure, speech is a valid analogy. But you can’t simply declare that guns are inherently dangerous so they may be banned. This was directly addressed in Heller. By their very nature arms are dangerous, yet they are constitutionally protected so simply being dangerous is not sufficient basis to ban them.
No, a car analogy to guns is horrible and sophomoric. Just as I couldn’t give two shits about what other countries do with their gun laws, analogizing to cars is worthless.
DId you know that cars are banned in the United States?
It’s true, under 49 U.S.C. § 30112(a) automobiles and other motor vehicles are banned. **At least, under your definition of what a “ban” is! ** More here on the hitherto unknown ban on cars in the United States, which I’m sure will be a surprise to all Americans who legally own cars.
So perhaps your preferred use of the word “ban” here is not ideal for a constructive discussion of such issues. Banning some feature, accessory, or specific model of “x” is not, in any rational meaning of language, “a ban on ‘x’”. It doesn’t mean the same thing as “I don’t like these restrictions”.
If you don’t like the restrictions, say you don’t like the restrictions. Calling it a “gun ban” to provoke an emotional reaction sounds like an NRA tactic to derail constructive discussion.
I note considerable hostility to any argument that is perceived to undermine any aspect of unfettered gun rights. What other countries do is relevant if and only if one is interested in addressing the gun violence problem in America, which of course requires acknowledging it first. If this is not of interest or not even acknowledged, then of course it isn’t relevant, though it does mean that the status quo will continue unabated.
But I do insist that the car analogy is valid for the simple reason that cars are so fundamentally important to our daily lives, typically supporting among other things the right to earn a livelihood and the right of free movement and right to live where one pleases within the country, all of which I believe would be supported by inherent rights to life and liberty and by culture and history. On the downside, cars have potential dangers and cause many deaths, most of them preventable, and which has caused the enactment of a large number of regulations and restrictions. For the most part these regulations haven’t been seriously challenged based on the imperative of these freedoms – though occasionally Republicans get their shorts in a knot about mileage standards or seat belt laws or distracted driving (cell phone) laws. Republicans generally don’t like being regulated, whether or not there’s a good reason for it. The more I think about it, the more aspects of this analogy seem fitting.
Then please stop bringing up the strawman of gun bans anytime anyone starts speaking of things that can be done to reduce gun violence.
Like that. We are talking about federal rules here, as neither of us have much control over what the population of San Francisco feels is best for its community, even though they are generally denied local governance on such things.
Once again, talking about what the people of California want for their state is not a reasonable response to why you avoid any debate on the topic as it pertains to the nation.
You knew of a police widow who couldn’t sell her husband’s guns without having to do a background check? If we want to go the route of “I know someone who was affected by a policy”, we could be here all day.
I knew someone who was shot by a gun that was sold to a criminal without a background check by a “kid*” who inherited his father’s gun collection.
You claim that there is no loophole that allows private sellers to sell their guns to unknown individuals with no penalty to themselves, or you just don’t consider the fact that private sales don’t require a background check in order to be transferred to be a loophole?
Murder was always legal until someone made a law against it as well. If you carved out exceptions where murder was not illegal under certain circumstances, then I would consider that to be a loophole, your logic would consider it to be a pre-existing right.
*I think he was in his 20’s, but anyone under 30 is a kid to me, anymore.
Some cars are banned, in that they are legally prohibited. That’s pretty obvious actually. But when people say some guns are banned, gun control folks are aghast. When proposals to ban even more guns are offered, you say these aren’t bans because words mean whatever you say? If something is legally prohibited, it’s accurate to call it a ban.
All new model semi automatic pistols are banned for retail sale in CA. The word “ban” is accurate to describe the current state of the law. You’re attempt to redefine words notwithstanding.
I certainly don’t like the bans. The fact is, I legally purchased magazines and firearms which the state now says I must destroy, or turn them in to the police. That’s a ban. Equivocating 1984 style is a transparent attempt to disguise what is actually happening. The history of gun control, trying to confuse people with phrases like “assault weapon” is relevant here. Remember, “Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
No, it’s a hostility to facile arguments. A right that is guaranteed and enumerated in the constitution should only be compared to other rights of the same nature. Comparing to the privilege of driving is inaccurate and misleading. Comparing US law to other countrys’ laws may be interesting to in certain types of discussion, it’s largely irrelevant when discussing US laws. It’s even more useless than looking to non-controlling court dissents. So no, it’s not hostility, it’s a complete discounting of merit. You’re welcome to keep analogizing to cars of course, and I’ll continue to point and laugh about how irrelevant the comparison is.
Then at least admit that the word “ban” isn’t the boogieman here, and that with your usage, “ban” doesn’t mean anything at all.
Some cars are banned != Cars are banned. Some guns are banned != guns are banned.
Does this mean that you are not a law abiding gun owner?
I bought a used car once that the state said was not legal to drive, from both emissions and safety standpoint. Is the fact that I had to destroy that car a ban?
Bringing up your version of history that didn’t involve anyone in this discussion is more strawmen. Sure, the public is easy to mislead, and a better informed public makes better decisions. Which is why it is actually misleading to continue to use an emotionally charged word like “ban”, when really it is just a restriction.
It is absolutely comparable when one of the solutions is to lower guns from their pedestal of 2A, and allow them to be regulated with the common sense that we are able to apply to everything else.
That’s right, guns are unlike anything else, and the US is entirely unlike any other country. Even though other items have been regulated in ways that leave a good balance between public safety and interest and individual freedom, none of that can apply to guns. Even though other countries have found ways of regulating guns in such a way that creates a good balance between public safety and individual freedom, none of that can apply to the US. For reasons. Therefore, any argument that looks at other situations where they faced similar issues and came up with solutions to problems that we simply can’t figure any way to solve is “facile” to you in a way that merits a hostile response.
And if only some guns are restricted, then it’s not a gun ban, whether you think so or not.
It is in this discussion
You have, every time you divert the discussion that you and I are having with shwat some guy in san fransico said.
Well, now you are strawmanning the other way, as I have not made either of those claims. Only that those are not things that everyone wants, and so it makes more sense to debate the people that you are talking to, rather than bringing up time and again that there is someone out there that wants it dow not contribute to the discussion.
We’ve gone over that on many occasions, and my efforts have always been wasted by responses that are irrelvant to my points. If you are serious in wanting my opinion on what reasonable gun controls would be, and you really can’t find the other 2 or 3 times we have had this same discussion where I laid them out only to have them dismissed and ignored becuase there was some guy in califronia that said something bad about a gun one day, then I can put out the work of, once agin, setting out what, IMHO would be a reasonable start to gun control.
Of course the ATF doesn’t consider it one. If they thought it was a loophole, then that would mean that they would need to close it. They cannot close it, because in order to close it, then people will complain that they have to get a background check in order to sell or give their gun to their friend or relative, and they consider that to be a gun ban.
But, I do consider it a loophole, as that is exactly what it is. It allows otherwise law abiding gun owners to sell their guns to criminals from out of state with absolutely no consequence to themselves, so long as you cannot prove that they knew that the person was not eligible to possess or purchase that gun. We’ve been over this a few times as well, and I know that you will say “Well, that’s illegal”, and we’ll have to go back and forth until you finally admit that the seller did not do anything illegal, even though they profited from putting guns into the hands of criminals.