What does the phrase “door to door searches” mean to you? Because it sounds like you’re suggesting that the ATF would methodically search every household in the nation looking for banned weapons. You can’t possibly think that so I wonder what you really mean.
Searching the houses of anyone that might have a assault weapon. Form 4473. OTOH, since those guns could have been sold or stolen, maybe searching all homes would have to be the solution.
What do you think he meant?
I think he meant that if you’re caught with a banned weapon then you would face criminal penalties. I think a door to door sweep isn’t really likely, probably more likely is notification mailings.
If the order against the FBI investigations of medical marijuana was rescinded, do you think the FBI would conduct a door to door search of everyone who applied for medical marijuana? Maybe all households because the marijuana might have been lost or stolen?
Absurdities aside, let us for the sake of discussion, presume that he stakes out an extreme position, one that proposes things that would never pass Congress, never pass SCOTUS review, and even hurt in the general.
It’s still not a bad ploy right now. D primary voters include many for whom this would sell very well. Many more than who would find it objectionable. Whether or not it would make a difference or pass is immaterial.
And since Lamoral questions the “assault weapons” question here’s some more polling.
3/1-4/19:
Do you support or oppose stricter gun laws in the United States? Percent support, oppose, don’t know in order.
Overall 60 35 5
Republicans 33 62 5
Democrats 87 11 2
Independents 61 33 5
And here’s a good question from April 10-13, 2018: Would you definitely vote for or definitely vote against a candidate for Congress who receives campaign contributions from the National Rifle Association, that is, the NRA?
Their support is a big strike against. Overall a slim majority “definitely against” with the balance being 51 to 36 against/for, and among Independents the balance being 50/36. Run away from NRA support if you are smart!
And in terms of the importance the issue has? From last November -
14% of those who voted D felt it was very important. Only 7% of those who voted R did. And while they were a minority 30% of those who voted for an R for Congress want stricter gun control.
SCOTUS has made it clear that there can be no handgun ban and stricter gun control does not mean that, even if proposed, could not result in that.
I have some overlap with DrDeth I guess. A (legal) gun control measure that actually reduced violence would get my support. But I have no interest in pushing something designed to stick it to the other guys. So yeah, no “feel good” restrictions- solve a problem or don’t do it.
But what is that exactly? I have never been clear on that and so never had a strong gun position.
DrDeth- you brought up the impossibility of microstamping again. In the last thread, the evidence seemed to be trending toward CA microstamping being possible. Why is it impossible again?
You also mentioned that law enforcement doesn’t want it. The things I read suggest otherwise. Why do you say that?
Not saying microstamping is a good policy even if you’re wrong about those things, but they seem like questions that can at least be nailed down.
Here’s what I said here: "
Require handgun microstamping: *does not work, has no useful Law enforcement value and can by bypassed in minutes. In CA this ended the sale of all new model handguns, including those with advanced safety features. "
*
In CA the two stamp style is currently technologically impossible. Just plain microstamping as Booker seems to want is certainly possible, just mostly useless.
Some Law Enforcement officials may want it, since it is, as evidenced in CA, a excellent way of restricting gun sales. And sure, like I said, one agent did say “well, it almost never would bring in a solid case, but on the off hand chance it did…”. So may have a tiny bit of LE benefit, but the FBI, wasnt pushing for it last time I checked.
Let’s make two things clear: There are 300 million non-microstamped guns in this nation. And- criminals do not buy their guns from legit gun dealers. So, how woudl it be useful?
Certainly, currently, due to the last mass shootings , the swing is towards some sort of gun control. Even the pollsters agree on that.
And of course, one could indeed have several gun control measures that would be fair- and constitutional. I have suggested one- define “gun dealer” . See, there’s no real definition of “gun dealer” someone who has to do a background check on every sale. So we have a few guys who buy lost of guns and resell them- often to criminals and other people who either cant own a gun legally or want no trail. I understand why they might want no trail, but let’s define 'gun dealer" as anyone who sells more that say- six- guns a year. or 12. Some solid and not too large yet not small number. That would put a big hurt on “strawman sales” which is one of the places crooks get their guns. This would close the “gunshow loophole” 90% of the way, and leave a small place for people to give the 18yo a gun or their wife or leave a couple in their will. Reasonable. Fair, and would cut back on criminals getting hold of guns.
and Heller leaves open other restrictions: *2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56. *
Because America has never had significant gun control. Everywhere that has had it, it’s worked.
Hardly matters. It is not going to happen. Any form of gun control that would really help reduce gun-crime would involve taken millions of weapons out of the hands of voters. Even if we thought that was a good idea, we would have to agree it is a fantasy.
There are things that can and should be done. But they are all at the edges of the problem.
I see the polls; my point is that the term “assault weapon” might be misunderstood by a lot of people responding to the poll. I would guess that many of them think it’s referring to a machine gun, and so they’re more likely to support banning that, than banning a semi-auto rifle with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip.
Between that, and the fact that many people I have encountered seem to not know what “semi-automatic” actually means - I’ve had numerous people think it means that “you can switch between shooting all the bullets by holding down the trigger, or shooting one at a time”, or simply that it means “machine gun” - there may be significant numbers of people answering that they would support banning certain weapons without actually knowing what those weapons are.
DC & Chicago banned all handguns, CA has the toughest gun laws in the nation, but still has plenty of murders, etc.
Maybe it would help prevent gun deaths in DC and Chicago if they beefed up border security. A wall perhaps?
Exactly, DrDeth. Even as weak as the gun control laws are in California, in all other states they’re even weaker.
And the point is that the polls are pretty broad in their support for stricter control and very few, especially among Independents and Democrats, who are all that fearful that stricter gun control will lead to handgun bans or infringe upon them at all.
As to what “assault weapon” means I think few know exactly what it means and hear not “machine gun” but “a gun capable of killing lots of people quickly” maybe even adding in “designed for that use” … details beyond that are lost on most of us, true.
I’m not a gun enthusiast, but I think any discussion of meaningful gun control in America is basically futile.
So I’d rather have America go all-in. I think kids should get gun safety training in schools. I think that there should be a national open carry (isn’t the rhetoric that a bad guy with a gun would be dissuaded by the sight of a bunch of good guys with gun? Let’s put it to the test! I want to see the guns my fellow Americans are carrying).
Now, it would also be my preference to get rid of rifles -limit civilian use to handguns, but I’ve seen how freaked out gun owners tend to get at the suggestion, so I’ve given up on it.
And, in exchange for the national open carry, I’d like to abolish concealed carry except for law enforcement. So, I say, let’s encourage a society where ya’ll strap your AR’s when you stroll through the store.
Do I think it would solve the gun issue? Hell no! But I imagine it would provide some more clarity to the discussion about society’s tolerance for personal weapons.
Although there would be cons as well as pros, I think this is an interesting suggestion. For starters, it might curtail the predations of cowards like George Zimmerman.
Are there already states where open-carry is allowed but concealed-carry permits hard to obtain?