Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Ghostpanther]

For the Nth time, firearm ownership enjoys an express civil liberty protection in the Constitution and cars do not. That is because armed self-defense is a human right, and motor vehicle operation is not.

I love the cloyingly idiotic statistic flogging there. The first thing that 3.1% statistic confirms is what everybody already knows -- mass shooters almost always choose targets where armed self defense is prohibited. Every school shooting, the Ft. Hood shooting, the Aurora shooting, it's very hard to find examples of shootings where the target area was one in which CCW was permitted, let alone likely. There is also a pretty obvious baserate fallacy being committed -- of fucking course there are more examples of unarmed defense than armed defense, because the rate of people who are capable of trying to resist with bare hands is ~100% barring disability, and the rate of people who can attempt armed defense is far less (since it requires someone be armed, shockingly). So, that 13.1% is out of 100% of mass shootings, in every mass shooting, it's possible for people to attempt resistance with bare hands. The 3.1% number is out of only whatever percentage of mass shootings in which a civilian owned firearm was present and accessible at the time. We don't have stats on that, but wouldn't you guess that it's probably... 10%? 15% at most? So an effective success rate between 20-30% ish, vs the 13.1% for unarmed defense?

Yeah. It is common sense to understand a 80 year old guy's chances of winning a unarmed fight against a 25 year old is pretty slim. Sure there are exceptions. But the fact remains, a 80 year old with a handgun, increases his chance of survival against a younger and stronger attacker. This is also true for any age group when the victim is not near as strong as the attacker. Scum criminals much prefer their targets to be weak and defenseless.

[Svifnymr]

For the Nth time, firearm ownership enjoys an express civil liberty protection in the Constitution and cars do not. That is because armed self-defense is a human right, and motor vehicle operation is not.

I don't really mind the car comparisons, because they're always so wrong/ flawed that it's easy to point out how much more guns are restricted than cars. It's been done plenty of times in this thread over the years, someone brings up "treat guns like cars!", it gets pointed out the simple comparisons, then they say it's a false equivalency and we need MORE restrictions on guns anyway.

Until they mandate that all privately owned cars require a breathalyzer to start and have a max speed of 35mph, I don't really care. It's for the children you know.


On a different subject, Broward county wants to have a straw vote about assault weapons. Then everyone in the county can vote to express their opinions in a non-binding way. Of course, since Broward county is 50% democrat, 21% republican, it's not hard to see which way it'll go, even without the high school kids trying to sway emotions.

[Antiganon]

There are different degrees/stages of that disease. If a loved one or a relative feels they are a danger to others, then they should have them visit a doctor and then a medical determination can be made by a medical professional to decide if their firearms should be taken from them and then if necessary, a court order. Not just because they are diagnosed with the early stages of the disease.

We need to come up with a standard for CCW licenses which all states will recognize to avoid such. I seriously do not think Ohio's requirements for a citizen to obtain a CHL ( Carry Conceal Handgun ) license is less stringent than the requirements for one in New York. Except in New York, you have to prove you have a need for one and in Ohio, if you are a law abiding citizen, you have the right under the US Constitution. :P

I said nothing about taking firearms away from anyone. I said that collecting SSDI due to a mental impairment, AND having that impairment be of a nature that you require a third party to manage your benefits for you, should require you to appear in court and be adjudicated as mentally competent prior to your ability to pass a background check to buy a new gun.

This is literally the sentence after the one you bolded:

Their rights shouldn't be unduly infringed, so I would refuse the initial sale, refer them to a court hearing to be adjudicated as mentally fit to own a gun, and grant the sale following the hearing based on the judge's ruling. This also affords the possibility of appeal in higher courts.

I have literally suggested a federal standardized system of training and licensing for CCWs that would be valid in all 50 states. We already agree on this point, but because I am including it in larger posts that talk about wanting better gun control, you seem to think I disagree.

[Stormdash]

I have literally suggested a federal standardized system of training and licensing for CCWs that would be valid in all 50 states. We already agree on this point, but because I am including it in larger posts that talk about wanting better gun control, you seem to think I disagree.

Not a federal issue. CCW licensing is a state issue. The only function the federal government should have in this is assuring that full faith and credit apply to such licenses.

[Ghostpanther]

I said nothing about taking firearms away from anyone. I said that collecting SSDI due to a mental impairment, AND having that impairment be of a nature that you require a third party to manage your benefits for you, should require you to appear in court and be adjudicated as mentally competent prior to your ability to pass a background check to buy a new gun.

This is literally the sentence after the one you bolded:

I have literally suggested a federal standardized system of training and licensing for CCWs that would be valid in all 50 states. We already agree on this point, but because I am including it in larger posts that talk about wanting better gun control, you seem to think I disagree.

If you are going to loose the ability for buying a new firearm based on the the court order required before doing a background check, then how would this apply to a SSDI citizen who already has a firearm? Actually the same thing should apply. If a person's mental capability is questioned in regards to possessing a firearm and is a danger to others, their firearms should be taken by a court order after a medical determination of such disability.

So I am not disagreeing so much as I am implying the same standard should exist if they have a firearm or are wanting to purchase a new one. I think we both are somewhat on the same page in the sense, a person's right not to possess a firearm needs to be done with-in due process of the law and not by some Presidential executive order.

I know you have. But I was noting the reasons it has not been done yet. The democrats from certain states such as New York and others will be opposed to it, because it lessens their agenda to be much more restrictive of firearms. And in my opinion, they go too far at times. I do not think we will ever get such a law passed in Congress. At least not in the present political state.

[Antiganon]

If you are going to loose the ability for buying a new firearm based on the the court order required before doing a background check, then how would this apply to a SSDI citizen who already has a firearm? Actually the same thing should apply. If a person's mental capability is questioned in regards to possessing a firearm and is a danger to others, their firearms should be taken by a court order after a medical determination of such disability.

So I am not disagreeing so much as I am implying the same standard should exist if they have a firearm or are wanting to purchase a new one. I think we both are somewhat on the same page in the sense, a person's right not to possess a firearm needs to be done with-in due process of the law and not by some Presidential executive order.

I know you have. But I was noting the reasons it has not been done yet. The democrats from certain states such as New York and others will be opposed to it, because it lessens their agenda to be much more restrictive of firearms. And in my opinion, they go too far at times. I do not think we will ever get such a law passed in Congress. At least not in the present political state.

I agree that existing gun owners should be subject to the same restriction. However, there would have to be an inciting event for the courts to have a hearing in the first place - a report from a family member that a person is an imminent risk, for example. In the case of a person attempting to purchase a new gun, the purchase itself is the inciting incident.

In any case, we appear to be in agreement here as well - if you have mental issues and may be a risk to others, your right to bear arms should be subject to review in court, maintaining due process, with appeals possible.

BTW, I am a Democrat from CT, one of the states with the strongest gun control laws in the country since Sandy Hook.

I also grew up less than 15 minutes from Sandy Hook Elementary School BTW.

- - - Updated - - -

Not a federal issue. CCW licensing is a state issue. The only function the federal government should have in this is assuring that full faith and credit apply to such licenses.

Full faith and credit would be fine, if permitting requirements were remotely equivalent. Some states are Shall Issue, some are May Issue, some require no permit whatsoever, and some disallow it entirely in public without specific circumstances that require it (like a credible self defense threat).

Standardizing the permitting requirements would make full faith and credit FAR easier to get behind.

[Ghostpanther]

I agree that existing gun owners should be subject to the same restriction. However, there would have to be an inciting event for the courts to have a hearing in the first place - a report from a family member that a person is an imminent risk, for example. In the case of a person attempting to purchase a new gun, the purchase itself is the inciting incident.

In any case, we appear to be in agreement here as well - if you have mental issues and may be a risk to others, your right to bear arms should be subject to review in court, maintaining due process, with appeals possible.

BTW, I am a Democrat from CT, one of the states with the strongest gun control laws in the country since Sandy Hook.

I also grew up less than 15 minutes from Sandy Hook Elementary School BTW.

- - - Updated - - -

Full faith and credit would be fine, if permitting requirements were remotely equivalent. Some states are Shall Issue, some are May Issue, some require no permit whatsoever, and some disallow it entirely in public without specific circumstances that require it (like a credible self defense threat).

Standardizing the permitting requirements would make full faith and credit FAR easier to get behind.

Agree.

Far more States are shall issue than those which are may issue. And their reasons for doing so, they believe, are Constitutional ones. I think the answer is to look at the middle of the road states such as Ohio and work from there to come up with a standard for a nation wide CCW license. In those states which require no such license, the citizens which live there could continue to not have a license to carry a handgun if they want to not travel to another state. If they do, they need to ether not carry a firearm or get the National license.

But I do not see the more radical gun control States willingly accepting such. Only way I see it happening is if some more moderate Democrats are elected. I have emailed my Republican and Democrat Senator and voiced my desire to see them vote for the National carry conceal law. But not got a answer other than the normal political rhetoric response.

[Antiganon]

Agree.

Far more States are shall issue than those which are may issue. And their reasons for doing so, they believe, are Constitutional ones. I think the answer is to look at the middle of the road states such as Ohio and work from there to come up with a standard for a nation wide CCW license. In those states which require no such license, the citizens which live there could continue to not have a license to carry a handgun if they want to not travel to another state. If they do, they need to ether not carry a firearm or get the National license.

But I do not see the more radical gun control States willingly accepting such. Only way I see it happening is if some more moderate Democrats are elected. I have emailed my Republican and Democrat Senator and voiced my desire to see them vote for the National carry conceal law. But not got a answer other than the normal political rhetoric response.

I could just as easily flip your last statement - "But I do not see the more radical gun rights States willingly accepting a Federal oversight of CCW permits. Only way I see it happening is if some more moderate Republicans are elected."

You and I agree far more than we disagree in this thread, BTW. Given how frequently and emphatically we disagree in politics threads, this bodes very well for gun control in general, if we can get more moderate, reasonable people to lead the discussion.

[AlphaOut]

Agree.

Far more States are shall issue than those which are may issue. And their reasons for doing so, they believe, are Constitutional ones. I think the answer is to look at the middle of the road states such as Ohio and work from there to come up with a standard for a nation wide CCW license. In those states which require no such license, the citizens which live there could continue to not have a license to carry a handgun if they want to not travel to another state. If they do, they need to ether not carry a firearm or get the National license.

But I do not see the more radical gun control States willingly accepting such. Only way I see it happening is if some more moderate Democrats are elected. I have emailed my Republican and Democrat Senator and voiced my desire to see them vote for the National carry conceal law. But not got a answer other than the normal political rhetoric response.

I wouldn't be against something like that, unfortunately I don't see it working in a number of states. For example, Minnesota requires a manufactured fired casing from your firearm. Kimber doesn't do that, so no Kimber's in Minnesota. For Cali restrictions, which aren't only limited to handguns but also ammo. There are also a few states which a handgun cannot be purchased until you're 21. Which poses a problem for areas like Montana where a handgun can be purchased at 16, so at what age should a CCW be available if its nation wide.

[Stormdash]

I agree that existing gun owners should be subject to the same restriction. However, there would have to be an inciting event for the courts to have a hearing in the first place - a report from a family member that a person is an imminent risk, for example. In the case of a person attempting to purchase a new gun, the purchase itself is the inciting incident.

In any case, we appear to be in agreement here as well - if you have mental issues and may be a risk to others, your right to bear arms should be subject to review in court, maintaining due process, with appeals possible.

BTW, I am a Democrat from CT, one of the states with the strongest gun control laws in the country since Sandy Hook.

I also grew up less than 15 minutes from Sandy Hook Elementary School BTW.

- - - Updated - - -

Full faith and credit would be fine, if permitting requirements were remotely equivalent. Some states are Shall Issue, some are May Issue, some require no permit whatsoever, and some disallow it entirely in public without specific circumstances that require it (like a credible self defense threat).

Standardizing the permitting requirements would make full faith and credit FAR easier to get behind.

For clarity, I endorse constitutional CC and OC. "May issue" is baldly unconstitutional to me, and I don't see how it could possibly survive SCOTUS review, but SCOTUS has basically continued to let circuit contradictions build and build in the 10 years since Heller and McDonald.

[misterpuk]

Let's take a look at some numbers, shall we? Opinion articles just don't do it for me.

According to the FBI:

- Between 2000 and 2013, there were 160 mass shootings...............

Let me stop you right there and refer you back to the document you linked. Pages 6-7 state there were 160 Active shooter incidents, NOT 160 mass shooting events.

Of these 160

" In 64 incidents (40.0%) the crime would have fallen within the federal definition of "mass killing" -- Defined as "three or more" killed -- under the new federa; statute."

Nice job misrepresenting facts.

[Ghostpanther]

I wouldn't be against something like that, unfortunately I don't see it working in a number of states. For example, Minnesota requires a manufactured fired casing from your firearm. Kimber doesn't do that, so no Kimber's in Minnesota. For Cali restrictions, which aren't only limited to handguns but also ammo. There are also a few states which a handgun cannot be purchased until you're 21. Which poses a problem for areas like Montana where a handgun can be purchased at 16, so at what age should a CCW be available if its nation wide.

18 since it is the legal age you are considered a adult. You can open carry a handgun in Ohio if you are 18, but need to be 21 to carry concealed with a license. The main issue is the Supreme Court has refused to define in detail what the limits are regarding the Second Amendment. While the Heller case, they did rule that the right under the Second Amendment extends to self defense outside of a militia, they just passed the buck off to the States to decide how to implement that right, within some limits such as not banning handguns as Chicago tried. Which they would not with any other Constitutional right. Really irks me.

- - - Updated - - -

For clarity, I endorse constitutional CC and OC. "May issue" is baldly unconstitutional to me, and I don't see how it could possibly survive SCOTUS review, but SCOTUS has basically continued to let circuit contradictions build and build in the 10 years since Heller and McDonald.

I agree. The last review by them, they refused to hear the case in California which addressed the issue. Yet a Federal judge in the D.C. law, which was very similar, he ruled their law was Unconstitutional. 3 Justices felt they should have heard the case from Cal.

[Svifnymr]

I could just as easily flip your last statement - "But I do not see the more radical gun rights States willingly accepting a Federal oversight of CCW permits. Only way I see it happening is if some more moderate Republicans are elected."

Actually, I think it's 37 states that have CWL reciprocity agreements. Sure they'd balk at being forced to May Issue, but they've plenty of consensus already. Alaska and Vermont, who don't require a license to carry concealed, both actually issue licenses just so their residents can get one to meet those reciprocal agreements.

[Antiganon]

18 since it is the legal age you are considered a adult. You can open carry a handgun in Ohio if you are 18, but need to be 21 to carry concealed with a license. The main issue is the Supreme Court has refused to define in detail what the limits are regarding the Second Amendment. While the Heller case, they did rule that the right under the Second Amendment extends to self defense outside of a militia, they just passed the buck off to the States to decide how to implement that right, within some limits such as not banning handguns as Chicago tried. Which they would not with any other Constitutional right. Really irks me.

- - - Updated - - -



I agree. The last review by them, they refused to hear the case in California which addressed the issue. Yet a Federal judge in the D.C. law, which was very similar, he ruled their law was Unconstitutional. 3 Justices felt they should have heard the case from Cal.

I am personally in agreement with "Shall Issue" for CCW conditional upon training and licensing, but I can understand why "May Issue" could survive Constitutional scrutiny. One could argue that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that those who are to be carrying guns on them at all times are doing so responsibly and for good reason, as opposed to recklessly and/or for no discernible reason.

I would not want to be on SCOTUS hearing a case regarding the Constitutionality of "May Issue", it is a horrible position to be in.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, I think it's 37 states that have CWL reciprocity agreements. Sure they'd balk at being forced to May Issue, but they've plenty of consensus already. Alaska and Vermont, who don't require a license to carry concealed, both actually issue licenses just so their residents can get one to meet those reciprocal agreements.

But those states are in control of their own permitting requirements. Not the Federal government.

This isn't about giving red states full faith and credit to blue states. This is about red states handing over the keys to Congress.

[candle86]

No you can not ban assault weapons, first you must define them, because an AR-15 is less deadly than a 30.06 deer rifle. Both are available as a semi automatic. The issue isn't the Guns, America has always had a lot of guns, since this nation was founded, everyone had a gun. The issue at stake here is how we are raising kids, and how we as a society behave. When you raise someone to think throwing a tantrum is ok, or you excuse their bad behavior as just being a kid they grow up into people that cause mayhem. Want to know why mass shootings are on the rise, its because less kids are getting their rears beat by their parents. Solve the problem by making kids fear the consequences, don't just say stop being bad, instead tan their hide with your belt.

[Ghostpanther]

I am personally in agreement with "Shall Issue" for CCW conditional upon training and licensing, but I can understand why "May Issue" could survive Constitutional scrutiny. One could argue that the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that those who are to be carrying guns on them at all times are doing so responsibly and for good reason, as opposed to recklessly and/or for no discernible reason.

I would not want to be on SCOTUS hearing a case regarding the Constitutionality of "May Issue", it is a horrible position to be in.

- - - Updated - - -

But those states are in control of their own permitting requirements. Not the Federal government.

This isn't about giving red states full faith and credit to blue states. This is about red states handing over the keys to Congress.

I would have no issue ruling it is unconstitutional. States such as Ohio, which is a shall issue state, requires a background check, with fingerprints and a class room safety and range time class to get a CHL license. It cost me $125 and almost 3 months waiting time to get my license. May issue, opens up too many ways for the state to not issue a license. The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. While that does not cover conceal carry as such, it does mean they are allowed to carry a firearm.

Some federal laws are already in place for restricting firearms. Having a Congressional passed law which requires all states to honor each State's carry conceal licenses would not be any different. But while there is no limit to magazines capacity for handguns in Ohio, each state should have the right to regulate such and your right to not be arrested for conceal carrying a handgun in another state if you have a license from another state, should not give you the right to disrespect the magazine limit in the state you are visiting.

So I guess we are in agreement on that?

- - - Updated - - -

No you can not ban assault weapons, first you must define them, because an AR-15 is less deadly than a 30.06 deer rifle. Both are available as a semi automatic. The issue isn't the Guns, America has always had a lot of guns, since this nation was founded, everyone had a gun. The issue at stake here is how we are raising kids, and how we as a society behave. When you raise someone to think throwing a tantrum is ok, or you excuse their bad behavior as just being a kid they grow up into people that cause mayhem. Want to know why mass shootings are on the rise, its because less kids are getting their rears beat by their parents. Solve the problem by making kids fear the consequences, don't just say stop being bad, instead tan their hide with your belt.

Well said and yes, that would addressing the root of the issue. Which is not gun ownership.

[Nuadu]

No you can not ban assault weapons, first you must define them, because an AR-15 is less deadly than a 30.06 deer rifle. Both are available as a semi automatic. The issue isn't the Guns, America has always had a lot of guns, since this nation was founded, everyone had a gun. The issue at stake here is how we are raising kids, and how we as a society behave. When you raise someone to think throwing a tantrum is ok, or you excuse their bad behavior as just being a kid they grow up into people that cause mayhem. Want to know why mass shootings are on the rise, its because less kids are getting their rears beat by their parents. Solve the problem by making kids fear the consequences, don't just say stop being bad, instead tan their hide with your belt.

And approximately how long would this fix take to implement? How soon can we see a noticeable decline in mass shooting incidents and the lives taken by them? I'm curious. I'd also like to see any data supporting the bullshit anecdote of, "Want to know why mass shootings are on the rise, its because less kids are getting their rears beat by their parents."

[Antiganon]

I would have no issue ruling it is unconstitutional. States such as Ohio, which is a shall issue state, requires a background check, with fingerprints and a class room safety and range time class to get a CHL license. It cost me $125 and almost 3 months waiting time to get my license. May issue, opens up too many ways for the state to not issue a license. The Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. While that does not cover conceal carry as such, it does mean they are allowed to carry a firearm.

Some federal laws are already in place for restricting firearms. Having a Congressional passed law which requires all states to honor each State's carry conceal licenses would not be any different. But while there is no limit to magazines capacity for handguns in Ohio, each state should have the right to regulate such and your right to not be arrested for conceal carrying a handgun in another state if you have a license from another state, should not give you the right to disrespect the magazine limit in the state you are visiting.

So I guess we are in agreement on that?

See, I think we are in a good place for discussion, then you emphasize a part of my post and take it out of context.

There has never been a decision on the Constitutionality of "May Issue". "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not specify get into specifics. "Keep" obviously means private ownership (or at least, private custodianship, if we are to take the Swiss view that the government owns and issues you the arms you are expected to carry if you are called up to serve in the militia). "Bear arms" does not necessarily mean "bear arms in a public setting" or "bear concealed arms". SCOTUS may one day decide it does, but that day is not today.

[Svifnymr]

But those states are in control of their own permitting requirements. Not the Federal government.

This isn't about giving red states full faith and credit to blue states. This is about red states handing over the keys to Congress.

It's handled in a manner similar to sharing drivers licenses currently. My point was mainly that the majority of states have a similar system, with a minority of states being May Issue with stringent qualifications for who deserves one. It's like the EU stuff though, if the Fed's passed a system, the more stringent states would still have burdensome requirements, so you're not really gaining anything.

IIRC, you agree with Shall Issue as long as there's a background check, safety training, safe gun handling stuff? It's already pretty much done by those 37 states. The remaining ones are May Issue.

As part of the NFA process, they used to have a requirement for the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of your jurisdiction to sign a document stating he knew of no reason you should be denied. It was commonly used as a means for anti-gun chiefs to routinely deny buyers with no legal justification. A little while ago they changed it so that you send notification to your CLEO, and if there is a reason for you to be denied, he can contact ATF and tell them why, but he has to have an actual reason.

A lot of the May Issue problems stem from similar situations of giving control to someone with no real recourse.

[Antiganon]

IIRC, you agree with Shall Issue as long as there's a background check, safety training, safe gun handling stuff? It's already pretty much done by those 37 states. The remaining ones are May Issue.

Yes.

Want to own a gun, keep it on private property? Whatever, not my problem. I think we ought to have (100% state funded) training and licensing, so that people have a bare minimum responsibility and competency, but that appears untenable for lots of people.

Want to own a gun, conceal it on your person, and carry it in public? Pass a background check, do a safety and training course, pass a written and practical test that demonstrate you understand and can abide by safe best practices, and renew it every 5 years or so.

Here is the crux of the issue, at least from my perspective.

We have 56 issuing jurisdictions in the US, including DC, NYC (separate issuing jurisdiction from NY State), PR, and other territories. Of those 56 jurisdictions, 13 require no permit whatsoever for carry within their borders (AK, AZ, AR, ID, KS, ME, MI, MO, NH, ND, VT, WV, WY). Another 29 are "Shall-Issue" by statute (AL, CO, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, MI, MN, MT, NE, NV, NM, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA, WI, Guam). Another 2 are "May-Issue" by statute but "Shall-Issue" in practice, due to court precedent (CT, DE). The remaining jurisdictions are "May-Issue" with valid reasoning required (and the reasoning is different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, compare NYC requirements to Upstate NY for example). American Samoa and Northern Marianas Islands are "No-Issue", which would presumably be struck down by SCOTUS if tested.

Were we to institute nationwide CCW permitting, all 56 jurisdictions would cede control of the permitting requirements to the Federal government. The 13 unrestricted jurisdictions would have new restrictions for CCW permits within their own borders*, and would probably be unhappy about it. The 29 "Shall-Issue" jurisdictions would likely retain basically the same restrictions, but be subject to Federal oversight, rather than autonomous. The 12 "May-Issue" jurisdictions would likely become "Shall-Issue" jurisdictions, which would be contentious in states like NY and CA. The remaining 2 "No-Issue" jurisdictions would likely become "Shall-Issue" jurisdictions, which honestly wouldn't have much impact, as American Samoa and Northern Marianas Islands have no elected representatives in Congress in the first place.

I could see the 12 "May-Issue" jurisdictions able to get on board provided the Federal restrictions for a permit were stringent enough. Some diehard anti-gun liberals would likely balk, but I highly doubt they are a large enough percentage of Congress to block passage. The bigger issue IMO is getting the 13 unrestricted states to agree to the new restrictions, where they previously had none. *Presumably they could remain unrestricted within their own borders, but be "Shall-Issue" for permits for those traveling out of state. Further, convincing the 29 "Shall-Issue" states that losing control of their own permit requirements is worth it for nationwide reciprocity, which IMO is an easy sell.