Kerry on gun control

[Thelakedoctor]

http://www.candidatesonguns.org/content/meet/cand_kerry.html

[LibertyorDeath]

1. oops

[MrBenchley]

2. Good for him

"Our party will never be the choice of the NRA, and I'm not looking to be the candidate of the NRA."

[hansberrym]

5. Kerry is jusy one more good guy who supports the RKBA

Doesn't some keep saying that "guns rights" types were the bad guys.

[1a2b3c]

3. Here is whats wrong in my opinion.

I support the current Assault Weapons Ban and I will work to see it reauthorized.
In addition, I will support a stronger ban to ensure that all assault weapons,
including copycats, are off the streets.

I have always supported legislation to close the gun show loophole by requiring
background checks for all firearm sales at gun shows. I voted for that
legislation in 1999, and if the loophole is not closed in this session of Congress,
closing it will be a priority for me as president. Since the Brady Act took effect in
1994, gun shows have become popular with criminals and gun traffickers – gun
shows are the second leading source of guns recovered in trafficking
investigations. It’s absurd that criminals can buy guns at gun shows with no
questions asked, no background check required. Even terrorists have exploited
the gun show loophole – it should be closed. George Bush said in 2000 that he
supported instant checks at gun shows, but he has done nothing to close this
dangerous loophole since becoming president. I only added this second one because closing the gun show loophole will have about the same effect on crime as the AWB. Had he supported a background check on all firearms transfers i would have agreed.

I will. George Bush broke the only promise he made on gun safety, and it is
absolutely appalling that, after his loud promises to “enforce the laws on the
books,” the Bush/Ashcroft Justice Department has done virtually nothing to
enforce 20 of the 22 major federal gun laws. A recently published study of the
Justice Department’s own data showed that last year, the federal government
prosecuted only 7 cases for selling a firearm to a minor, 12 cases for bringing a
gun onto school property, 27 cases against corrupt gun dealers, 98 cases for
possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number, 197 cases for illegal gun trafficking, 202 cases for possessing or selling stolen firearms, and 578 cases
for lying on the background check form. These are serious crimes, committed
thousands or hundreds of thousands of times per year. The Bush record is
shameful, and I would do better. Shrub has wasted enough tax dollars on a war, lets not waste more on something that DOESNT EVEN WORK!

Guns aside, whats his plan to fix shrubs mess in Iraq?

[jhfenton]

4. That's the ultimate intent.

I only added this second one because closing the gun show loophole will have about the same effect on crime as the AWB. Had he supported a background check on all firearms transfers i would have agreed.

That is the real intent of advocates of closing the mythical "gun show loophole." Because as you obviously know, there is no gun show loophole. The same laws apply at gun shows as apply everywhere else.

Requiring a background check on sales between private citizens will do nothing to reduce crime. Black market gun dealers won't suddenly start running background checks on their customers. Those who would go through the background check aren't committing the crimes. In fact, just last week I bought another handgun from a friend who's moving to the Phillipines and has to sell most of his firearms. It's not the first firearm I own -- all legally -- for which there is no record of my ownership anywhere. Strangely, none of my "secret" guns has committed any crimes.

[1a2b3c]

6. requiring background checks on all private transfers would

keep many felons from getting a gun. Right now its easier to pick up the classified ads and buy a gun than it is to find a black market dealer.

[jhfenton]

10. Private transfers

I'll admit that I don't have a big problem with requiring with requiring a background check for non-family private transfers, but the current NICS is not an acceptable vehicle for such a check. Only FFL's can access NICS, so the effect of requiring a NICS check is adding a $25-50 dealer fee onto all private transfers. That is not acceptable. Plus, the NICS check is inefficient and puts way too many holds on people who have similar names to felons. NICS catches very few attempted illegal purchasers, but delays hundreds of thousands of lawful purchasers. Of course, the defenders of the Brady bill count those delayed purchases as attempted illegal purchases in their statistics.

Just don't call it the "gun show loophole," when it has nothing to do with gun shows and is not a loophole.

Oh, and along with the new-and-improved background check system, I insist on restoring the right to make interstate firearm purchases. I live in Ohio and work in KY, only a few miles away. I can't buy a handgun from anyone in KY, even a dealer, without having it shipped to an Ohio dealer to take delivery, again, incurring shipping costs plus $25 charged by the dealer on my end.

[1a2b3c]

13. Yes we would definatly need to work on the NICS

We would need to set it up so its easy to use through the local police stations and free or damn close to it.

[jody]

7. Kerry would make an excellent President but he is waffling on RKBA .

I'm a Yellow-dog Democrat and Kerry would have my vote, however he would lose most of the pro-RKBA vote and probably lose the election because of the following evasive statements.

"I am a hunter and I believe in the Second Amendment, but I have never gone hunting with an AK-47." {emphasis added}

"And some may not like to hear it, but courage means standing up for gun safety, not retreating from the issue out of political fear or trying to have it both ways." {emphasis added}

Note that "gun safety" is the new code phrase for "gun control" which is a code phrase for "gun bans".

Why doesn't Kerry just say he doesn't support Massachusetts' state constitution, see below, and tell his constituents to just enjoy being assaulted and robbed?

A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts the people ratified the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on June 15, 1780. Massachusetts claims it is the oldest written Constitution in the world still in effect.
QUOTE
Article I. All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE

[hansberrym]

8. The Massachusetts 1780 Bill of Rights also has a RKBA

provision that is expressed as a right of the people(XVII) -in addition to a provision that expresses an obligation to serve in person(X). A fair reading of all three articles (I,X, and XVII) taken together does not support the exclusively collective rights argument that the Ninth Circuit held in Silviera. Furthermore a review of the writings of Massachusetts leading citizens such as Sam and John Adams lends more support to the individual rights interpretation.


From the Massachusetts BoR 1780:
X.--Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary: But no part of the property of any individual, can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people: In fine, the people of this Commonwealth are not controlable by any other laws, than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent. And whenever the public exigencies require, that the property of any individual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable compensation therefor.


XVII.--The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.


Defense of the Constitution, John Adams 1788:
”To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."



Samuel Adams in defense of the US Constitution 1788:
"hat the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, except when necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions."






As you say, Kerry does waffle on the RKBA. He seems to suggest that it would not be proper for individual citizens to keep military style weapons. He is wrong on this point as the Massachusetts BoR says that that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense", and the Supreme Court (Miller, 1938)interpreted this to mean weapons useful for military service.


But Kerry does at least support an individual right to bear arms.
(Unless he was talking about some collective right to hunt!). Perhaps if he stays in the race there will be an opportunity to pin him down on how he interprets the second amendment.

[jody]

9. I understand but the statement "The people have a right to keep

and to bear arms for the common defence" could be interpreted as a collective right meaning the militia and not supporting an individual's right to use arms for self defense. For that reason, I avoided citing that statement as supporting RKBA for defense of self and property.

:hi:

[hansberrym]

11. The collective rights side tries to do just that,

but the counter-point is that the term "militia" is not even used in that article. If they want to argue that "the milita" and "the people" mean the same thing, then we should let them, since that would completely undermine thier argument.

Also "common defense" is a broader term than "self defense", so it would naturally include self defense. (For example: A policeman who was not authorized to act in his own defense, could not provide much of a defense for the larger community. And since a policeman is a part of the community, when he defends himself, he is also defending a member of the community/state/Nation)

[jody]

12. Thanks. When law enforcement officers keep and bear arms, isn't

that right granted by governemnt?

In contrast, self defense is an inalienable right and as such, government has no authority to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising that right.