Celebrating The 2nd Amendment One Fine Firearm At A Time

[BLADEMDA]

"Since Heller, with few exceptions, lower courts have upheld restrictions that stopped short of handgun bans. To take one highly relevant example, judges — liberal and conservative alike — have agreed that assault weapon bans are constitutional, upholding them in the District of Columbia, New York, Connecticut and Highland Park, Ill.. Judges also generally agree that it is lawful to restrict concealed carry permits to only those people who can show some heightened need for armed self-defense in public. Just last week, an 11-judge panel upheld such a restriction in California. And assault weapon bans and restrictions on concealed carry are only the most contentious Second Amendment issues. Judges also have held that background checks, safe storage requirements, age limitations and other regulations are constitutional."

There Is No Constitutional Bar to Further Gun Control - NYTimes.com

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[BLADEMDA]

I think we all understand the principled arguments for gun rights but it leaves in its wake the reality of death, maiming and suffering of innocents.

We live in a Constitutional Republic. If you can convince enough legislators at the State or Federal Level to ban "Assault Weapons" then by all means lobby hard to do so. At the same time, the second amendment and the NRA will oppose you every step of the way.

I see both sides of the argument and see the need for common sense regulation on AR15 weapons; but, I don't trust liberal politicians whatsoever on this topic.

Despite your views on this matter the USA has been a second amendment nation since 1789. The second amendment is simply part of who we are as a nation. If you want to change that in a dramatic fashion then repeal or replace the second amendment.

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Opinion | Repeal the Second Amendment

"Americans who claim to be outraged by gun crimes should want to do something more than tinker at the margins of a legal regime that most of the developed world rightly considers nuts. They should want to change it fundamentally and permanently.

There is only one way to do this: Repeal the Second Amendment."

 

[RadOncDoc21]

I believe the 2nd Amendment gives me the lawful right to own and carry a gun. I have a Concealed Carry Permit. Unless you change the constitution the founders gave me the second amendment as my only necessary argument to own and carry a gun. Reasonable gun laws should not allow only the rich and powerful to own and carry a gun like in NYC. Any citizen of NYC should be afforded the same rights and privileges as the Elite; unfortunately, that is not the case so only three groups of people carry guns in NYC:

1. Law Enforcement

2. Elite/Rich or their security guards

3. Criminals

Hence, I find cities like NYC violate the spirit, if the not the very intent, of the second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Because these "unconstitutional" laws exist reasonable gun owners across the USA don't trust liberal politicians on this issue. If I have to choose between "assault weapons as legal" or the liberal point of view on guns I know how I'd vote every single time.

Again, I’m Not trying to take away your handgun. I just don’t believe in the “good guy with a gun” argument.

For all I know a “good guy” would consider me a “bad guy” one day (George Zimmerman).

For the record, not all “liberals” believe in taking away your 2nd amendment rights. I believe there is a middle ground where there is no need for an assault rifle.

 

[pgg]

Just curious, what weapon should be beyond the purview of ownership by citizens, keeping the 2nd amendment in mind? Is there anything we shouldn’t be allowed to protect ourselves with when the government starts it’s door to door searches?

That’s a good question.

I think that line should probably be drawn at the point where a weapon ceases to be controllable by one person, and reliably targeted at one person. So, to take the most extreme examples, nuclear biological and chemical weapons are out, because they target indiscriminately. More realistically, bombs and explosive munitions might be a reasonable line. Crew-served weapons. The NFA regulates “destructive devices” like grenades, cannons / large caliber weapons, rockets, land mines.

Man portable small arms, like the semi-automatic rifles that are sloppily labeled as “assault rifles”, are clearly within the limits of the 2nd Amendment.


Again, I’ve never argued against limits to the right or regulation, only outright bans, punitive taxes, and other measures taken to make it difficult or expensive for ordinary people to exercise the right. Background checks, due process to revoke an individual’s right, training requirements (the class and proficiency demonstration for concealed carry permits in most states are reasonable, for example). We just need to be careful not to make the time, cost, and difficulty of the regulation so onerous that ordinary people are unable to comply or are discouraged from trying. The courts have a phrase that encapsulates this well: strict scrutiny.

But “reasonable common sense regulation” gave us things like the Chicago and DC handgun bans, the impossibility of obtaining carry permits in places like New York and most of California, the semi-automatic rifle ban in California, and the federal AWB that was in effect from 1994 to 2004. All of these things are very clearly a violation of the spirit and letter of the 2nd Amendment. So given this overreach by the gun control lobby, I’m not inclined to extend the benefit of the doubt or compromise an inch on anything. They simply don’t act in good faith, and their goal is nothing short of a complete ban of all privately owned firearms.

 

[pgg]

Again, I’m Not trying to take away your handgun.

That’s great, but many on your side do.

The 1934 NFA was originally written to ban all handguns and rifles with barrels under 16”. Handguns were removed from the law at the last moment, but the odd bit about short barreled rifles remained.

Handguns were banned in Chicago and DC until recently.

Your side has been working diligently to take away our handguns for the better part of a century. And we know that if you succeed in convincing the legislature and the courts that taking away our “assault rifles” is a good idea, immediately afterward you’ll rationalize that handguns should be next ... because handguns are used to kill far, far more people than rifles.

 

[pgg]

I just can’t fathom why you care so much about a weapon that some mentally deranged people use to kill innocents, when there are so many other weapons to choose from.

And I can’t fathom why you care so much about rifles - specifically the AR15 - when they account for less than 1-2% of the firearms used to murder people.

Is it because you’re unaware of how few people are murdered wth rifles?

Is it because you know that handguns are the weapon used in the vast majority of firearm homicides, but you’ve either
A) given up on banning handguns in light of Heller and McDonald, or
B) are strategically waiting to try to ban handguns until after you’ve succeeded in banning rifles?

Is it because you think the black color, pistol grip, and shoulder thing that goes up are scary? (I’m not being sarcastic; the current CA and 1994 federal bans were almost entirely based on the presence of cosmetic features - to the point that a market for “featureless” rifles developed.)

Is it because you’re unaware that the AR15 is much less powerful than a typical deer rifle, and that a rifle ban that had internally consistent “power based” logic would ban hunting rifles as well as the scary AR15?

Is it because you’re unaware that the AR15 is the most popular sporting target rifle in the USA today because it’s inexpensive, ergonomic, accurate, and low recoil - and that banning it would impact the the “sportsmen and hunters” your side claims to care about?

 

[pgg]

seems like you forgot ruby ridge and waco.....

As bad as those events were, it seems to me that both involved extended standoffs that could’ve been peacefully ended at any time by the people who wound up dead.

I think the main reason the Branch Dildonians weren’t forcibly cleared out of that wildlife refuge was because of the backlash from Waco. And even so I’m not convinced that a more ethnic group would’ve received the same patience.

As for tense encounters with law enforcement involving seconds or minutes ... I think it’s pretty clear that the healthier option is to be white.

We’ve got non-white people on this forum who’ve stated in the past that they choose not to exercise their 2A rights in part because they think the risk associated with ordinary LE interactions is nonzero. That’s not right.

 

[Southpaw]

the “sportsmen and hunters” your side claims to care about?

The mischaracterization inherent in your posts is frustrating and makes me even less inclined to engage in debate (I mostly lurk here and enjoy reading, but typically decline to post as my time and efforts are in other places). I myself am a sportsmen and hunter. I’ve never once considered using an assault rifle for hunting reasons, and all of my friends feel the same. I do admit that I’m more inclined to find solace on a trout stream than I am hunting, though I greatly enjoy both.

Your argument is passionate and very much Ben Shapiro-like. I really enjoy listening to him, but if you can’t see reasons for abuse of handguns vs reasons for abuse of assault rifles, and the damage that each has the ability to inflict before an innocent crowd can disperse (put another way, the number of soft targets that a maniac could take out), then I have neither the time or energy to explain it. As I’ve said before, nothing stated here or anywhere, will change either of our opinions.

So that being said, I’m going back to lurking. Thanks for the good debate and your completely reasonable and passionate responses.

 

[Southpaw]

And I can’t fathom why you care so much about rifles - specifically the AR15 - when they account for less than 1-2% of the firearms used to murder people.

Is it because you’re unaware of how few people are murdered wth rifles?

I’ve already stated my reasons we should ban assault rifles and keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. The numbers are irrelevant, as I acknowledged the Ben Shapiro argument earlier.

 

[Man o War]

Someone please tell me what an assault rifle is? This is like "MDA". Totally made up by liberals.
I have guns that I've been told are assault rifles, but then told are not. So who's going to decide what qualifies as an "assault rifle" if they are banned?
I contacted all my congresspeople, and none of them can agree on what an assault rifle is.

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Someone please tell me what an assault rifle is? This is like "MDA". Totally made up by liberals.
I have guns that I've been told are assault rifles, but then told are not. So who's going to decide what qualifies as an "assault rifle" if they are banned?
I contacted all my congresspeople, and none of them can agree on what an assault rifle is.

Would it matter?

 

[nimbus]

Fair enough. You are both correct.

I didn't articulate my objection very well. What I dislike are the very phrases “gun deaths” and “gun violence”. Words and phrases have literal meanings as well as idiomatic, implied, and common use meanings.

When a person uses the phrase “gun violence” in a discussion about gun control, the meaning is typically “guns are the problem, guns are the cause, and violence is the result” ... this is not a good way to start a discussion or study, unless you have a conclusion and remedy in mind already and are going fishing for supporting data.

In the context of a gun control discussion, a phrase like “violent crime in which a firearm is used” is more neutral than “gun violence” and doesn’t carry the baggage I mentioned (assigning blame and implying a solution in the assertion of a vaguely defined problem). Words are powerful and can subtly or overtly steer a discussion or research toward a preferred answer.

The people calling for “study” are universally passionate gun control advocates, so I am especially sensitive to and picky about the words they choose.

I've actually worried about the same thing. However, I don't have the vocabulary necessary.

The phrase "violent crime in which a firearm is used" seems inefficient at best and misleading. Although I can not just now accurately quote the percentage, a ?majority, IIRC (I will google later and update this post), of gun deaths are not crimes but suicides.

I think this highlights my primary concern: until we can agree on that there is a problem that needs to be studied and addressed (and that includes definitions of the terms and problem itself), I think we will get nowhere.

Currently, the issue is defined by the "gun control" side and so the language most commonly used is "gun violence". Perhaps the NRA or a sportsman's organization or other could join the discussion and help define the problem and terms.

HH

Call it whatever you like. We all know what we are talking about. The problem is a concerted effort to impede data collection and define the problem.

After Another Mass Shooting, Fear of Data Threatens Us All

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

And I can’t fathom why you care so much about rifles - specifically the AR15 - when they account for less than 1-2% of the firearms used to murder people.

Is it because you’re unaware of how few people are murdered wth rifles?

Is it because you know that handguns are the weapon used in the vast majority of firearm homicides, but you’ve either
A) given up on banning handguns in light of Heller and McDonald, or
B) are strategically waiting to try to ban handguns until after you’ve succeeded in banning rifles?

Is it because you think the black color, pistol grip, and shoulder thing that goes up are scary? (I’m not being sarcastic; the current CA and 1994 federal bans were almost entirely based on the presence of cosmetic features - to the point that a market for “featureless” rifles developed.)

Is it because you’re unaware that the AR15 is much less powerful than a typical deer rifle, and that a rifle ban that had internally consistent “power based” logic would ban hunting rifles as well as the scary AR15?

Is it because you’re unaware that the AR15 is the most popular sporting target rifle in the USA today because it’s inexpensive, ergonomic, accurate, and low recoil - and that banning it would impact the the “sportsmen and hunters” your side claims to care about?

The deer rifle thing always gets me.

My first deer rifle was semi-automatic, armor piercing (because every .30-06 is), and had a detachable magazine.

Terrifying, isn't it?

 

[Man o War]

Would it matter?

Yes it matters when we are talking about confiscation of private property.

 

[pgg]

Yes it matters when we are talking about confiscation of private property.

Careful, that gives them an easy out. They can generously agree to grandfather current guns and gun owners in, but make it illegal to buy new ones. Upon the death of the owner, the gun gets destroyed. See, no “confiscation”. But it’s a ban for future generations.

And a gun owner who compromises in this way merely trades away the rights of his children for a bit of a grace period.

The 1986 Hughes Amendment didn’t “confiscate” any select fire arms, or even add further restrictions to existing ones. But over the last 30 years it has become impossible for a person who doesn’t have $20,000 - $30,000 of disposable income to acquire one.

It’s totally indefensible that the bar for exercising a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution is wealth. These punitive taxes and artificially restricted markets are the government thumb on the scale to prevent citizens from exercising their rights. It’s undemocratic, unamerican, classist, and wrong - but it’s a staple of gun control tactics.

California has avoided “confiscation” with registration grace periods, non-transferability laws, and bans on new sales, importation, and manufacture.

 

[deleted480308]

As bad as those events were, it seems to me that both involved extended standoffs that could’ve been peacefully ended at any time by the people who wound up dead.

I think the main reason the Branch Dildonians weren’t forcibly cleared out of that wildlife refuge was because of the backlash from Waco. And even so I’m not convinced that a more ethnic group would’ve received the same patience.

As for tense encounters with law enforcement involving seconds or minutes ... I think it’s pretty clear that the healthier option is to be white.

We’ve got non-white people on this forum who’ve stated in the past that they choose not to exercise their 2A rights in part because they think the risk associated with ordinary LE interactions is nonzero. That’s not right.

just google “open carry stop” and you can see a hundred white guys mistreated by leos on tape....

It’s far more a govt vs everyone else thing than a race thing

 

[RadOncDoc21]

Yes it matters when we are talking about confiscation of private property.

So if I privately owned a nuclear weapon that’s ok... got it!

 

[Man o War]

So if I privately owned a nuclear weapon that’s ok... got it!

See, this is classic gun control mentality. I think we all know there is a difference between a nuclear weapon and my rifles that I shoot skeet and targets with, which have assaulted exactly nothing besides some clay pigeons and paper targets.
And this is always the type of response I get when I ask one of you what an assault rifle is....because you use "assault rifle" to evoke an emotional response.

 

[Man o War]

Careful, that gives them an easy out. They can generously agree to grandfather current guns and gun owners in, but make it illegal to buy new ones. Upon the death of the owner, the gun gets destroyed. See, no “confiscation”. But it’s a ban for future generations.

And a gun owner who compromises in this way merely trades away the rights of his children for a bit of a grace period.

The 1986 Hughes Amendment didn’t “confiscate” any select fire arms, or even add further restrictions to existing ones. But over the last 30 years it has become impossible for a person who doesn’t have $20,000 - $30,000 of disposable income to acquire one.

It’s totally indefensible that the bar for exercising a right specifically enumerated in the Constitution is wealth. These punitive taxes and artificially restricted markets are the government thumb on the scale to prevent citizens from exercising their rights. It’s undemocratic, unamerican, classist, and wrong - but it’s a staple of gun control tactics.

California has avoided “confiscation” with registration grace periods, non-transferability laws, and bans on new sales, importation, and manufacture.

You're exactly right. No arguments from me on anything you've posted here on the subject.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

Now it looks like he indeed was a prohibited person, but the Air Force failed to report his conviction.

The rational response to a failure to apply and enforce existing laws is not to pass more laws.

Couldn’t he have just gone to a gun show or private seller?

 

[pgg]

Couldn’t he have just gone to a gun show or private seller?

A private seller, yes.

A gun show? Purchases from a dealer st a gun show require a background check. There’s no “gun show loophole” - that is a deliberate lie put forth by gun control advocates.

Private sellers in some states may skip the background check. If there’s a “loophole” that is it.

 

[deleted480308]

Couldn’t he have just gone to a gun show or private seller?

Not legally

 

[Pooh & Annie]

A private seller, yes.

A gun show? Purchases from a dealer st a fun show require a background check. There’s no “gun show loophole” - that is a deliberate lie put forth by gun control advocates.

Private sellers in some states may skip the background check. If there’s a “loophole” that is it.

If a seller at a gun show says he doesn’t make a living by selling guns, then don’t they get a pass?

Either way, if this guy wanted a gun and to avoid background checks, he had ways. He shouldn’t. And anyone selling him one SHOULD face severe penalty. That isn’t currently the case.

 

[deleted480308]

If a seller at a gun show says he doesn’t make a living by selling guns, then don’t they get a pass?

Either way, if this guy wanted a gun and to avoid background checks, he had ways. He shouldn’t. And anyone selling him one SHOULD face severe penalty. That isn’t currently the case.

So you want a registry that tracks the serial numbers of every gun in the country and who has what guns at all times? Because that’s what it takes to enforce private transfer background checks....and it isn’t happening

 

[pgg]

So if I privately owned a nuclear weapon that’s ok... got it!

This is an angry, emotional, and incoherent response. Like most gun control arguments, totally devoid of substance.

It’s also funny, because I specifically addressed nuclear weapons in my reply to Southpaw a few posts back, and gave a simple rationale for why individual ownership of such weapons shouldn’t be permitted.

But you insist on posing this nonsense strawman of a conjecture anyway. This tells me you’re more interested in angry petulant venting, and eyerollingly childish gotcha games, not discussion.

But we’re the ones who refuse to have a conversation about gun control. Right.

 

[pgg]

If a seller at a gun show says he doesn’t make a living by selling guns, then don’t they get a pass?

The law is specific. Sell X guns in Y time, you must have a Federal Firearms License and conduct your business accordingly.

It’s not fuzzy, and it’s not based on what the seller “claims” ... it’s X and Y.

Either way, if this guy wanted a gun and to avoid background checks, he had ways. He shouldn’t. And anyone selling him one SHOULD face severe penalty. That isn’t currently the case.

That’s a fair criticism.

And you’ll find that few of us would really object to universal background checks ... IF they were to be implemented in a way that doesn’t create a registry. The devil is in that detail.

One problem is that the people who write bills for universal background checks can’t help themselves; they WANT the registry. A registry is unacceptable, full stop. And we’ll never agree to the universal checks so long as that poison is included. They write these poisoned laws and then complain that we won’t take the poison.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

So you want a registry that tracks the serial numbers of every gun in the country and who has what guns at all times? Because that’s what it takes to enforce private transfer background checks....and it isn’t happening

No. I want everyone who sells or gives someone a gun to make sure the purchaser isn’t a major risk for killing many people with it. That shouldn’t require a registry. Maybe it should be required to go through a dealer.
Either way, I think a “well-regulated militia” could potentially include registration. Considering the tens of thousands of deaths annually.

 

[Pooh & Annie]

And you’ll find that few of us would really object to universal background checks ... IF they were to be implemented in a way that doesn’t create a registry. The devil is in that detail.

One problem is that the people who write bills for universal background checks can’t help themselves; they WANT the registry. A registry is unacceptable, full stop. And we’ll never agree to the universal checks so long as that poison is included. They write these poisoned laws and then complain that we won’t take the poison.

This is where we disagree.

If background checks could be done privately without a registry, I’d be fine with that. I haven’t thought eno

If we had to have a registry to make sure every purchaser has a background check, I’d have to support that.

 

[nimbus]

The law is specific. Sell X guns in Y time, you must have a Federal Firearms License and conduct your business accordingly.

It’s not fuzzy, and it’s not based on what the seller “claims” ... it’s X and Y.




That’s a fair criticism.

And you’ll find that few of us would really object to universal background checks ... IF they were to be implemented in a way that doesn’t create a registry. The devil is in that detail.

One problem is that the people who write bills for universal background checks can’t help themselves; they WANT the registry. A registry is unacceptable, full stop. And we’ll never agree to the universal checks so long as that poison is included. They write these poisoned laws and then complain that we won’t take the poison.

We register cars and boats and motorcycles. Why can’t we register guns??

 

[deleted480308]

No. I want everyone who sells or gives someone a gun to make sure the purchaser isn’t a major risk for killing many people with it. That shouldn’t require a registry. Maybe it should be required to go through a dealer.
Either way, I think a “well-regulated militia” could potentially include registration. Considering the tens of thousands of deaths annually.

It's already a crime to knowingly sell to someone who isn't legal to own. And you can't track all those private sales as the govt without a registry. So, no.....you don't get background checks on private sales

We register cars and boats and motorcycles. Why can we register guns??

We shouldn't have to register cars/boats/motorcycles

 

[Man o War]

Let's be real here, if there is a registry, there will be a hefty fee/tax/fine to go along with that. And as PGG has pointed out, that prevents lower income individuals from exercising their right to bear arms. I would think Democrats would have a problem with that.

 

[nimbus]

Let's be real here, if there is a registry, there will be a hefty fee/tax/fine to go along with that. And as PGG has pointed out, that prevents lower income individuals from exercising their right to bear arms. I would think Democrats would have a problem with that.

Lower income people can’t do a lot of stuff. But I’m glad you’re concerned about their rights. Maybe next election you can help them get to voting booths.

 

[Twiggidy]

just google “open carry stop” and you can see a hundred white guys mistreated by leos on tape....

It’s far more a govt vs everyone else thing than a race thing

big difference between mistreated and dead, boss.

 

[Man o War]

Lower income people can’t do a lot of stuff. But I’m glad you’re concerned about their rights. Maybe next election you can help them get to voting booths.

Yes. Which is why I don't identify with either party. Both like to trample on everyone else's rights as long as it suits their agenda. Too much emotion, too little logic.

 

[Twiggidy]

We shouldn't have to register cars/boats/motorcycles

Why not? Cars, boats, and motorcycles are registered for a reason.

 

[deleted480308]

big difference between mistreated and dead, boss.

When you actually look at the numbers, people who stay out of trouble tend to not have too many run ins with police. There have been a number of obvious screw ups by cops and I'm a big voice saying they should get criminal charges and time when they act out of line.....but the narrative that all of the high profile deaths were actually the cops fault? it's not true

Why not? Cars, boats, and motorcycles are registered for a reason.

they shouldn't have to be registered with the govt. We can agree to disagree or you can attempt to justify it to me and we'll talk it out, I'm fine either way

 

[pgg]

We register cars and boats and motorcycles. Why can’t we register guns??

Ah, an appearance of Standard Debunked Gun Control Argument Number 7. It’s like finding the Watchmaker Argument in a creationism vs evolution thread.


One must only register cars and boats and motorcycles if one wishes to operate them on publicly funded and maintained roads and waterways.

You don’t need a drivers license or a sticker on a license plate to own and operate these things on private property.

Furthermore, the right to possess and operate these things is not a civil right enumerated in the Constitution. Laws impacting such rights are held to a higher standard - while SCOTUS hasn’t yet ruled on what level of scrutiny shall be applied to the 2A, it’s stands to reason that the same level of scrutiny required for regulating speech, the press, etc should be applied.

Congress could outlaw the use of gas powered automobiles on public roads tomorrow and it would be difficult to ground an objection to that action in the Constitution.


Most states require licensure and some standardized training for carrying a firearm in public. This is a reasonable regulation of the right; my only real objection hinges on the way such licensing creates a registry of gun owners. (I choose to accept and compromise on that, partly because I’m already in the NFA registry, so being in the CCW registry isn’t meaningfully worse.) Locales that ban either open or concealed carry entirely, such as DC and NYC, are clearly violating the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment. (Pre Heller and McDonald, they could argue that the 2A didn’t apply to state and local government; today they are simply ignoring the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms”.)


I would urge you to start thinking of armed self defense as a civil right, every bit as important as freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom to assemble, or freedom to be secure in your home and papers. Any regulation of any of these rights should be done ONLY for a compelling, clearly described, limited government interest, and the law should be narrowly tailored to ONLY achieve that specific interest, and the law should employ ONLY the least restrictive means possible to achieve that end.

This is, by the way, the legal definition of “strict scrutiny” that must be applied to any regulation of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment.

Requiring citizens to obtain a government-issued license to exercise a civil right, and requiring them to register the tools needed to exercise that right, is a perilous road to travel.

 

[Twiggidy]

Ah, an appearance of Standard Debunked Gun Control Argument Number 7. It’s like finding the Watchmaker Argument in a creationism vs evolution thread.


One must only register cars and boats and motorcycles if one wishes to operate them on publicly funded and maintained roads and waterways.

You don’t need a drivers license or a sticker on a license plate to own and operate these things on private property.

Furthermore, the right to possess and operate these things is not a civil right enumerated in the Constitution. Laws impacting such rights are held to a higher standard - while SCOTUS hasn’t yet ruled on what level of scrutiny shall be applied to the 2A, it’s stands to reason that the same level of scrutiny required for regulating speech, the press, etc should be applied.

Congress could outlaw the use of gas powered automobiles on public roads tomorrow and it would be difficult to ground an objection to that action in the Constitution.


Most states require licensure and some standardized training for carrying a firearm in public. This is a reasonable regulation of the right; my only real objection hinges on the way such licensing creates a registry of gun owners. (I choose to accept and compromise on that, partly because I’m already in the NFA registry, so being in the CCW registry isn’t meaningfully worse.) Locales that ban either open or concealed carry entirely, such as DC and NYC, are clearly violating the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment. (Pre Heller and McDonald, they could argue that the 2A didn’t apply to state and local government; today they are simply ignoring the “bear” part of “keep and bear arms”.)


I would urge you to start thinking of armed self defense as a civil right, every bit as important as freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, or freedom to assemble, or freedom to be secure in your home and papers. Any regulation of any of these rights should be done ONLY for a compelling, clearly described, limited government interest, and the law should be narrowly tailored to ONLY achieve that specific interest, and the law should employ ONLY the least restrictive means possible to achieve that end.

This is, by the way, the legal definition of “strict scrutiny” that must be applied to any regulation of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment.

Requiring citizens to obtain a government-issued license to exercise a civil right, and requiring them to register the tools needed to exercise that right, is a perilous road to travel.

What you're saying makes sense, but can I counterpoint just for the sake of debate.

So we register cars/motos/boats etc because they're operated on public roadways, to paraphrase and I get that, so your argument against is that most gun owners would use their guns on private property?

Wouldn't that somewhat contradict open carrying, because now you have your rightful owned gun in public. And aren't most hunting areas not private, ie federal lands (i'm honestly not sure of the answer and asking) because i would argue if you are hunting on federal/state property vs someone's personal backyard then that would maybe support a gun that's registered being used?

 

[Twiggidy]

When you actually look at the numbers, people who stay out of trouble tend to not have too many run ins with police. There have been a number of obvious screw ups by cops and I'm a big voice saying they should get criminal charges and time when they act out of line.....but the narrative that all of the high profile deaths were actually the cops fault? it's not true


they shouldn't have to be registered with the govt. We can agree to disagree or you can attempt to justify it to me and we'll talk it out, I'm fine either way

simple response.....
in the eyes of the police...you carrying a gun and me carrying a gun is not view equally and the interaction with police will not be the same. that's what PGG was getting at and it's sad but true.

 

[deleted480308]

What you're saying makes sense, but can I counterpoint just for the sake of debate.

So we register cars/motos/boats etc because they're operated on public roadways, to paraphrase and I get that, so your argument against is that most gun owners would use their guns on private property?

Wouldn't that somewhat contradict open carrying, because now you have your rightful owned gun in public. And aren't most hunting areas not private, ie federal lands (i'm honestly not sure of the answer and asking) because i would argue if you are hunting on federal/state property vs someone's personal backyard then that would maybe support a gun that's registered being used?

as both a natural and a recognized federal right, someone shouldn't have to register a gun anymore than they should have to register with the govt to speak out loud or pick a religion

 

[deleted480308]

simple response.....
in the eyes of the police...you carrying a gun and me carrying a gun is not view equally and the interaction with police will not be the same. that's what PGG was getting at and it's sad but true.

and a guy dressing and acting like President Obama isn't viewed the same as a rando dealer working the corner.....your behavior determines far more about how you are treated than your race

 

[Twiggidy]

and a guy dressing and acting like President Obama isn't viewed the same as a rando dealer working the corner.....your behavior determines far more about how you are treated than your race

i didn't realize we had a dress code ....if i'm not in a suit and tie and i get roughed up by the police it's my fault for having poor style choices? just because i like to wear a basketball jersey, now i'm considered a drug dealer.

how many non-people of color on this thread look in their closet and say, "I better dress appropriately so I don't get roughed up by the cops"?

enough with the 'evil scary gangster dark skinned people' rhetoric.

i'll ask again, do you think the white guy with a gun dressed as "Eminem" is view the same as a black guy with a gun dressed as "Eminem" by the police? that's what PGG's point is

 

[nimbus]

as both a natural and a recognized federal right, someone shouldn't have to register a gun anymore than they should have to register with the govt to speak out loud or pick a religion

You have to register to vote and it’s a constitutional right. Let’s get rid of voter registration too. EVERYBODY gets to carry guns to the polls.

 

[Twiggidy]

 

[pgg]

as both a natural and a recognized federal right, someone shouldn't have to register a gun anymore than they should have to register with the govt to speak out loud or pick a religion

Well -

To play devils advocate, while one doesn’t have to register one’s voice to speak, if one wants to run a radio station in certain bands at certain powers to broadcast that voice, there are some regulations to be followed and and licenses to be had. So the tool matters ... and more interestingly, regulation of the tool may be more necessary because of its indirect / side effects than its primary purpose. The tool can be regulated ... to an extent.

How much should it be regulated? Strict scrutiny. That’s how much.

I don’t believe most current CCW licensing schemes, as implemented, comply with strict scrutiny.

If leg 1 (compelling government interest) is to prevent incompetently dangerous persons from carrying in public, and

Leg 2 (narrowly tailored law) is to require persons to get a license to carry in public to ensure a minimum level of competence and safety, then

Leg 3 (least restrictive means possible) might be a class, demonstration of proficiency, and demonstration of understanding of applicable laws related to the use of force in self defense, followed by issue of a license.

That’s simple, narrow, reasonable, and I think fee gun owners would strenuously object ... if that’s where it ended.

I point out that leg 3 does NOT include a registry of people or the firearms to be carried. This is not necessary to achieve the compelling government interest states in leg 1. A license could be printed like a photo ID. If lost, start over, get a new one. No registry required.


But as SCOTUS hasn’t yet ruled on scrutiny and the 2A, I don’t really have a solid legal argument to object to the registry included with current CCW laws. Just a moral argument against it.

 

[deleted480308]

i didn't realize we had a dress code ....if i'm not in a suit and tie and i get roughed up by the police it's my fault for having poor style choices? just because i like to wear a basketball jersey, now i'm considered a drug dealer.

how many non-people of color on this thread look in their closet and say, "I better dress appropriately so I don't get roughed up by the cops"?

enough with the 'evil scary gangster dark skinned people' rhetoric.

i'll ask again, do you think the white guy with a gun dressed as "Eminem" is view the same as a black guy with a gun dressed as "Eminem" by the police? that's what PGG's point is

I'm saying, and I'm sticking to this...that people who act properly don't nearly have the same issues with cops as people who don't. I know A LOT of white guys that carry, and they do actually pay attention to how they dress. And they do pay attention to how they behave. And they do pay very careful attention to all interactions with police officers. And yes, some guy looking like eminem or riff raff gets treated different than a guy dressed like a businessman.

You have to register to vote and it’s a constitutional right. Let’s get rid of voter registration too. EVERYBODY gets to carry guns to the polls.

everyone should be able to carry their guns to polls, it's stupid that you can't

The reason to have registration is to avoid misrepresentation, no one should be allowed to cast a vote in my name. I have to show I'm me when I cast the vote. Carrying isn't a limited resource in the same way, someone else carrying doesn't stop me from carrying.

 

[pgg]

You have to register to vote and it’s a constitutional right. Let’s get rid of voter registration too. EVERYBODY gets to carry guns to the polls.

Another emotional non-sequitor and incorrect statement. You can argue better than this.

Even licensed carry of firearms is prohibited in certain sensitive areas. Mostly federal property (we can argue whether that’s justified or not elsewhere) ... but also places where the presence of a firearm is unacceptable for other reasons.

Sterile areas of airports.
Courthouses.
VOTING BOOTHS.

Free speech is limited around polls. No campaign signs within 50 or 100 feet (I don’t recall if this is state or federal law?) and no campaigning, either. The purpose is to prevent voter intimidation at the polls. This is a perfectly Constitutional and appropriate regulation of free speech, in a limited area, for a limited time, for a specific compelling government interest.

For the same reason, carry of firearms is generally prohibited around polling booths. Some places, even the police are prohibited from approaching within 100 feet of a polling booth unless they are going to vote.


I wonder though, can you reconcile the Democratic resistance to voter ID laws with Democratic enthusiasm for requiring people to get permits to own guns?

If getting an ID in order to vote every couple years is an excessive burden to place on one civil right, surely getting a permit to exercise a different civil right is just as excessive and inappropriate a burden.

 

[pgg]

everyone should be able to carry their guns to polls, it's stupid that you can't

This hill isn’t worth dying on.

There are real historic reasons to be sensitive to even the barest hint of voter intimidation at polling places. I don’t have a problem with prohibiting all political speech and weapons near voter booths. I don’t view that as an infringement - particularly since you have the option of voting absentee and avoiding the situation entirely.

 

[deleted480308]

This hill isn’t worth dying on.

There are real historic reasons to be sensitive to even the barest hint of voter intimidation at polling places. I don’t have a problem with prohibiting all political speech and weapons near voter booths. I don’t view that as an infringement - particularly since you have the option of voting absentee and avoiding the situation entirely.

concealed carry doesn't intimidate anyone.

I'm willing to acknowledge the potential issue with open carry in a voting venue

 

[pgg]

No. I want everyone who sells or gives someone a gun to make sure the purchaser isn’t a major risk for killing many people with it. That shouldn’t require a registry. Maybe it should be required to go through a dealer.

California requires all gun sales to go through a dealer. I don’t think that’s unreasonable, although some do object to the cost and government interference in what they view as private sale of private property.

Either way, I think a “well-regulated militia” could potentially include registration. Considering the tens of thousands of deaths annually.

Please don’t misuse the “well regulated militia” phrase.

“Well regulated” means capable and competent. Not administered by, controlled by, or organized by any government or non-government body.

Similarly, “militia” didn’t refer to a group administered by, controlled by, or organized by, any government or non-government body. Prior to the Militia Act Of 1903, the militia was “a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range." Any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment must use that definition, as opposed to the post-1903 organized vs unorganized legal definitions.


The 2nd Amendment, read correctly, protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, in light of the need for a capable and competent armed populace.

It is inaccurate to say the 2nd Amendment either requires or implies a need for regulation of the right to keep and bear arms.