Just a note:
I’ve been lucky to have both of my background checks go in right away. I know many, many people who’ve had NICS ‘go down’ (I’m sure that’s entirely accidental…), and have to wait days or weeks to get it.
The system places the burden on the person to wait for the system… so if NICS accidentally went down for 6 months every year…
Minty, you’ve already made it clear what you think should be banned, so I’m not sure why you keep posting definitions. My questions was directed at msmith537 and what weapons he thinks should be banned, not at what some current law is or what the definition of a different term than the one he used (‘military weapon’ versus ‘assault rifle’) is. Maybe he means a cosmetic ban, where switching between a ‘non-offensive’ stock and one of the same length but with a pistol grip is a crime, maybe he doesn’t, that’s the reason I’m asking him.
Since your ideal gun control laws would treat all semi-automatic guns as machine guns, I’m not even sure why you keep going on about ‘assault weapons’. msmith537 didn’t use that term, and it doesn’t seem relevant to what you’ve said since you didn’t make any such distinction in your posts.
So you think that cosmetics (bayonet and pistol grip on a gun with a detachable magazien) determine what is a military weapon, not function? That’s all I’ve been asking. Hell, I’ve even outright asked if you meant something like modern ‘assault weapon’ laws as a definition of military weapons. So, you do include cosmetic criteria in your definition of ‘military’ weapons, so that an AR-15 with a pistol grip but no folding stock or bayonet is OK, but one with a bayonet lug is one that should be banned.
The point of this debate is to deterime what is actually meant by ‘common sense’ gun control. From the responses in this thread, it appears to mean either very vague, possibly broad laws (like your proposal, which apparently includes preventing someone with a misdemeanor conviction for a bar fight in the '70s from owning guns today and which includes a ban on rifles which look like military rifles), or extremely severe restrictions (Minty’s proposal which apparently would only allow people to own a semi-automatic weapon if they operate a firearms business).
That’s what you’d like for the term to mean, however from this thread it doesn’t appear that that is what it means at all. Further, I’m not sure what ‘civilized society’ means here - is it the US, where roughly 75% of the population according to polls believes that people should be able to use firearms in self-defense, or good chunks of Europe, where (to use England and Germany as examples) self-defense is not legally considered a valid reason to own a firearm and there’s no move to change that (though I’m not aware of any general opinion polls)?
What are you talking about? I haven’t made any posts along those lines in this thread, I don’t usually even argue along those lines, and I have gone out of my way just to discuss definitions of ‘common sense’ gun control in this thread. Are you talking about posts in a different thread, or are you talking about posts someone other than me wrote?
Of course, it’s already a felony for both you and the person you buy from to do so, Viriginia has a ‘one a month’ handgun ban, any dealer that sold you guns ‘across the border’ would easily be out of business and arrested, and I’d like a cite for what fraction of illegal guns recovered in DC come from these ‘across the river’ sales versus other means (like criminals in DC selling them).
My ideal laws would also treat all guns the same as machine guns. But then, mine take quite a different approach from his. Almost all legal distinctions regarding guns are arbitrary and meaningless. The Constitution recognizes an individual right to bear arms (The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). As the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Miller case stated, the 2nd Amendment particularly protects the military arms in common use of the day, not target and hunting arms.
Is an AK-47 more deadly than a bolt-action deer rifle that is accurate at a thousand yards? or a lever-action .30-30? Nope. Any weapon is only as dangerous as the hand holding it.
Hey minty green, you’re a lawyer, right?
I’ve noticed that you seem very smug as you laugh off and mock the idea that the armed citizenry is intended as a check on the government, then make stupid comments about tinfoil hats and what-not.
So let’s play a game. I have here seven quotations. I’d like to see if you can tell me what famous crackpots said each of them, ok?
[list=1][li]The [second] amendment is: “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.” The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against…domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms…offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.[/li]
[li]There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.[/li]
[li]There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? Distrust.[/li]
[li]Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.[/li]
[li]Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.[/li]
[li]Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." [/li]
And just for kicks, one from the 20th century:
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins."[/list=1]
Joe_Cool: Please demonstrate where the Supreme Court, in Miller or anywhere else, has said that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. That text you quoted establishes two basic things: [ul][li]The “militia” was all physically capable males.The introductory clause establishes a substantive restriction on the guarantee of the second clause.[/ul][/li]And would SOMEBODY please pass a memo out to all the gun rights people telling them that the rest of us really don’t give a shit how many quotations from famous and semi-famous figures they can pull out of their butts and slap on some web site? Sheesh, people, this is not a contest to see who can marshall the most pithy quotations. This tendency to quote instead of discuss is really the most extreme example I’ve ever seen of the argument from authority fallacy.
Riboflavin, did you even bother to read my reply to BF above, where I acknowledged, linked to, and discussed the Virginia one-handgun-a-month rule?
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
First off, it’s dicta, not a holding, since that case is about the Fourth Amendment, not the Second. That means the issue is very much open. Second, even the part you highlighted says that the amendment “refers to a class of persons,” not individuals. Still, I don’t remember reading that particular passage before, so thanks for bringing it to my attention.
You didn’t ask for a holding, you silly goose. You only asked, “where have they ever said X?” I’m sure you know as well as I that no such holding exists.
Still, it appears to me that the quoted passage, though it doesn’t include the actual word “individual”, is talking about a right as private and individual as “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” At least, I can think of no other way to interpret it.
Minty, did you even bother to read my reply to you above, where I pointed out the fact that the activity you described is already a felony for both people involved and requested some numbers on how many guns come into DC through that route? I find it rather absurd that you are complaining that I didn’t respond to one particular point of yours, when you’ve routinely ignored whole batches of direct questions from me.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
*Joe_Cool: Please demonstrate where the Supreme Court, in Miller or anywhere else, has said that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. That text you quoted establishes two basic things: [ul][li]The “militia” was all physically capable males.[]The introductory clause establishes a substantive restriction on the guarantee of the second clause.[/ul]**[/li][/QUOTE]
Fair enough. But since you’re so sure on this point, why don’t you show me where Miller’s conviction was upheld on the grounds that no individual right exists?
Also, the first quotation I listed is Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. The quote was taken from On The Constitution Of The United States, a well known and respected Commentary and textbook (Perhaps you’re familiar with it?). In it, Justice Story was speaking from his position as a US Supreme Court Justice, and in the area of his expertise (Ex Cathedra, so to speak) – Hardly a fallacious “appeal to authority”. The portion I quoted was from the chapter titled “Amendments – Rights Of The People” (§ 450-451).
But predictably, you didn’t bother checking it out. Instead, you glibly dismissed it out of hand, like you do with everything else.
The other quotations I listed are not so blatantly proper, but they are (with a couple exceptions) the words of people who planned, drafted, and/or ratified the Constitution, and they are all the words of wiser men than you and I.
But I guess you have no need for the original intent, or for the thoughts of people who asked these same questions before your great-grandfather was a twinkle in his father’s eye. Obviously you have it all figured out, and have a compulsive need to reinvent the wheel, instead of learning from others who have traveled the same road.
And we all understand your desire for legislation that says “nobody can have a gun except me”.
Anyway, since you apparently need everything spelled out for you, the Miller case would have been very simple (and the decision only about 1/2 a paragraph) if the 2nd Amendment did not recognize an individual right. The opinion would simply have hinged on that. The fact is that it was decided on other grounds. Grounds that presume the individual right, and do not even allude to a so-called collective right.
I agree that the text I quoted establishes two things. But we seem to disagree on what they are:
[ul][li]The Court believed that there has always been not only a right, but an obligation to keep arms.[/li][li]The Court believed that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is so obvious that it didn’t need to be specifically pointed out in the decision. In the same sense that the Bill of Rights need not mention a right to breathe or to eat.[/ul][/li]
And will SOMEBODY please pass a memo to minty green, telling him that no matter how many times he shouts “it’s dicta! it’s dicta!” the Court has said what it has said. And what it has said, repeatedly, is that it is an indivdual right.
No matter how many times it has been pointed out to you that this decision or that has said that the 2nd Amendment refers to the same “the people” as the Preamble and the 1st, 4th, 9th, and 10th Amendments – meaning the actual people, and not the states – you always have the same crap to say.
We all know that there is no holding, and the reason is that no 2nd Amendment case has gone before the Supreme Court except for the flawed Miller case. But it’s plain that the belief of the Court is that the 2nd does recognize and guarantee an individual right, whether it has been the primary subject of a ruling or not.
No can do. But I can give you nine citations to eight federal circuits that have held there is no individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, plus some rank dicta from the 5th Circuit that says it does. Keep an eye on Monday’s legal news–Emerson was on the Court’s conference agenda for last week, so we may have a decision on whether they’ll take the case on Monday.
Damn straight I dismissed it. Give me controlling legal authority, not some long-dead judge delivering a lecture.
I have no need for silly quote fests. I am well aware that hundreds of pro-gun sites have collected hundreds of quotations (many spurious) saying the Second Amendment means what they want it to mean. Me, I only need nine case cites to eight federal circuits that say it means something else entirely.
Show me where I said it or retract it. I have repeatedly and unambiguously stated quite the contrary. I support reasonable regulations, including universal background checks and registration, not anything remotely resembling confiscation.
Although the government argued in Miller that no individual right existed, the Court did not rule on that question. You may spin that any way you want to, but the fact remains that Miller is silent on whether the right is individual or collective.
In fact, the Court may have had good reason to dispose of the case on the type-of-firearm issue rather than the individual/collective question. As written, the case establishes that certain types of guns are entirely unprotected by the Second Amendment, regardless of a person’s status or non-status as a member of a militia. Since the legislation at issue was aimed at controlling firearms rather than people, that question was probably a lot more important to Congress and the nation at the time than the individual vs. collective issue.
I call bullshit. Had the Court actually said so, all those federal circuits could not have ruled to the contrary. Hell, had the Court actually said so, the Fifth Circuit would have, ya know, mentioned it in Emerson. It didn’t.
Yes. I always refer to the case law that establishes otherwise. The law is not what you or I say it is, Joe. It is what the courts say it is.
Once again, you are incorrect. At least three circuit court cases holding that there is no individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment have already gone before the Supreme Court. The Court has refused the opportunity to rule otherwise every single time. But like I said, keep an eye on Emerson Monday.
BF, what exactly is your point? I already acknowledged that it is (generally) illegal to purchase more than one handgun per month in Virginia. What the heck are you attempting to point out that my discussion of the statute doesn’t already address?
As for the sources of illegal guns in the District of Columbia, I refer you to this .pdf file of the complaint in Washington D.C.'s pending lawsuit against the gun industry. The District alleges in paragraphs 52-59 the various ways in which guns make their way into the hands of criminals in D.C. I’d love to give you solid figures on which guns come from which state, but I’m afraid I can’t find any data on the web.
It’s possible to allege pretty much anything in a lawsuit - that certainly doesn’t qualify as evidence supporting your assertion. Especially since I doubt that you would go back on your allegations if the DC lawsuit failed by not proving those allegations.
BF:
Agreed in principle. But one must also consider the role the “law abiding gun owner” plays in the flow of firearms to the criminal community. I make no assertion on numbers, but, IIRC, approximately 60% of the firearms getting into criminals hands are stolen, typically from private domiciles.
While certain gun control make no sense when that datum is factored, proposed mandatory storage (and, to a lesser degree, “smart guns”) have a certain amout of logic behind, them, at least as a raw premise.
minty:
Not entirely correct. Handgun purchases are still illegal; and, IIRC, most FFL’s won’t sell to people w/ a DC address on the DL. This I saw for myself at a few Gun Shows in VA last year.
Private sales, or having cousin Mike who lives in Richmond buy for you, is another matter entirely. “Strawman” sales are illegal, but tough to police, and have little preventative value. And the distinction between a “straw” purchase and someone buying a gun as a legitimate gift is fairly thin, resting mainly in the mind(s) of the prosecuting DA and jury.
Elvis:
Certainly. Just gimme a minute to extricate my foot from my mouth.
Okay, that statement was poorly phrased. Dismissing an opponent/fellow Debater here in GD is not tyranny, or oppression (well, maybe a little too gung-ho PC vis-a-vis gun control, but oh well, you play the hand you’re dealt, or fold).
The key phrase that mostly embodies my original intent was “To legislate w/o considering and addressing…” Which forces me, upon reflection of that fact that the NRA was named one of the most effective lobbying groups last year (we beat out perennial champ AARP; sorry Grandma, take a number) to withdraw that statement.
If Soviet-paratroop-fearing militias were the total embodiment of the American gun owning population, I would agree. As it is not, I cannot.
Can I? I have, before. I have conceeded mandatory training will do wonders for reducing not only the miniscule number of accidental firearms deaths per year, but also in raising the level of consciousness towards guns amongst gun owners.
My caveat would be a safeguard (yet TBD) against making the training regime too inaccessable for those wishing to partake; IOW, no onerous burdens, such as “one class a year, 10 people maximum, $3,000 course fee, etc, etc.”
I have concede that mandatory storgae requirement would greatly reduce the est. 60% of the firearms stolen from private domiciles and getting into criminals hands.
My caveat would be some safeguards against unreasonable search and siezure; basic 4th Ad. stuff.
I have conceeded that registration and licensing plans have some valid points.
My concern (leading to objection) is not that they will in-and-of themselves lead to bans and tools of confiscation, but that they will be used as tools by even more extreme gun control advocates, in much the way that Freedom pointed out earlier in this thread, and in which I am in total accord with.
The problem is, you see, is that laws are subject to amendment; that’s the beauty, and the peril, of our governmental system. We may reach some theoretical point of gun control legislation in which you, minty, and RTFirefly are satisfied, and leave the issue alone. But what about those who are not satisfied, will not be satisfied, until private ownership of firearms is gone the way of the dodo?
Will you, minty, or RTFirefly stand with us in that battle? To preserve our reduced rights from even further erosion?
Back to minty: (I’m working my way through the thread post-by-post.)
What about the schlep in NYC or DC, who, IIRC, was busted and charged w/possession of an unregistered firearm. He (his atty.) argued sucessfully on 5 Ad. grounds that, since his client was a criminal, and therefore could not legally register his [illegal] firearms w/o incriminating himself, he was not guilty?
Wish I could find that case again; I’ll dig around a bit and see if I can turn it up once again.
Having gone through the rest of this thread from there, I can see how this is developing. Tine to grab the asbestos undies, batten the hatches, storm-reef the mainsails (sorry, been reading my Patrick O’Brian lately; Jack Aubrey’s got Horatio Hornblower beat hands-down, IMHO).
Or perhaps run out my guns for a few broadsides as I pass aweather.
Depends what you mean by “stand by us.” If it ever came to that (which it will not at any time in the foreseeable future, I assure you), I would support candidates and legislation opposing that general ban. I would certainly not participate in any actual or threatened violence, nor support those who did.
Beat you to it. You’re looking for Haynes v. U.S., linked and discussed by yrs. trly. towards the end of page 2. The thing about that case was that the law pretty much only applied to people who were breaking the law by possessing guns in the first place. It was, essentially, a law that said “Hey you criminals, come down here and admit your crime or we’ll charge you with not admitting your crime.” That’s rather different from a law of general applicability. And in fact, people are legally required to admit criminal activity on generally applicable government forms all the time–e.g., customs declaration forms and tax returns. Make the registration universal, and the Court’s concern in Haynes disappears.
But of course. Like I said, I don’t see any hard figures on where the guns in D.C. come from (though they certainly come from outside the District, since they don’t blossom on the cherry trees each spring). If you’re so concerned, feel free to Google some data yourself.
It would seem that the first, fourth, ninth, and maybe other amendments, then, protect “collective” rights - similar to the Soviet “collective” right to free speech.
ExTank, fair enough, and certainly reasonable enough. If I’ve missed some of your detailed points in this long thread, I apologize for making you repeat them.
Regarding your fear that the extremists will take over, though, I have to disagree. If the popular groundswell for outright banning becomes strong enough that it might actually occur, then it’s by definition not extreme. And even if it’s a coup of some sort, then we’ll finally get to see what a “well-regulated militia” is, won’t we? As the world is today, I do not see a value in banning hunting or target-shooting outright, since you asked, but we also have to be realistic. If the situation changes, then laws change - that’s why they change. If it were to become clear to the bulk of society that a change is needed in that direction, then we would have to consider what was to be done about it, just as other democracies have done.
Besides your puzzling punch-pulling about the extremism of the paranoid fantasizing hard-line militia types, I think our only major point of disagreement, actually, is in calling gun ownership a fundamental right. The law of the land, since 1939 at least if not since the Constitutional Conventions, is that it’s strictly limited to the regulation of militias. You don’t have to like that, but it doesn’t change its reality. I would further assert that it’s a moral standard as well as a legal one. The value of preventing more accidental and crime-of-opportunity deaths, even if you call them “minuscule” (which they are not, by world standards), certainly means more to civilized society than many of the ardently-pro-gun side seems to want to discuss.
Well, all that extremists need to gain support for their ideals is not necessarily numbers… just apathy on the part of a good bit of the population, and a good PR department. One of my fears is that some extremely anti-gun politician manages to slip in some legislation that manages to significantly hamper the rights of gun-owners primarily because very few people gave a damn about educating themselves as to the full content of that legislation.
I’ll admit, however, that an outright, country-wide ban is very unlikely in the foreseeable future.
Fair enough… I’ve been trying to keep myself from getting upset with people on a simple difference of opinion.
But, beyond the arguments of “right/no right”, I will also say that I think that gun ownership does less harm than good, so it’s not only a debate about how one sees natural rights (of course, crime statistics and gun cost/benefits have been debated to death a million times).
True, although it is my opinion that accidents and opportunistic crimes are overblown (even if they are tragic). I know you’ve heard the typical comparisons to swimming pools and jump ropes, so I’ll spare you them again.
But when it comes to Court interpretations… well, there’s not much we can do about what the Courts have said, so our only recourse in that regard is to present our stances on the issue and hope that, through reasonable debating and examination of the evidence, they will change their minds in the future.
It’s too bad that some pro-gun people can be a bad example for their cause (as I have been once or twice, admittedly).
Oh, I don’t know about that.
The Supreme Court banned the death penalty for a number of years, and almost every poll taken on the subject before and during showed strong general support for the DP. And I was not aware of a tremendous surge of grass roots pressure to bring about Roe v. Wade, either.
If and when guns are banned, it will not be because 51% of the public thinks it is a good idea. A 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court will hold that “well-regulated” means that the federal government is required to control all guns in the US, and that the Justice Department must confiscate all weapons in private hands. The states will be given 90 days to comply. After that, any person in possession of a firearm will be subject to felony arrest.
And all gun owners who fail to comply will be prosecuted as “domestic terrorists”. We are all against terrorism - aren’t we?
Regards,
Shodan