Where I stand on guns

[Taverner]

Let me be the first to say shooting a gun is fun. But this is only the case when you're shooting something that is non-living. Those clay pigeons deserve to die, sitting there all, clay like!

The Second Amendment is pretty clear it encourages both private ownership of guns, and a standing militia. Why not a lying-down militia or a hanging upside down militia has more to do with physics than law.

Anyway...cut to the chase, you can have a handgun, or many for self defense.

Now it does say "well regulated," and I think that is the OK for the regulation of guns. However, regulation itself cannot infringe on the right to bear arms.

What does that mean? Basically, banning specific kinds of guns or magazines - unconstitutional. Waiting periods (even though they don't do any good) - constitutional.

Waiting periods really don't do any good. Background checks however, should be unconstitutional. Every American citizen, ex-felon or not, should be able to legally own a gun.

Now - when it comes the right to carry, conceal carry or whatnot - it gets a little tricky here.

I can see not letting ex-felons have CCW Permits. And I can see the logic of issuing permits. Denying them to everybody but cops and ex-cops (like California) is patently unconstitutional. Which means, they should be issued, and there should be regulation of these permits. The devil is in the details here - to get a CCW you should have to do something to prove responsibility.

Open carry, however, should be fully legal and unfettered. Why? Because the 2nd amendment guarantees this.

Now when it comes to businesses, I tend to go with what the business owner says. It is his or her property, and if they don't want guns on their property, it should be their right to stop it. At the same time, if you feel this is too authoritarian, you can boycott said business.

However, if a business is going to not let you bring a gun to dinner, they must make a place for you to safely, securely store said firearm inside until dinner is finished.

As for guns themselves, I tend to think there should be NO restrictions on what kind of weapon you buy. Shotgun, small pistol, machine gun, Uzi, etc....all should be permitted.

Now when it comes to what weapons you can conceal and carry (if you have a CCW) or open carry - that can be regulated and controlled.

So basically if you want a machine gun, a tommy gun or a South African Police Pistol you should be able to buy it. However, if you want to use it, regulations control that. And if you want to carry it, there should be regulations as well.

Gun regulation in itself is not wrong, but regulation seeking to ban guns is.

Any questions?

[tularetom]

1. Very thoughtful post - K&R

You will of course catch a ration of shit from both sides of this issue.

[Taverner]

2. Don't I know it

But at the same time, if it's constructive, logical criticism I will hear them out

I've changed my mind before, and I'm liable to change it again

[RSillsbee]

38. Yeah, but that's how you know he's being objective. NT

TYPO

[petronius]

3. Why do you stand on guns? They don't work nearly as good when you do that

:shrug:

[Taverner]

4. LOL

We should find a way to make this thread DUzy-rich

[Sherman A1]

5. I support the view offered by Chris Rock

we don't need gun control, we need bullet control, each bullet should cost $5K and the issue is solved.

[Upton]

6. So then only rich folks will be able to afford ammo...

How progressive of you..:eyes:

[safeinOhio]

21. Other than 22 rounds

you have to be rich to buy bullets now.

:wtf:

[Taverner]

26. Learn to make your own

It's cheap and easy I am told

Granted I do not own a gun nor do I shoot, but I have known several gun enthusiasts who make their own ammo. And it's surprisingly easy and cost effective.

[Sherman A1]

41. Never watched

Chris Rock's stand up comedy????

[Taverner]

8. Problem is you can make ammo on the cheap

Ammo is easier to make than guns

[lawodevolution]

36. That would make me rich

[guardian]

50. Simplistic drivel

Another silly idea that will result in the opposite of the intended effect.

[X_Digger]

7. A few thoughts..

Waiting periods ...- constitutional

What is the 'compelling government interest' that would be served? (If we're talking about the 'judicial scrutiny' required to rule an infringement constitutional.)

Every American citizen, ex-felon or not, should be able to legally own a gun.

Euromutt said it much better than I could-

Back in the 18th century, the standard punishment for a felony (which at the time were almost entirely mala in se, rather than mala prohibita like growing hemp or providing false information to a government official even though the government official is an undercover federal agent) was either death or banishment; either way, as a convicted felon, you ceased to be one of "the people." Along similar lines, the insane weren't considered to count as "people" either.

As for guns themselves, I tend to think there should be NO restrictions on what kind of weapon you buy. Shotgun, small pistol, machine gun, Uzi, etc....all should be permitted.

Now when it comes to what weapons you can conceal and carry (if you have a CCW) or open carry - that can be regulated and controlled.

I'm curious as to your distinction between the two. 'Keep and bear' seem to be side by side, so I'd love to know your reasoning for giving a different level of scrutiny between them.

[Taverner]

9. Let me be specific then: you may OWN whatever gun you want

Bear - well to bear arms means to carry them outside your house. This can be subject to regulation.

I should have separated them, because they ARE different.

[X_Digger]

10. Well, yes, they are different terms..

But I'd like to understand your apparent strong protection from government intrusion in one, and less so for the other. Is it not a legal concept at the core of that, but a practical one, or..?

[Taverner]

12. Please explain

I don't get what you mean

[X_Digger]

19. Well, I see 'keep' and 'bear' on pretty equal terms.

I see both as being just as in need of protection from government infringement.

I see just as much wrongness in DC's handgun ban (infringing 'keep') as I see in NYC's "may issue" concealed carry licensing (infringing 'bear').

I don't have a problem with the 1968 Gun Control Act's 'prohibited persons' list (as a legitimate extension of the reality that I quoted from Euromutt). In the 18th century, felons were either dead or banished, meaning they didn't continue to be part of 'the people'. A modern, more humane updating of that is such that some rights of those people may be infringed. (Not forever- I'd like to see rights restoration for non-violent felons and violent ones after an appropriate rehabilitation and proven good citizenship.) This is a justifiable (to me) infringement of 'keep'.

I also don't have much of a problem with concealed carry licensing, as long as it's no more burdensome than picking up tags at the DMV. Technically, this is an infringement of 'bear'- nobody would seriously propose licensing for other protected rights- but I see it as justifiable.

In your above statements, you have no problem with people owning ('keep'-ing) many weapons, but you would regulate those that a person may carry ('bear').

I'd like to understand why you seem to endorse more protection for 'keep' than you do for 'bear'- is it a legal concept as yet unexpressed, a moral one, or what?

[Taverner]

20. Very Good Questions

I do think "own" is different than "carry"

You own a Tommy Gun for example. Unless you are shooting at someone in your home, there is very little chance of wanton murder at this point.

You CARRY outside your house, however, your Tommy Gun, and there is much more of a chance to murder anyone and everyone at that point.

Granted, this argument becomes moot if you live in Manhattan.

At this point, we need to start working with more specific logic...

[X_Digger]

23. So is it some level of lethality? Or discrete v indiscriminate?

What characteristics would you use to set the bar for carry? Just full-auto? Or would you require that the state approve every carry weapon?

California is an example of the latter, one that I can't agree with. Their 'approved' list of handguns is about 'keep' (own), but that's a necessary prerequisite for 'bear' (carry).

[Taverner]

24. I am not sure - and that is the kind of thing that should be studied, and taken into account

The freedom/safety debate should be based on that year's statistics

[RSillsbee]

39. How can "bear" be subject to regulation

and shall not be infringed at the same time?

[flamin lib]

11. It doesn't say guns. It says arms.

I'm all in favor of baring arms. Sometimes I wish it said breasts but then I stop by a Walmart and change my mind.

[Taverner]

13. LOL yeah yeah yeah

Arms = Guns

[flamin lib]

14. No, arms = arms. Guns are only a single variety of arms. I prefer a claymore

just in case I'm attacked at the mall by more than 30 non-law abiding citizens.

[Taverner]

15. Have you tried Halitosis as a defense?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Better get two...

...one for your chest and one for your back.

Just some advice: don't shop with your friends, or your kids, or, well, anyone.

[TheWraith]

16. That's not really what they meant by "regulated."

"Regulated," in the vernacular of the 1700s, meant functional and properly operating. I.e. a "well regulated militia" is one that's trained, disciplined, and ready for duty.

In any event, I agree with you for the most part, except on the denial of firearms to ex-felons. This is a reasonable example of something that passes strict scrutiny, like freedom of speech not being a defense for libel.

I also have no problem with a slightly higher level of scrutiny for certain classes of weapon, like automatics--the National Firearms Act would be fine, just reopen the registry.

As far as concealed weapons go, I think that an appropriate level of scrutiny for issuing a permit is an NICS check, a short written test on self defense laws, and a range test to prove competence and safe handling of a pistol. Proving responsibility is a bit nebulous.

[Taverner]

17. Sounds like you set up a proof for responsibility pretty easily there...

Hence, I don't think it's THAT nebulous

[TheWraith]

27. That depends on how you define "responsibility."

To some people, passing a couple tests and a background check would not assert "responsibility" any more than passing a driver's test makes one a responsible driver. Personally, it's a level of scrutiny I'm comfortable with, as it demonstrates reasonable competence and awareness of the law. That, I suppose, you could call responsibility, though I'm sure others would try to set the bar higher.

[Taverner]

28. I do think gun handling skills should be taken into account

If they want a gun, pass a 10 min class with test administered by the Gun Store

I could TOTALLY see most gun stores getting into this, offering the classes for free

But the information has to be communicated

I can also see a perfect 'free pizza' component here somewhere

What is wrong with free pizza?

[safeinOhio]

22. SCOTUS

has spoken on the constitution and the 2nd in Chicago vs Mcdonald. I'd be careful about asking them to be clearer on the subject. This is from Scalia, the best on the court for the NRA.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm
the McDonald Court held that
the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.


Other than a gun for defense of the home, it is a state right as to type, where and purpose of a gun. I'd guess if it came up to them they might make background checks on private sales a national law rather than a state law as the Feds are already involved with retail sales.

[Taverner]

25. Just because the NRA approves of them, does not make them the best judge

At the same time, if a justice has a negative rating from the NRA that should not mean they are the best authority

I am just asking for an open forum for the details to be worked out

It could happen, granted we leave our biases at the door

[Bold Lib]

30. The above referenced summary of the decision is in error

The actual quote is:

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=SCOTUS+heller+decision&fr=moz35&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=SCOTUS+heller+decision&d=4706034520818826&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=ad7983af,2e20f149&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=PLGWu5HKDFioMcYoqDLY.w--


You will note the not so subtle change of "such as self-defense within the home" to "only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense"

The actual ruling used "in the home" as but one example of "traditionally lawful purposes" while your summary changes it to ONLY in the home. I've noticed some Brady information saying the same thing. I wonder is this mis-quote is intentional.

On edit: there was a thread dedicated to it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331739

[Bold Lib]

29. That summary is a mis quote. The actual quote is

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=SCOTUS+heller+decision&fr=moz35&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=SCOTUS+heller+decision&d=4706034520818826&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=ad7983af,2e20f149&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=PLGWu5HKDFioMcYoqDLY.w--


You will note the not so subtle change of "such as self-defense within the home" to "only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense"

The actual ruling used "in the home" as but one example of "traditionally lawful purposes" while your summary changes it to ONLY in the home. I've noticed some Brady information saying the same thing. I wonder is this mis-quote is intentional.

On edit: there was a thread dedicated to it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x331739

[X_Digger]

35. Lol.. how 'such as' became 'only'..

No, the SCOTUS didn't say that the right protected by the second amendment "only" applies in the home.

Heh, I love watching them squirm.

[safeinOhio]

44. Legal basis for incorporation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Legal basis for incorporation
All of the post-Heller cases, including McDonald, NRA v. Chicago, Nordyke and Maloney, argued that the Second Amendment, in addition applying to federal jurisdictions, should also be applied against state and local governments, using a judicial process called selective incorporation. Selective incorporation involves convincing the court that a right is "fundamental" by being “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” or “deeply rooted in our nation’s history and traditions” as defined most recently in the Supreme Court case Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968).
In addition to claiming the Second Amendment should be incorporated through the selective incorporation process, McDonald is unique among post-Heller gun cases in that it asked the court to overturn the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). Slaughter-House determined that the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause did not apply the Bill of Rights to the actions of states (and by extension, local governments). If it had been overturned, the Selective Incorporation process may have become unnecessary, since the entire Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, would arguably be applied against the states.<16>
In attempting to overturn Slaughter-House, this case garnered the attention and support of both conservative and liberal legal scholars interested in its potential application in areas outside of firearms law. Their interest was that if Slaughter-House had been overturned, it would have been possible that constitutional guarantees such as the right to a jury in civil cases, right to a grand jury in felony cases, and other parts of the Bill of Rights, as well as future court rulings and existing federal precedent, not universally guaranteed in actions by the states, would have been applied against the states automatically.<17><18><19>
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas alone supported overturning the Slaughter-House and Cruikshank decisions,<20> proposing that "the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of American citizenship that applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause."<21>

[Bold Lib]

48. Again, the correct quote is "such as" being used as but one example of

"traditionally lawful purposes" (you'll note the plural there). The summary that you linked to incorrectly states the 2A "only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense".

The entire correct quote is:
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

I don't know if this mis-quote is in error or on purpose; but in either case, it needs to be corrected as it completely changes what SCOTUS said in it's finding.

[DeadEyeDyck]

31. Even without the second amendment, when do I ever give

up the right to defend myself, my loved ones and my property.

To take what I believe is to be attacked first, I will point out that my property is a direct extention of my life. It I expend 30 years to buy a house and you rob me of my house, you have taken 30yrs. from me.

Because I exist, I have the right to preserve that existence. It is axiomatic. The unique properties of a gun is that it levels the playing field. Though I am quite sure I can overpower a large portion of the population of DU (raised by a Delta F-7 Green Beret), I hold advanced martial arts degrees, I can not overpower a small .22 cal pistol. I just am not that good. But if I encounter a thug on the street and he pulls a knief (or gun) on me with intention of robbing me or raping my sis, I can bring equality to the fight.

That this argument goes beyond this totally baffles me. Why would anyone surrender the right to protect themself? Do you think the thug on the otherside of a pistol cares about your "ideals"? He is either focused on your wallet crotch.

[MicaelS]

32. What is a South African Police Pistol?

And why do you couple that with automatic weapons for regulation?

[Taverner]

33. SA Police Pistol: FEG .380 - every time you pull the trigger, it fires two rounds

[MicaelS]

37. Interesting, never heard of that, thanks n/t

[gejohnston]

34. to clarify 33

That makes it a machine gun as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Odds are, you already knew that.

[lawodevolution]

40. I agree but

I view any law as infringement if it increases the cost of owning a gun, or intimidates a person from buying a gun or places undue burden of paperwork or wait periods, all of which would be oppression of the right to own a firearm and laws that employ those methods are passed in order to artificially reduce gun ownership rate so that fewer people support gun rights so that they can step by step bring us closer to a total gun ban or how I like to put it, total gun control.

[RSillsbee]

42. Where I stand on guns

1. No NFA a law abiding citizen is a law abiding citizen whether he has a M249 or a bolt action .22. I should be able to purchase anything on the TO&E for an 11B.

2. NICS at the point of retail sale yes I can't show that this isn't stopping felons from getting more guns than they do. Private sales remain private sales.

3. No registration period

4. Constitutional carry coast to coast. The law abiding don't need a law the criminals won't obey one. If you can legally own a gun you can legally carry it ( open or concealed) at your discretion

6. Last point Rachel Maddow, Meghan McCain, Jpak & Hoyt are not allowed to own any type of firearm for any purpose ever

(OK the last point is a little sarcastic but not very)

[YllwFvr]

43. Now that is an excellent post

Thank you, I can see this had a lot of thought in it.

Sadly I dont have time to break it down any further. Hope to get back to this later.

[jeepnstein]

45. Not what I expected.

I don't know why. I can't say I disagree with you very much except for allowing convicted felons to own a firearm. I have a serious issue with that one, being a cop and all. Your basic felon just has a problem with playing nice with other people. That difference is really one of degrees.

[ileus]

46. Not bad...pretty good post. +1

[DWC]

47. We agree in basic philosophy.

Your position statement is probably the most honest I have yet seen. Some pro and some anti and all honest.

On the following 2 points we disagree.

I constant concealed carry but I also constant carry a pocket knife, constant wear my watch and constant wear underwear - at least when I am in public. I have been asked for the time and used my pocket knife to open boxes in public but I have never been asked about that other "wallet" in my right hip pocket or the color of my skivies. Long story short, other than monthly practice, I do not use my defensive handgun. However, I do carry it in case I need to use it. If the need arises, I will use it without hesitation.

No one has the right to come between me and my ability to defend myself against violent attack any time or any where.

I use my rifles and shotguns regularly to put meat in the freezer. Deer, wild hog, turkey, ducks, geese, squirrel, rabbit, dove, quail...all find their way to my freezer and ultimately to our table. I do enjoy hunting but I kill for the meat, not the sport and nothing is wasted. It is safe to say that at least half of the meat protein consumed in my home was killed by my firearms or caught with my fishing equipment.

No one has the right to deny me the tools I use to feed my family.

Semper Fi,

[LAGC]

49. Well said, Taverner.

I think ex-felons should get their gun rights restored upon completion of sentence (after probation/parole period) as well, as some states already allow. We should scrap the Brady background checks as unconstitutional de facto registration of gun owners. If people aren't safe enough to possess arms, they shouldn't be released from prison/mental-hospital.