Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**

[Piston Slapper]

Classic... first you say we should have registration because it "makes sense and won't be used to confiscate" and now you're saying "it's good that those who have registered and been confiscated from have had their rights infringed upon" while trying to say that people in NYC living under a de facto total ban still can exercise their rights. Next you're probably going to say is that the 2A should only apply to muskets...

[Commander Riker]

I for one feel those with mental illness... committed or have obvious mental issues, probably shouldn't have readily available access to firearms say from a store or swap meet. However, I do recognize that if perverted, that could lead to everyone be diagnosed mentally ill if they like guns, so it would fail (us). Am I right?

[Burn-E]

Keep up Howard. If you read back what I said was I wasn't advocating confiscation and that registration does not lead to confiscation. And I also stated that if your weapon is illegal it certainly should be confiscated. Those are two separate threads of thought.

In the first thread I was talking about wholesale confiscation of weapons not limited confiscation of illegal weapons (the second thread) that probably should have never been sold in the first place or else are in the hands of those who should not have them (i.e. how California is going out to collect guns from those who have a permit but have since been identified as a threat due to being a felon or developing mental illness.

I know, I know, you don't see the distinction. But the devil is in the details.

[Piston Slapper]

I for one feel those with mental illness... committed or have obvious mental issues, probably shouldn't have readily available access to firearms say from a store or swap meet. However, I do recognize that if perverted, that could lead to everyone be diagnosed mentally ill if they like guns, so it would fail (us). Am I right?

Yes, you're right, and Burn-E would love that. According to the anti's having or wanting a gun is a mental illness, if they get their way they'll have everyone on the registry they want to make diagnosed with something.

Keep up Howard. If you read back what I said was I wasn't advocating confiscation and that registration does not lead to confiscation. And I also stated that if your weapon is illegal it certainly should be confiscated. Those are two separate threads of thought.

In the first thread I was talking about wholesale confiscation of weapons not limited confiscation of illegal weapons (the second thread) that probably should have never been sold in the first place or else are in the hands of those who should not have them (i.e. how California is going out to collect guns from those who have a permit but have since been identified as a threat due to being a felon or developing mental illness.

I know, I know, you don't see the distinction. But the devil is in the details.

There is no distinction. They say they're not going to confiscate anything, then they say they're only going to confiscate the super scary weapons, then they say they're doing the scary weapons too, then all the weapons. That's what NYC has just done. In many small steps over a long time they've effectively banned all guns in NYC. Doesn't matter if they do it like that or all at once, it's unconstitutional either way.

[Commander Riker]

I do not mind the idea of registration with the initial purchase from a dealer... but do not agree with registration of sales between friends, or having to keep that registration current, or having to carry insurance on a weapon (which is what I think ultimately that leads to)

Those who would try to use law to dictate what others cannot have would love to price weapons out of reach. I bought my mossberg 500 tactical for 330 bucks brand new... and I didn't even haggle with the dealer, who ran a background check on me and made me sign paperwork before purchasing.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

[Fudge_Brownie]

It simply stated that restrictions on weapons could be put in place and have been. And the decisions of the lower Federal courts since then have continued to follow that strain of thought. Your original argument was that confiscations in NY for example were unconstitutional. Post Heller rulings prove otherwise.

Doesn't matter if they do it like that or all at once, it's unconstitutional either way.

You're basically saying the 2nd amendment does not distinguish what guns can be owned. And ignoring the point made above that it is legal to do so if the states vote to do it. You've injected your opinion a few times on this topic, essentially about how dumb these restrictions are. But I'm afraid you're not able to separate your personal opinion from what is possible. In other words, "but its soooo stupid" is not a valid point.

[Piston Slapper]

You're basically saying the 2nd amendment does not distinguish what guns can be owned.

No, I'm not, it does distinguish and I linked an excerpt of the only supreme court decision to explicitly state what it does and does not apply to showing that. Burn-E just didn't like the distinction it makes and said his buddies knew better, but could not provide any factual evidence to the contrary of the excerpt I cited.

And ignoring the point made above that it is legal to do so if the states vote to do it.

States can't violate the 2nd amendment any more than the federal government can, due to the 14th amendment and incorporation which forces the states to honor the bill of rights. The local government of NYC and the state government of NY is bound by the 2nd amendment. This was just upheld in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.

Linked to the wiki articles for the relevant cases.

You've injected your opinion a few times on this topic, essentially about how dumb these restrictions are. But I'm afraid you're not able to separate your personal opinion from what is possible. In other words, "but its soooo stupid" is not a valid point.

As I've stated, I'm all for reasonable restrictions for felons and the dangerously mentally ill, provided they have the proper due process provisions. I'd also support making the national database of people who are prohibited from owning firearms publicly accessible via a website. Quite frankly I don't think anyone who can't be trusted with a firearm should be allowed to roam free in society at all, they should be incarcerated or committed, because if they're determined to get one they probably will regardless of what the law says.

[Burn-E]

Your ignorance knows no limits but you blather on nonetheless. Have you actually read Heller?

Quotes for your inability to study the details:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not 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. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 5456.

Following the logic of prohibiting dangerous and unusual weapons, the lower Federal courts have since ruled such cases as this:

Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures; the prohibition on assault weapons; and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.[216]

As a result, prohibitions and confiscations as legislated and implemented by the State of New York and NYC are entirely constitutional. Though I expect you will continue to misunderstand this.

[Burn-E]

Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority further draws these conclusions:

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

And then there's the full discussion of unusual and dangerous:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). 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.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

[Burn-E]

Oh and then there's Scalia's own words on weapon restrictions interpreting what he thinks the ruling on Heller meant.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

[Piston Slapper]

Oh and then there's Scalia's own words on weapon restrictions interpreting what he thinks the ruling on Heller meant.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

Yes, he explicitly said that it wasn't determined by Heller and would need to be determined in future cases. It's right there in that article. Heller, on its own, didn't really do that much.

Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”

[Burn-E]

Except, if you recall that our legal system operates on precedence and that's exactly what the lower Federal courts have done with the 80+ relevant cases that were decided since 2008.

Sorry Howard but you were wrong. The prohibitions and confiscations you protest as illegal were entirely constitutional.

[Commander Riker]

Alain, would you support a prohibition and/or confiscation of the people's weapons? I ask this regardless the constitutionality matter.

[flyfishing3]

I do

[Burn-E]

Alain, would you support a prohibition and/or confiscation of the people's weapons? I ask this regardless the constitutionality matter.

Here's the reality, we're not Israel and we're not Germany. As much I as I would like to get us to a point where significant regulations were in place for people gaining access to weapons that's not going to happen. I think one of the sanest approaches possible is the fact that Israel and Switzerland require gun registration and that every single owner must justify their ownership of the weapon on a every 3-6 month period. It's absolutely appropriate for us to require those people to go through psychiatric evaluation every few years to determine if they are becoming a threat to themselves or more importantly to others and therefore should not have access to weapons. And if that's the case, their weapons should be taken away.

I don't care what anyone believes, the evidence shows that we absolutely are doing a terrible job at keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people. Laws are not enforced. California just last year passed a funding bill for $24 million just so they could try to catch up on the weapons that should be confiscated from individuals who have weapons but since that acquisition have been convicted of a felony or identified as mentally ill by their doctors. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/mar/07/local/la-me-pc-gun-backlog-20130307

There's a backlog in California of 19,000 people who have 40,000 guns who should not. That is just a drop in the bucket nationally and anyone who says otherwise is either deluded or lying.

The problem is that the cat is so far out of the bag that there's no way you would be able to pull all the problematic guns off the streets and out of circulation. Honestly, I see no reason why the average person needs a high powered semi-automatic "sports rifle."

I had a roommate in college who was a gun dealer and the weapons I saw come through our apartment going into the hands of the average college student gave me the shivers. Most of them were ego, gun geek purchases. It was guys saying look at me, I have a high powered weapon, I'm a man because I can blow shit up. Less than half of them were intended for sports shooting in the form of target shooting or hunting. They lived in Provo, UT which is probably one of the absolutely safest cities in the country given how little alcohol consumption there is and the relative decent lifestyles of the inhabitants.

I grew up in a family where my Dad would go shoot a deer or elk to supply meat for the family when we were still struggling to make ends meet and had a literal door on legs for a kitchen table. So I completely appreciate the value of owning a weapon to provide for your family and I get the hunting ethos. I understand the desire to protect yourself but the vast majority of people who acquire a weapon for this purpose never really learn how to properly handle the weapon and create a greater danger for themselves and their homes as a result.

So where does that leave us? I think there are weapons out there that should not be sold. I think large magazines and higher power ammunition are unnecessary for the civilian populace. This concept of turning high powered lethal weapons into the equivalent of tricking out your car is more than a little disturbing. Guns are too freely available today in this country and there needs to be better education and regulation to try to bring some sanity back to this situation.

Think about the fact that there are countries, first world countries, where the number of gun incidents are in the tens annually. I cited Japan earlier. Where the police next to never fire their weapons and rarely if ever kill someone. Look at Iceland grieving because for the first time in their history since becoming an independent republic from Denmark in 1944 the police shot a man down. http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-03/iceland-grieves-after-police-kill-man-first-time-its-history This is a country of 350,000 people. With US averages they should be seeing a death almost every year.

Think about how this compares to the police shooting a guy down just because he was walking around with a knife or waving a sword. There are many officers who are too quick on the trigger and shoot first and think about alternatives later. I have a good friend who just retired as the Chief of Police for a city just like Ferguson, MO and he takes a very different approach with his officers. It's clear that training can make a difference and disturbances can be resolved without firing your weapon. But our gun culture makes that more difficult every day.

Think about the fact that the Association to Distribute Weapons of Mass Destruction (NRA) is doing everything it can to create a sense of fear and uncertainty about the future so that people will buy more guns. Think about the fact that under the lobbying of that same association, States have passed laws where if you pull a gun on someone and kill them, unless there is video, it's likely you're going to get off for Standing Your Ground even if you went looking for the problem in the first place. Stand Your Ground = more dead people rather than fewer because it encourages young stupid men to stay in a conflict because someone dissed them rather than standing down (as military training would encourage) and avoiding conflict.

The ADWMD is a large part of the cause of the sickness that is afflicting this country. We have a very real sickness when politicians will say that 28 dead six year old boys and girls and their teachers is part of the price we pay to be a free country.

It's fucked up. There is no other way to describe it. And it doesn't have to be that way.