Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Stormdash]

You're right. It is stupid. A sale should only be allowed to be completed upon a mental health screening, which includes by extension an evaluation of history and current state of mind.

Which of course could not ever be upheld as constitutional, any more so than requiring a comprehensive mental health screening before registering to vote, or getting an abortion, as for example.

[Rukentuts]

Which of course could not ever be upheld as constitutional, any more so than requiring a comprehensive mental health screening before registering to vote, or getting an abortion, as for example.

So now you're just making false equivalencies of procedures that have their own exclusive set of applicable and legal restrictions?

Is this supposed to be compelling? I thought lawyers were supposed to support arguments, not appeal to other things whimsically.

[lockedout]

I think it adequately conveys that I don't believe a word of it. An attorney would be more adept at providing applicable proof.

In other words fuck your years of schooling and on the job experience, we need some links and scientific studies.

[Daelak]

Which of course could not ever be upheld as constitutional, any more so than requiring a comprehensive mental health screening before registering to vote, or getting an abortion, as for example.

Or we could have a constitutional convention, amending the words in the 2nd amendment to mandate that only mentally fit citizens are allowed to bear arms.

[lockedout]

So now you're just making false equivalencies of procedures that have their own exclusive set of applicable and legal restrictions?

Is this supposed to be compelling? I thought lawyers were supposed to support arguments, not appeal to other things whimsically.

SO a raving lunatic can vote but someone who might of been sad when there wife died 10 years ago isn't fit to own a firearm?
I'll humor you, if such a law passed how broad do you think the term "mental health issue" would be?

[Stormdash]

Read the edit before responding again.

Or I'll just take it you have no evidence to prove that this proposed concept falls outside current law.
I think it adequately conveys that I don't believe a word of it. An attorney would be more adept at providing applicable proof.

What exactly do you think I'm making up -- that strict scrutiny/heightened scrutiny/rational basis capture pretty much the full range of reviews by the court over whether a government restriction or imposition on a right is constitutional? That the US Supreme Court has already made very clear that restrictions on the 2nd Amendment must satisfy heightened (i.e. strict or intermediate) scrutiny?

[TrunkMonk]

Assault weapon ban... Hmm...

First off what makes a weapon an "assault weapon"? High capacity magazine? Lightweight? Adjustable stock? Pistol grip? What is the line in the sand here? Let's take the AR-15 as the basis of an "assault weapon" in the eyes of the misinformed. It has all of the above, so.... must be an assault weapon. Okay, fine, so what if I ban high capacity magazines, is that firearm still an assault weapon? And if the magazine makes it so, what about every other firearm that can possibly accept a magazine? I mean I can attach a 20, 30, 50, 100 round magazine to pretty much any weapon with the right amount of determination and/or creativity. So is it the action? (this in particular being a semi-auto, meaning one trigger pull = one bullet exiting the firearm). If semi-auto = assault weapon, does that mean that quite literally 90% of the handguns, roughly half the shotguns and probably half the rifles currently being produced and used for legal hunting, sporting and home defense applications are now "assault weapons"? Is it a combination of the magazine AND the action together? Again, where is that line drawn? And who gets to draw it?

Second, since we're discussing what makes a weapon an "assault" weapon...As an avid hunter/sports shooter, and a lover of automobiles... I'm going to use an analogy... How many of you, adjust the seats, steering wheel in your car so you can more safely reach the controls and henceforth be a safer driver? How many of you have sports cars with lots of horsepower that you drive daily on public roads? Why does a modern rifle, with options like a pistol style grip, an adjustable stock, and a higher capacity magazine need to be viewed differently? These features don't inherently make the firearm more dangerous. If anything the ability for a shooter to adjust the rifle to his or her needs puts the operator in better control. Why do you need more than 200 horsepower on a public road? I mean, cars kill more kids in a DAY than ASSAULT WEAPONS do in YEARS. Yet we knowingly place teenagers behind the wheel of a 3,000lb vehicle with way more horsepower than some of these kids have the experience to handle safely, and send them on their way down busy public roads as common practice? Yes, some vehicles aren't legal on public roads, but because there are legal venues for these to operate we're fine with them, how is this different than, really, any firearm? Would you be more likely to accept someone in public with an AR15, knowing they'd taken the level of "training" required to drive? Seriously, would you?

So I brought up a hint at numbers in that last statement, Assault Rifles kill less people in multiple years than cars do in a day. For example, in 2011, out of ~12,500 murders in the US, ~350 were rifles. Now, of that, the FBI does not split up what rifles were "assault weapons" by their current standards...so let's highball it and assume HALF were "Assault Weapons", so what, 175ish? Okay. So alittle math later and we end up with ~ 1.4% of all murders in 2011 were committed with "assault weapons". The reality that as small a number as this is...it's probably very, very much higher than it should be in reality. That same year, ~750 murders were committed with hands and feet alone. SO.... what exactly, are we basing this ban off of? A couple horrific, isolated incidents? And this ISNT knee jerk? With these numbers and logic we should be trying to ban pressure cookers, GM vehicles (faulty ignition switch that has killed ~20 people in the last few years) and hammers with just as much furor, but we aren't. Why? Because the media has not spun us into a frenzy of false information and blame placement. Terrorists bomb a marathon and we place the blame, correctly, on the people behind the bomb, NOT the bomb. Why is this? These are all inanimate objects. All have the potential for great evil when used by evil people. Yet we place blame, not on the car, not on the pressure cooker, not on the hammer, but on the people, EXCEPT when it comes to firearms. It's madness.

So, some people say, "our founding fathers didnt know how weapon technology would advance". Bull! At the time our citizens were armed with the very latest in weapon technology! Also, this was at a time when firearms technology was advancing at arguably it's greatest pace! Our bill of rights was put into place in 1791. A full TEN years before that we had our first "magazined" rifle, check it out:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle
Do you really think our forefathers didn't know where technology was headed? Really?

So, without numbers to support the logic of an "assault weapon ban", without being able to really define, what makes an assault weapon, just that, with the logic that, making millions of, LEGAL, LAW ABIDING, COUNTRY LOVING, US citizens, who also happen to own an AR15 or the like, into felons, somehow will save the lives that were lost in a few, horrific, isolated incidents, involving mentally ill people who had been failed by the system multiple times in several instances... But, instead of going after the ~30% of gun related murders each year that are gang related, or the INSANELY fast growing "justified" killings done by Police each year. We want to ban a weapon that attributes only to around 1%? Again, placing blame on an object, and more or less completely ignoring the people behind it. Where is the logic here people?

[lockedout]

Or we could have a constitutional convention, amending the words in the 2nd amendment to mandate that only mentally fit citizens are allowed to bear arms.

WHat would constitute "mentally fit"?

[Rukentuts]

What exactly do you think I'm making up -- that strict scrutiny/heightened scrutiny/rational basis capture pretty much the full range of reviews by the court over whether a government restriction or imposition on a right is constitutional? That the US Supreme Court has already made very clear that restrictions on the 2nd Amendment must satisfy heightened (i.e. strict or intermediate) scrutiny?

Except you haven't proved this specific proposed concept is outside of legal restrictions.

I really don't know how I can state this more plainly.

As a lawyer, you know laws are de facto constitutional, until proven otherwise, right?

[TZucchini]

Any imposition on a right can be read as a species of punishment. Any time the government is in a position of saying "YOU CAN'T DO", whoever the "YOU" is is likely to feel "why am I being punished?"

"Feeling" like a punishment, and actually being a punishment, are two different things.

A punishment is a measure taken toward an individual in retribution for an offense. A restriction is a "a limiting condition or measure, especially a legal one." These are substantively different. It's just more hyperbole.

A point of sale criminal background check, yes, although many of them may need to be reassessed in light of Heller and McDonnel.

Point of sale and transfer for all parties, private sellers included. Connecticut just passed this, and federal judges upheld it. Which was after Heller and McDonnel. No need to reassess.

The NY (un)SAFE act is trending in its enforcement very much toward the government using any contact you've ever had with the mental health industry as reason to deny you your right to own a firearm

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for this. Haven't heard anything about it before.

[Stormdash]

Or we could have a constitutional convention, amending the words in the 2nd amendment to mandate that only mentally fit citizens are allowed to bear arms.

You are more than welcome to try, although it's very likely that any such version would be voted out of convention let alone ratified by 4/5th of the states. I think if an amendment proposing convention was even remotely likely to yield proposed amendments of a statist/progressive flavor, people in Washington would probably be all for it. The reverse is most likely, true, though, and if a convention took on the substance of the 2nd amendment, it would be to broaden and strengthen it.

[Daelak]

WHat would constitute "mentally fit"?

When you are outside the bounds of what the scientific consensus is regarding mental disorders, aka a comprehensive mental health screening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

[lockedout]

I'd be interested in seeing the evidence for this. Haven't heard anything about it before.

Some mental health experts expressed concerns that the law might interfere with their treatment of potentially dangerous individuals, or discourage such people from seeking treatment. The United States Veterans Health Administration (VA) has already said they will not comply with the provision requiring release of certain mental health records as it violates federal patient confidentiality laws.

[Stormdash]

Except you haven't proved this specific proposed concept is outside of legal restrictions.

What, how requiring a private citizen to front the cost of an extensive background check before giving his sister an LCR, which may or may not include her needing to cough up mental health records, before he can sign the paperwork might fail strict or intermediate scrutiny? Is that really something anybody needs their hand held through? Those are the least restrictive means to accomplishing... what, exactly?

As a lawyer, you know laws are de facto constitutional, until proven otherwise, right?

The last is a meaningless distinction. If Congress passed and the President signed a law outlawing the practice of the Catholic faith, for example, they'd all know while doing it that it facially violated the 1st Amendment, and in the 12 seconds they had before it was permanently enjoined by a US District Court judge, was it a "constitutional" statute? Does it matter?

[lockedout]

When you are outside the bounds of what the scientific consensus is regarding mental disorders, aka a comprehensive mental health screening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder

From your link: A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not a developmental or social norm. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context. Mental disorder is one aspect of mental health. The scientific study of mental disorders is called psychopathology.

So I will ask again, any mental disorder?

[Rukentuts]

What, how requiring a private citizen to front the cost of an extensive background check before giving his sister an LCR, which may or may not include her needing to cough up mental health records, before he can sign the paperwork might fail strict or intermediate scrutiny? Is that really something anybody needs their hand held through? Those are the least restrictive means to accomplishing... what, exactly?

Conservatives always blame mental health, until it's time to actually filter people out that are unstable. It's confusing.

You have a prove it's unconstitutional buddy. That means explicitly this. Especially since 9/11 has already provided grounds.

The last is a meaningless distinction. If Congress passed and the President signed a law outlawing the practice of the Catholic faith, for example, they'd all know while doing it that it facially violated the 1st Amendment, and in the 12 seconds they had before it was permanently enjoined by a US District Court judge, was it a "constitutional" statute? Does it matter?

Wait wait wait, did a lawyer just say the rule of law is meaningless?

[Daelak]

You are more than welcome to try, although it's very likely that any such version would be voted out of convention let alone ratified by 4/5th of the states. I think if an amendment proposing convention was even remotely likely to yield proposed amendments of a statist/progressive flavor, people in Washington would probably be all for it. The reverse is most likely, true, though, and if a convention took on the substance of the 2nd amendment, it would be to broaden and strengthen it.

It's 3/4s of the states. I disagree, I think the people of the US would overwhelmingly support comprehensive mental health screenings for the 2nd amendment, hell that is the go to excuse for republican representatives that haven't received a considerable amount of money from the NRA.

- - - Updated - - -

From your link: A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not a developmental or social norm. Mental disorders are generally defined by a combination of how a person feels, acts, thinks or perceives. This may be associated with particular regions or functions of the brain or rest of the nervous system, often in a social context. Mental disorder is one aspect of mental health. The scientific study of mental disorders is called psychopathology.

So I will ask again, any mental disorder?

Yea, did I stutter?

[Rukentuts]

It's 3/4s of the states. I disagree, I think the people of the US would overwhelmingly support comprehensive mental health screenings for the 2nd amendment, hell that is the go to excuse for republican representatives that haven't received a considerable amount of money from the NRA.

- - - Updated - - -



Yea, did I stutter?

With all due respect, we couldn't even get 3/4 of the states to vote for enslaving black people should be unconstitutional. The only reason it passed was because half the states left, and even then was by the skin of our teeth.

[Stormdash]

BTW, Pre-911, the CT case is actually before the 2nd Circuit this month. The trial judge's ruling a) chose intermediate scrutiny as the applicable standard and b) applied it veeeery generously on behalf of the state. We'll see what the appellate court does with it.

[Daelak]

With all due respect, we couldn't even get 3/4 of the states to vote for enslaving black people should be unconstitutional. The only reason it passed was because half the states left.

Meh, I think it could happen, and it would also benefit the state of mental healthcare in this country as well. Basically make the reliable conservative boogeymen to finally get some policy through that would improve American lives.