Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

Universal background checks, mental health evaluations, safe storage laws, mandatory annual training. Better funding for ATF. Microstamping. Smart gun technology.

No to each and every damn one of them. Not one of these could satisfy the scrutiny required by Heller and McDonald.

It's nice to be on such clear footing on an issue -- everything you believe is everything I'd give my full measure of political energy trying to prevent There is no compromise or middle ground of interest.

[Matchles]

No to each and every damn one of them. Not one of these could satisfy the scrutiny required by Heller and McDonald.

It's nice to be on such clear footing on an issue -- everything you believe is everything I'd give my full measure of political energy trying to prevent There is no compromise or middle ground of interest.

If you want to oppose them for policy reasons, fine. But it is complete bullshit to suggest that Heller or McDonald do anything to prevent those sort of regulations.

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

[TZucchini]

Not one of these could satisfy the scrutiny required by Heller and McDonald.

That's a terrific opinion. It should probably be noted that some of those measures have already been ruled Constitutional by Federal Courts. So, yeah. Nice opinion.

[lockedout]

Universal background checks, mental health evaluations, safe storage laws, mandatory annual training. Better funding for ATF. Microstamping. Smart gun technology.

- - - Updated - - -



Here's the part where you quote me directly.

(Hint: You wont be able to.)

Not looking through hundreds of pages. You called for guns being banned, lets not pretend you didn't.

[TZucchini]

Not looking through hundreds of pages. You called for guns being banned, lets not pretend you didn't.

Oh look. You weren't able to quote me directly. I'm shocked!

How about this. If you can quote me directly, stating that I "want an all out ban if possible", then I'll change my signature to whatever you want. And leave it there, permanently.

(Additional Hint: You won't be able to.)

[lockedout]

Oh look. You weren't able to quote me directly. I'm shocked!

How about this. If you can quote me directly, stating that I "want an all out ban if possible", then I'll change my signature to whatever you want. And leave it there, permanently.

(Additional Hint: You won't be able to.)

Like I said we both know you have said it in the past in this thread, I'm not looking through hundreds of pages. I'm not shocked you're sitting here lying about it though.

[Stormdash]

If you want to oppose them for policy reasons, fine. But it is complete bullshit to suggest that Heller or McDonald do anything to prevent those sort of regulations.

You think those could all satisfy intermediate scrutiny, let alone strict scrutiny? Because they'd all have to satisfy one or the other, which is exactly what those cases say in clear and unambiguous terms.

- - - Updated - - -

That's a terrific opinion. It should probably be noted that some of those measures have already been ruled Constitutional by Federal Courts. So, yeah. Nice opinion.

O RLY? Citations welcome. Pretty sure I'd have notice if a state law requiring a mental health screening specifically for the purchase of a firearm had been reviewed and upheld under either standard of heightened scrutiny. Most of the restrictions you fancy don't exist in most jurisdictions, and where any do haven't worked their way up for appellate review in compliance with those precedents.

It also bears noting that constitutional analysis aside, they are all hyperbolically stupid public policy concepts. "Smart gun" technology is unreliable garbage and it will never ever be improved upon as long as grabbers are out there doing idiotic things like mandate it industry wide the second it's available at all... because nobody will dare sell it first and shoot their entire livelihood in the foot.

[TITAN308]

Better funding for ATF.

You would actually find that most serious firearms enthusiast would approve of this 100%

We are tired of waiting for our short barreled rifles and suppressors taking 3 months to get approval.

So I am all for more funding to the ATF so they can process our Form 1 and Form 4 NFA paperwork more quickly.

Hear Hear!

[Matchles]

You think those could all satisfy intermediate scrutiny, let alone strict scrutiny? Because they'd all have to satisfy one or the other, which is exactly what those cases say in clear and unambiguous terms.

It isn't strict scrutiny by the mere fact that Scalia stated there are a number of regulations that are okay. Felon in possession of firearm statutes wouldn't meet strict scrutiny and he specifically names those as restrictions that are okay. You are assuming it is intermediate scrutiny, which is a pretty huge leap considering neither Heller nor McDonald actually describe the test for interpreting 2nd Amendment challenges. It is clear Scalia wanted some sort of heightened scrutiny but he didn't say what. If he were going to use the states as an example the level of scrutiny should be rational basis. If I recall, 42 states have gun protections in their constitutions and all of them allow for "reasonable" restrictions.

Most likely all of those could meet intermediate scrutiny. They all further a government interest in public safety and are substantially related to that interest.

[Ghostpanther]

Universal background checks, mental health evaluations, safe storage laws, mandatory annual training. Better funding for ATF. Microstamping. Smart gun technology.

- - - Updated - - -



Here's the part where you quote me directly.

(Hint: You wont be able to.)

What type of mental health evaluations? I can smell a slippery slope with that one. Would depend a lot on what degree you are talking about. A history check for mental health problems would be good however.

I think safe storage laws in general on the surface would seem to be good. Like if minors are present in the home, firearms should certainly be stored so children cannot access them. But other than, I see no reason for the government to mandate a adult how they safely store their weapons. It is a bit like them telling me I can not store my car in my garage because it is one of those which is under the house and part of the basement. It might catch fire and burn the whole house down. Right?

You do not need annual training to safely and efficiently use a firearm. Initial safety and proper use when you purchase a weapon would be good. But how often is going to vary a lot. I think it is good to practice with your weapon a couple times a year. But I would not want the government mandating me I should.

All your other points have good merit.

And on another topic, what you have posted in the past is you would like to see the 2nd amendment done away or amended so as the wording does not grant arms as a right. But you are not against gun ownership. You feel they need to be heavily regulated.

[TITAN308]

You take a test once to drive a 3000lb (or greater) piece of machinery.

You are never tested again, all you do is go every 5-10 years (whatever it is for your state) pay your fee and it gets renewed.

Matter of fact you are allowed to drive until you are so old you really shouldn't. I refused to ride with my grandfather as a passenger when he was alive (he passed away at 95 recently)

[Ghostpanther]

You take a test once to drive a 3000lb (or greater) piece of machinery.

You are never tested again, all you do is go every 5-10 years (whatever it is for your state) pay your fee and it gets renewed.

Matter of fact you are allowed to drive until you are so old you really shouldn't. I refused to ride with my grandfather as a passenger when he was alive (he passed away at 95 recently)

Same with a motorcycle endorsement on your driver's license. I have had mine now for decades..lol. And have not rode one for that long also. But I think I still can.

[TITAN308]

Here is my problem with required gun training.

This is how it plays out in most states:

- attend course where you listen to someone speak for 8 hours, most of this is regarding laws of said state, very little is about safety
- shoot at a target 10 yards away and prove you can hit it, doesn't matter if you can't hit what you are pointing at, just as long as the bullets hit the target

Ok then, here is your permit to carry a gun, oh by the way thanks for the manditory $100 you had to pay to take this class.

"Required Training" is nothing more than a revenue generator.

Oh lets not forget about the fee to actually get your permit from your county. $80 here in GA, then $30 every 5 years.

Sure to me its chump change, but...

It is a defacto-ban for poor people and that just isn't right. Poor people are generally living in the most shitty areas.

Do some of you realize most gun fees and gun control laws have their core based in racism?

[Mayhem]

I care about all Amendment rights. Why do you assume he doesn't?

It's not our fault that the 2nd just gets talked about more.

I guarantee if there was a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment (or any other for that matter) that many Americans would be on here defending it.

There doesn´t need to be an attack. You should be defending the rights you already have except you simply don´t care enough.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, which some would be the right to a fair trial and the right not to be tortured. Due process and all.

Except when you´re in the military or suspected of certain crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

You would actually find that most serious firearms enthusiast would approve of this 100%

We are tired of waiting for our short barreled rifles and suppressors taking 3 months to get approval.

So I am all for more funding to the ATF so they can process our Form 1 and Form 4 NFA paperwork more quickly.

Hear Hear!

See, there are even good things for gun owners to come out of this. People should really stop with the conspiracy stuff. On the other hand, the ATF should stop stuff like fast and furious.

- - - Updated - - -

Here is my problem with required gun training.

This is how it plays out in most states:

- attend course where you listen to someone speak for 8 hours, most of this is regarding laws of said state, very little is about safety
- shoot at a target 10 yards away and prove you can hit it, doesn't matter if you can't hit what you are pointing at, just as long as the bullets hit the target

Ok then, here is your permit to carry a gun, oh by the way thanks for the manditory $100 you had to pay to take this class.

"Required Training" is nothing more than a revenue generator.

Oh lets not forget about the fee to actually get your permit from your county. $80 here in GA, then $30 every 5 years.

Sure to me its chump change, but...

It is a defacto-ban for poor people and that just isn't right. Poor people are generally living in the most shitty areas.

Do some of you realize most gun fees and gun control laws have their core based in racism?

Just how cheap is a gun? If $180 is too much but the price of a gun is not? I mean they don´t get them for free? How do you feel about all of this being payed with tax money, to help the poor?

[Ghostpanther]

There doesn´t need to be an attack. You should be defending the rights you already have except you simply don´t care enough.

- - - Updated - - -



Except when you´re in the military or suspected of certain crimes.

- - - Updated - - -

What the hell are you talking about? How do we not care enough? You are not making any sense when you do not specifically point out the reason we do not care.

[TZucchini]

O RLY? Citations welcome.

A federal judge upheld Connecticut's recent firearm law, which included Universal Background checks, assault weapon bans, and a weapons offender registry. “The court concludes that the legislation is constitutional. While the act burdens the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights, it is substantially related to the important governmental interest of public safety and crime control.” -U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello.

The Ninth Circuit upheld San Francisco's safe storage law, as well as their ban on hollow points, stating that "Based on the evidence that locking firearms increases safety in a number of different respects, San Francisco has drawn a reasonable inference that mandating that guns be kept locked when not being carried will increase public safety and reduce firearm casualties. This evidence supports San Francisco’s position that [the safe storage ordinance] is substantially related to its objective to reduce the risk of firearm injury and death in the home."

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller ruled that California's microstamping law does not violate the Second Amendment, because "gun owners don’t have a right to specific types of firearms".

So when you say "Not one of these could satisfy the scrutiny required by Heller and McDonald," forgive me if I disagree.

- - - Updated - - -

Most likely all of those could meet intermediate scrutiny. They all further a government interest in public safety and are substantially related to that interest.

Which is exactly what several judges have found.

[Mayhem]

What the hell are you talking about? How do we not care enough? You are not making any sense when you do not specifically point out the reason we do not care.

You mean that the rights are alienable isn´t enough? You call them rights, but they are really just privileges.

[TZucchini]

Do some of you realize most gun fees and gun control laws have their core based in racism?

I suppose one could argue that any fee, to do anything at all, is based in racism?

[TITAN308]

I suppose one could argue that any fee, to do anything at all, is based in racism?

There is no argument to be had, most gun control laws and fees were implemented to keep poor black people from being able to get guns. Im talking Jim Crow era type stuff.

Now in modern society that has more or less shifted to revenue generation.

Look up the history of gun control laws, you might be find it quite interesting.

Its very ironic that black people are not at the forefront of second amendment issues, most of the regulations were put in place to prevent THEM from arming themselves.

[Ghostpanther]

You mean that the rights are alienable isn´t enough? You call them rights, but they are really just privileges.

You are just playing with words. Look up the difference between rights and privileges. Driving a car is a privilege. Having a gun is a right in the US. Unless I do something which can take away that right. All rights have conditions. I have freedom of speech, which is a right, but cannot shout out "fire!!! " inside a crowded building when there is none. Alienable is maybe not a good term to use with some rights. And since I used that term once when comparing them to gun rights, I have learned a lot.