Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:04 PM Jun 2016

Would requiring all gun owners to have a license, all guns to be registered,

everyone wanting a gun owners' license to take and pass a mandatory gun safety course, and all gun owners to buy liability insurance, violate the Second Amendment?

If we can't ban guns let's at least make it a big as a pain in the ass as possible for people to buy one.

114 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Would requiring all gun owners to have a license, all guns to be registered, (Original Post) Nye Bevan Jun 2016 OP
I would add that full forensics must be documented on each firearm as well. Cassiopeia Jun 2016 #1
You realize a couple of afternoons at the range would invalidate those forensics hack89 Jun 2016 #5
You do know more than one state tried that and gave up after zero crimes solved Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #13
Well, if you only finger-printed 1000 people, then fingerprinting wouldn't work either Orrex Jun 2016 #47
Ahh yes, when something fails massively just try it bigger Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #55
You seem not to understand how reality works Orrex Jun 2016 #73
Neither do you, see post #5. Marengo Jun 2016 #79
Ballistic fingerprints change with gun use-- it'd be like a tire fingerprint. X_Digger Jun 2016 #89
It's amazing that gun-enablers can conceive of nothing to curb gun violence Orrex Jun 2016 #94
So.. ignore science, ignore the reality of MD & NY, and push something that doesn't work.. why? X_Digger Jun 2016 #99
So... No. Orrex Jun 2016 #101
Every new gun sold in MD had to have a casing submitted, for 15 years. 12 for NY. (340,000 in MD) X_Digger Jun 2016 #105
There is a fundamental difference you are ignoring hack89 Jun 2016 #88
But there was the potential... scscholar Jun 2016 #57
In the real world results matter Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #60
Not sure if serious.... TipTok Jun 2016 #90
What a waste Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #29
All legal, all politically impossible hack89 Jun 2016 #2
Is registering our cars a violation of privacy? yardwork Jun 2016 #35
Driving is not a constitutional right hack89 Jun 2016 #39
No individual step would prevent all gun crimes/incidents mythology Jun 2016 #58
There are things we can do hack89 Jun 2016 #61
I'll disagree with a coposter. Igel Jun 2016 #75
Then the same could be true for guns... Blanks Jun 2016 #102
Seems to be the law in many states. safeinOhio Jun 2016 #37
I said they were legal. The 2A does allow strict regulation hack89 Jun 2016 #40
Waiting periods and extra costs, inconvenience ShrimpPoboy Jun 2016 #3
The 24th Amendment will figure in as well: Poll tax. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #14
Will it? Here's the text: Orrex Jun 2016 #49
Transparent means of infringing on a right by cost and subterfuge. Precedent. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #59
And the SCOTUS could easily rule that the 24th applies only to voting Orrex Jun 2016 #74
They could pull a squirrel out of their... TipTok Jun 2016 #91
Hardly as transparent as you want to pretend Orrex Jun 2016 #98
Orrex. Look in the mirror. There is the very meaning of "mantra." Right on cue. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #95
and yet they have been upheld by the court. mopinko Jun 2016 #65
Some have and some havent ShrimpPoboy Jun 2016 #66
oh please. mopinko Jun 2016 #68
I dont support laws intending to completely prevent people from exercising a right ShrimpPoboy Jun 2016 #71
i dont need one mopinko Jun 2016 #76
Set a date in the near future...where all new guns have to be smart guns Fresh_Start Jun 2016 #4
Better make sure they work first Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #34
I'm sure the manufactures safeinOhio Jun 2016 #38
I think that is your plan Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #43
Well, it's been proven to not reduce crime with licensing Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #6
As stated above, half-assed measures obviously won't work. Orrex Jun 2016 #50
There are actually cases pending now on those fees Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #51
If I seek a redress of grievances in the courts, is that free? Orrex Jun 2016 #53
How about if you want to buy a new gun, you have to hand in two old ones to be destroyed? baldguy Jun 2016 #7
Sure, as long as my choices aren't limited. hack89 Jun 2016 #9
Jeez, you want to feed new gun sales? Enforced planned obslescence! Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #16
No, your choices should be limited. baldguy Jun 2016 #19
Then I won't support your way hack89 Jun 2016 #26
What are you goona do? Shoot me? baldguy Jun 2016 #27
No need to shoot anyone- you will simply be overwhelmed at the polls... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #30
Knock yourself out Crepuscular Jun 2016 #31
No. Simply ignore you as in the past hack89 Jun 2016 #33
Sure hope calling more than half of safeinOhio Jun 2016 #42
Voters don't care that much hack89 Jun 2016 #44
Glad to hear that. safeinOhio Jun 2016 #48
Go for it Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #36
We've tried it your way. It's been a spectacular, bloody failure. baldguy Jun 2016 #45
Yes... It has... TipTok Jun 2016 #92
What if I don't have two guns? Are saying only current gun owners should be allowed to buy new ones? cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #114
Get some non-asshat justices in SCOTUS, and gun safety laws will be perfectly within the 2nd Amend. backscatter712 Jun 2016 #8
You don't need a license or insurance to own or drive a car on private property hack89 Jun 2016 #12
No. Briefly, elleng Jun 2016 #10
Thanks (nt) Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #20
"nothing... should be taken to cast doubt:". I.e., they aren't addressing those issues. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #21
...and this is why we need to win this November... backscatter712 Jun 2016 #69
How about we do the same to OTHER virginia mountainman Jun 2016 #11
See, this is what we're up against. Nye Bevan Jun 2016 #18
Until you change the Constitution it is the same Lee-Lee Jun 2016 #22
Some controllers here don't equate the 5th Amendment with other rights. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #25
"We" seem to be up against a group of people Abq_Sarah Jun 2016 #64
Controllers always assume... TipTok Jun 2016 #93
We have. Have you not been reading the news lately? Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #70
+1 uponit7771 Jun 2016 #86
Sounds like the only answer that DOES work is the one Australia uses. Ford_Prefect Jun 2016 #15
Nothing suggested will ever be accepted by the gun groupies liberal N proud Jun 2016 #17
I support mandatory firearm safety training TeddyR Jun 2016 #32
Is that before you can own a gun? liberal N proud Jun 2016 #41
It wouldn't work with rifles and shotguns. roamer65 Jun 2016 #23
This has been brought up before - NRA/gun nutz can't be bothered. tenderfoot Jun 2016 #24
Commentary SuperDutyTX Jun 2016 #28
Here's some honest questions for supporters of gun rights PJMcK Jun 2016 #46
I'll give it a try: EX500rider Jun 2016 #67
Life in a maximum security prison... Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #52
Really? Look at this forum davidn3600 Jun 2016 #56
Actually the best we could do was declare the NRA a terrorist organization. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #63
Well that was ... creepy... TipTok Jun 2016 #96
The NRA doesn't tell the nuts what to think, the nuts make the NRA extreme Amishman Jun 2016 #106
LOL! Imprisoning people for their beliefs, now there's a progressive value. Marengo Jun 2016 #80
Not their beliefs, their actions. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #81
The NRA owns vultures? TipTok Jun 2016 #97
Grammar, my nemesis. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #103
How about the ones who claim to want to? beevul Jun 2016 #87
Sounds like it would fall into that "well regulated" part of the 2nd Amend NightWatcher Jun 2016 #54
According to the NRA all laws violate the Second Amendment n/t doc03 Jun 2016 #62
I don't think it would violate the 2nd amendment (Illinois does it, at least to some extent) Recursion Jun 2016 #72
Agreed and I don't think JustAnotherGen Jun 2016 #84
Congress's power is virtually unlimited. fleabiscuit Jun 2016 #77
Are bullets protected by the 2nd Amendment? RAFisher Jun 2016 #78
Yes. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #82
your reading assignment melm00se Jun 2016 #113
I've always believed that the 2nd Amendment allows the States to regulate the militia Sam_Fields Jun 2016 #83
Article I Section 8 gives that to Congress Recursion Jun 2016 #85
The states were mandated by the Articles of Confederation to keep up militias, jmg257 Jun 2016 #100
No, it wouldn't. What you suggested is no different than getting a voter ID card in some states tonyt53 Jun 2016 #104
Do you suppose that the people who ignore the current gun laws will comply with these requirements? WillowTree Jun 2016 #107
to misquote, "The 2nd Amendment is not a murder-suicide pact" SwankyXomb Jun 2016 #108
Require all legal firearm owners to be resposible owners too. Squaredeal Jun 2016 #109
Must be careful to remain practical. ImLiberalNotLeftist Jun 2016 #110
All bullets should have deaniac21 Jun 2016 #111
Most bullets fragment on impact NickB79 Jun 2016 #112

hack89

(39,171 posts)
5. You realize a couple of afternoons at the range would invalidate those forensics
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:10 PM
Jun 2016

Barrels wear down with use.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
13. You do know more than one state tried that and gave up after zero crimes solved
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:19 PM
Jun 2016

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:43 PM - Edit history (1)

It's a proven waste of money.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
47. Well, if you only finger-printed 1000 people, then fingerprinting wouldn't work either
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:32 PM
Jun 2016

It needs hugely large-scale participation in order to be effective, rather than piecemeal efforts poorly funded in a handful of states.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
55. Ahh yes, when something fails massively just try it bigger
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:42 PM
Jun 2016

That makes perfect sense.

Maryland case wasn't half-assed. They did it 15 years, spent $5,000,000 and got fired cases from over 300,000 guns sold in the state and didn't solve a single crime.

NY also tried it and found the same results.

When you have tried and failed it's idiocy to claim that you just need to do it bigger.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
73. You seem not to understand how reality works
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:15 PM
Jun 2016

Let's vaccinate one person--that'll prevent everyone from getting measles.

It's foolish to implement a policy that covers one area when that area is surrounded by a vast swath of non-participating regions. You can log everything about every gun in Massachusetts or New York, and all it takes is one gun from Rhode Island to "prove" the system doesn't work.

You know, gun-enablers roll that objection out so readily, with such practiced ease and with such uniformity that it's clear that they're getting their propaganda slogans from the same source.

Say hi to LaPierre at the next meeting, and be sure to tell him that you've followed your instructions dutifully.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
89. Ballistic fingerprints change with gun use-- it'd be like a tire fingerprint.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:23 PM
Jun 2016

Ballistic fingerprint matching works when you have a (recently) fired casing from a gun, and the gun to compare it to. An examiner can say, "Within 75% confidence, this casing was fired from this gun."

If you take that same gun and fire 500 rounds through it, the fingerprint changes. An examiner would be able to match the 500th casing to the gun, but not the first.

And that's what ballistic fingerprints are-- the first casing ever fired from a gun. If you clean the gun with a good solvent, the carbon, lead, and copper build-up that create the 'fingerprint' will be removed.

It would be like taking the 'fingerprint' of every car in the US. Then trying to take a random tire print and matching it, even though the car may have driven 10,000, 20,000, or 50,000 miles since.

Free clue: real-life forensics doesn't work like it does on CSI.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
94. It's amazing that gun-enablers can conceive of nothing to curb gun violence
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:36 PM
Jun 2016

But they're quick to leap in to declare all proposed solutions impossible.

It's like they've been enslaved by their precious, precious guns.


Also, when you write "free clue," it generally makes you come across like a tool.

X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
99. So.. ignore science, ignore the reality of MD & NY, and push something that doesn't work.. why?
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:43 PM
Jun 2016

Just to be seen to be 'doing something'?

Really? At what political capital? At what budget cost? And when it doesn't do shit, the response is.. do it more?

You've got two states that tried this experiment. The result? Was as anyone who knows firearms told them it would be. Forensics science tells you that ballistic matching is great when you have a recent exemplar and the firearm in question.

And here I thought the science-deniers were mostly on the right..

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
101. So... No.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:00 PM
Jun 2016

MD & NY are inconclusive, and it's dishonest to pretend otherwise, just like the NRA bullshit that gun-enablers parrot about Chicago's failed gun control.

Partial measures cannot succeed, full stop. Effecting an attempted solution in one city or state is doomed to fail because it's so easy to pollute the field from outside. It would be like eliminating smoking by banning the sale of cigarettes in one city block; people would obviously bring them in from outside. It is not possible for a rational person to deny this.

And here I thought the science-deniers were mostly on the right..
Funny, I thought the same thing about gun zealots.


X_Digger

(18,585 posts)
105. Every new gun sold in MD had to have a casing submitted, for 15 years. 12 for NY. (340,000 in MD)
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:17 PM
Jun 2016

What, you think that NO gun sold in NY or MD was *ever* used in a crime and left casings behind?

That'd have to be some grade A level magical thinking.

http://nypost.com/2012/04/02/cuomo-whacks-pataki-gun-law/

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-bullet-casings-20151107-story.html

hack89

(39,171 posts)
88. There is a fundamental difference you are ignoring
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:19 PM
Jun 2016

Fingerprints don't change over time. Guns are mechanical devices subject to high stresses and temperatures. Their "fingerprints " change significantly over time. After several months of constant use those reference shell cases are useless.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
60. In the real world results matter
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:56 PM
Jun 2016

And when you try for 15 years and spend millions it's time to realize you will get better results elsewhere.

That money would have been better spent on poverty reduction efforts and targeted intervention of at-risk youth where it probably would have resulted in crimes prevented where you didn't have to try and solve them.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
2. All legal, all politically impossible
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:08 PM
Jun 2016

Even though I support licenses and safety training. Liability insurance would do nothing but make the NRA a fortune. I agree with the ACLU that registration is violation of privacy.

yardwork

(61,418 posts)
35. Is registering our cars a violation of privacy?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:53 PM
Jun 2016

Why is it much easier to own a firearm than it is to own and operate a car?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
39. Driving is not a constitutional right
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:04 PM
Jun 2016

car registration is a taxation scheme and has nothing to do with safety.

Gun owners will resist registration as long as there are people saying they want to ban all guns. Nobody wants to take away my car.

And let's not forget that Adam Lanza's rifle was registered - how did that work out?

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
58. No individual step would prevent all gun crimes/incidents
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:51 PM
Jun 2016

but in the Lanza case, a biometric lock on the gun might have stopped it.

Likewise it is thought that some lives were saved when he had to reload, suggesting smaller clips would be helpful.

Taking steps that can reduce violence or gun accidents isn't inherently a threat to the second amendment, no matter how much some gun owners want to pretend it is. A seat belt and air bag won't save every life in a car accident, but we mandate them anyway.

Igel

(35,197 posts)
75. I'll disagree with a coposter.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:24 PM
Jun 2016

And point out that not every car has to be registered. Some are operated without registration, legally.

For those cars/trucks there is no divulging of private information.

Registration is needed to drive the car on public roads. If you have a big enough piece of ground you don't need to have the vehicle registered. Moreover, the driver doesn't have to be licensed. Because using a car on the public roads is a privilege, and not a right. So the poster was right but incomplete.

Blanks

(4,835 posts)
102. Then the same could be true for guns...
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:03 PM
Jun 2016

As long as it's on your property you are A-OK. Take it off your property and face a ticket, a fine or jail time.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
40. I said they were legal. The 2A does allow strict regulation
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:06 PM
Jun 2016

but you are not going to see many states pass such laws.

ShrimpPoboy

(301 posts)
3. Waiting periods and extra costs, inconvenience
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:10 PM
Jun 2016

are regularly said to be unconstitutional in the context of reproductive rights and I recall there being at least some case law precedent on that.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
49. Will it? Here's the text:
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:35 PM
Jun 2016
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


How exactly might that be taken to apply to firearm insurance?

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
74. And the SCOTUS could easily rule that the 24th applies only to voting
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 10:17 PM
Jun 2016

I could see them ruling that Congress could pass a law or amendment banning firearm fees, but there's nothing in the amendment as written that makes this the done deal that gun-enablers seem to think.


And, again, we see the enablers trotting out the same mantra right on cue and almost verbatim, as if they're receiving their marching orders from a single source. Interesting...

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
91. They could pull a squirrel out of their...
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:29 PM
Jun 2016

... judicial robes but aren't likely to do so.

Transparent attempts to block voting or freedom of the press (through outrageous licensing and taxes on materials), freedom of assembly etc.. etc.. are unconstitutional on their face.

Those common threads you are seeing are also known as a basic understanding of law.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
98. Hardly as transparent as you want to pretend
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:42 PM
Jun 2016

It's only a transparent effort to block access to a right if no compelling reason can be given to do so. Otherwise, there could be no restrictions on ownership of miniguns or military grade weaponry including nuclear weapons.

Those common threads you are seeing are also known as a basic understanding of law.
No, that's not it.

mopinko

(69,806 posts)
65. and yet they have been upheld by the court.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:33 PM
Jun 2016

they have been argued as unconstitutional, but the supreme court decides what is and isnt.

ShrimpPoboy

(301 posts)
66. Some have and some havent
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:40 PM
Jun 2016

I don't claim to be an expert on where the line is drawn in court opinions, but the OP is pretty clear that the restrictions he/she is considering are purposefully meant to thwart people from exercising a right. That sounds unconstitutional to me.

mopinko

(69,806 posts)
68. oh please.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:45 PM
Jun 2016

perhaps you should ask the google before you make up your mind then.

abortion regulations are exclusively intended to thwart a right that is of no consequence to anyone else. the right to own a weapon of war- not so much.
there is already a lot of restrictions on what sort of weapons people can own. you cant own a cannon, a hand grenade, a bazooka, a shoulder fired missile. all perfectly constitutional.
the assault weapons ban was constitutional. it wasnt struck down. it expired and was not renewed.

argument level- complete fail.

ShrimpPoboy

(301 posts)
71. I dont support laws intending to completely prevent people from exercising a right
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:54 PM
Jun 2016

But if you want a case by case analysis on where SCOTUS draws the line, I charge $200 an hour.

Fresh_Start

(11,330 posts)
4. Set a date in the near future...where all new guns have to be smart guns
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:10 PM
Jun 2016

build in better safety features...to prevent accidents

 

Duckhunter935

(16,974 posts)
43. I think that is your plan
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:10 PM
Jun 2016

Of course legacy weapons will increase in value just like full automatic weapons did after the civilian registry for new weapons closed.

I guess the police will not get new weapons.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
6. Well, it's been proven to not reduce crime with licensing
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:11 PM
Jun 2016

Illinois has done it for decades.

As far as registration, I ran the numbers one time using the costs of vehicle registrations and it was a huge cost, and we have no systems in place to implement it. And you can't require te gun owners to pay to exercise a right, that would be struck down just like a poll tax.

So you have a huge cost, with no real effect.

That money would do far more to reduce all forms of violent crime if spent on education, poverty reduction and early intervention programs.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
50. As stated above, half-assed measures obviously won't work.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:36 PM
Jun 2016
And you can't require te gun owners to pay to exercise a right, that would be struck down just like a poll tax.
Sure you can. Many states already require licensing fees, for instance, and the SCOTUS appears to be ok with it. How is that different?
 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
51. There are actually cases pending now on those fees
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:38 PM
Jun 2016

And it is expected that just like voter ID's only pass muster if free the few states requiring payment for a license to simply own a gun will have them struck down.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
53. If I seek a redress of grievances in the courts, is that free?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:40 PM
Jun 2016

Hell, if so, then I'll demand redress 20 times per week. Why not, if it's free?

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
19. No, your choices should be limited.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:27 PM
Jun 2016

We've tried it your way. It's been a spectacular, bloody failure.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
26. Then I won't support your way
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:40 PM
Jun 2016

you cannot pass gun control without the support of gun owners. A simple fact grabbers refuse to accept.

 

baldguy

(36,649 posts)
27. What are you goona do? Shoot me?
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jun 2016

We will pass gun control - REAL gun control - with or without you. Our survival as a civilized society is at stake.

YOU might want to live as a barbarian; most Americans don't.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
30. No need to shoot anyone- you will simply be overwhelmed at the polls...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:48 PM
Jun 2016

...moral posturing and empty bluster notwithstanding.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
33. No. Simply ignore you as in the past
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:51 PM
Jun 2016

we have heard the same threats from grabbers for decades yet nothing happens. There has been a major expansion of gun rights in the past 20 years that you were unable to stop so I suggest you tone down the rhetoric until you have actually accomplished something.

And by the way - in that same 20 year period we have cut our murder and manslaughter rates in half. You have never been safer. So hyperbolic rhetoric about the end of civilization merely makes you look ignorant.

safeinOhio

(32,531 posts)
42. Sure hope calling more than half of
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:09 PM
Jun 2016

Voters grabbers makes you feel smart, because it most likely makes them think you are a Thrump like name calling type jerk

Just saying that only helps you with the people that already agree with you.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
44. Voters don't care that much
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:14 PM
Jun 2016

Hillary, Trump or Bernie - all equally good for gun owners. Hillary is the one calling for the strictest gun control yet I want her to be our next president - that should tell you something.

safeinOhio

(32,531 posts)
48. Glad to hear that.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:33 PM
Jun 2016

I don't think she is calling for taking away grand pa's shot gun. But, I'm sure the NRA will be out with her secret 10 point plan to take away his shotgun.

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
92. Yes... It has...
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:31 PM
Jun 2016

Homicide rates are down with exceptions in localized geographic areas acros the board...

Thanks for noticing...

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
114. What if I don't have two guns? Are saying only current gun owners should be allowed to buy new ones?
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 06:15 PM
Jun 2016

If you are, there's this concept called equal protection under the law. It's codified in the 14th Amendment.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
8. Get some non-asshat justices in SCOTUS, and gun safety laws will be perfectly within the 2nd Amend.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:16 PM
Jun 2016

We'll go back to the days when we didn't have right-wing ideologues shitting on precedence, and the Second Amendment will again be seen as something to provide for well-regulated militias, and individual RKBA will not be considered a right.

Gotta love it. Phrase it like "Would requiring all car drivers to have a license, all cars to be registered,everyone wanting a driver's license to take and pass a mandatory driver safety course, and all car owners to buy liability insurance, violate the right to free travel? "

When we're talking about cars, it's perfectly acceptable to do this, and we consider it a small price to pay to keep the number of auto accidents down to a dull roar.

But search and replace "car" with "gun" and all the gun-bunnies come out and scream about their

hack89

(39,171 posts)
12. You don't need a license or insurance to own or drive a car on private property
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:18 PM
Jun 2016

only to drive on public roads. I have a license to carry in public- it call a concealed weapons permit.

elleng

(130,156 posts)
10. No. Briefly,
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:16 PM
Jun 2016

'Holding and Rule
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.

Constitutional Construction

The prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

The militia consisted of all males capable of acting together for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable citizen militias, thereby enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The Antifederalists therefore sought to preserve the citizens’ militia by denying Congress the power to abridge the right of individuals to keep and bear arms.'>>>

http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html


The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense&quot id. at 628); that "the home" is "where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute" (id. at 628); and that, "above all other interests," the second amendment elevates "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home" (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[46]

The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense.

The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...."

With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected.

The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement."

In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "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."[47]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Second_Amendment_findings_and_reasoning_for_the_decision

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
21. "nothing... should be taken to cast doubt:". I.e., they aren't addressing those issues.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:30 PM
Jun 2016

This is a limited ruling. Those other measures were not dealt with, nor were they endorsed. Those other measures are still there awaiting judicial redress.

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
69. ...and this is why we need to win this November...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:50 PM
Jun 2016

...so we can put a justice in SCOTUS that isn't a right-wing asshat, who will actually take us back to historic Second Amendment precedents that held that the Second did NOT protect an individual's RKBA.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
18. See, this is what we're up against.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:25 PM
Jun 2016

In a country where folks on a progressive discussion board equate the right to carry a gun with the right to vote, is it even worth trying to work towards any form of gun control?

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
22. Until you change the Constitution it is the same
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:30 PM
Jun 2016

You may not like it- but that is reality and how the law works.

As a right guaranteed by the Constitution it is protected just the same as something like voting. So until you can amend the Constitution you will have to be ok with any limits placed on one right being able to be applied to the rest.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
25. Some controllers here don't equate the 5th Amendment with other rights.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:37 PM
Jun 2016

As evidenced by the shock & awe of some DUers when they learned the FBI had the Orlando thug on "terror watch list," yet was allowed to purchase a gun.
A "watch list"' is not due process.

How soon we forget the 60s/70s. I'm sure I was on a few lists.

Abq_Sarah

(2,883 posts)
64. "We" seem to be up against a group of people
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:11 PM
Jun 2016

Who have contempt for the rule of law and want to pick and choose which rights their fellow citizens are allowed to exercise. There's nothing "progressive" about trying to strip people of their rights.

 

TipTok

(2,474 posts)
93. Controllers always assume...
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:34 PM
Jun 2016

... that abrogation of rights will stop exactly where they want it to and the enlightened leadership will always think just like they would.

Until they don't and they pitch a fit...

Ford_Prefect

(7,828 posts)
15. Sounds like the only answer that DOES work is the one Australia uses.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:20 PM
Jun 2016

Since 1996.

All of you who think you have to play cowboy or combat with real weapons will have to rent them at the range. No more Rambo in the garage or the rec-room. It works for racing cars.



All right, everyone put the weapons down and no one gets hurt!

liberal N proud

(60,302 posts)
17. Nothing suggested will ever be accepted by the gun groupies
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:24 PM
Jun 2016

Any idea offered is countered with empty rhetoric proclaiming your idea as not acceptable.


But I have yet seen an idea to end the violence from the gun groupies or industry.

I think the gun groupies are probably the most obstructive group in the US, even more than the GOP congress.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
32. I support mandatory firearm safety training
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:50 PM
Jun 2016

Coupled with 3 years of mandatory military service with no exemptions.

roamer65

(36,739 posts)
23. It wouldn't work with rifles and shotguns.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:33 PM
Jun 2016

Canada tried and it was a miserable failure. Non-compliance was the biggest reason for the program's demise. Many of them are family heirlooms or have sold privately so much that the ownership chain is gone.

SuperDutyTX

(79 posts)
28. Commentary
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 07:44 PM
Jun 2016

Mandatory gun safety course is probably do-able; they've already implemented mandatory safety classes to legally hunt in my state.

Licensing may be dicey from a constitutional perspective.

The insurance aspect in my opinion is a non-starter. You're basically asking insurance companies to insure people against criminal acts; I doubt you'll find any private enterprise willing to sign up for that. Much the same as auto-insurers aren't rushing to insure DUI/DWI drivers.

PJMcK

(21,921 posts)
46. Here's some honest questions for supporters of gun rights
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:23 PM
Jun 2016

Please explain why our governments and society require licensing and registration for finances, real property and automobiles as well as children but not for firearms.

Please explain why people have to insure themselves against various liabilities including fire, theft, flooding, automobile accidents and many other areas of accountability but not for their firearms.

Please explain why our governments and society require registration of young men and women for conscription into the military but not for the registration of their firearms.

Please explain why our governments and society require that a person has to be a certain age to purchase alcohol and tobacco products but not necessarily for firearms.

This kind of rhetorical questioning can go on and on, without resolution. Are there any reasonable ways to solve this disgraceful national problem?

EX500rider

(10,532 posts)
67. I'll give it a try:
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:44 PM
Jun 2016
Please explain why our governments and society require licensing and registration for finances, real property and automobiles as well as children but not for firearms.
None of those are in the Bill of Rights

Please explain why people have to insure themselves against various liabilities including fire, theft, flooding, automobile accidents and many other areas of accountability but not for their firearms
Liability insurance won't cover illegal acts.

Please explain why our governments and society require registration of young men and women for conscription into the military but not for the registration of their firearms.

Again, 2nd Amendment

Please explain why our governments and society require that a person has to be a certain age to purchase alcohol and tobacco products but not necessarily for firearms.

You have to be 18 to buy a rifle and 21 to buy a pistol.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
52. Life in a maximum security prison...
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:39 PM
Jun 2016

for any idiot that claims the Government is gong to confiscate their weapons.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
56. Really? Look at this forum
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 08:43 PM
Jun 2016

A few nuts in here think we need to bust down doors to "get the guns off the streets."

Neither side wants to compromise. The pro-gun folks want everything free and legal. The anti-gun folks want to confiscate and melt them all down.

That's why nothing is getting done, and why nothing will get done.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
63. Actually the best we could do was declare the NRA a terrorist organization.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:00 PM
Jun 2016

It used to be good until it was taken over by crazy right wing assholes led by the insane whose only purpose is to guide massive profits to corporations who giggle all the way to the bank every time someone puts a bullet through the head of a 6-year-old or a theatergoer, or a wife, or some stranger in club.

Every time one of the mass murders has taken place, the NRA and related right wingers claim, Obama (or some other government figure) is taking their guns. This leads to a massive increase in profit for Gun Manufacturers.

We talk about getting this gun or that gun off the streets.

We need is to stop vultures from feeding on dead innocents.

Amishman

(5,541 posts)
106. The NRA doesn't tell the nuts what to think, the nuts make the NRA extreme
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:29 PM
Jun 2016

Abolish the NRA and one of the other gun groups will pick up a few million members and pickup up where they left off. Its not the organization, its the members. The NRA isn't the ones spamming every congressman's office whenever there is a whiff of reform proposed, it is the throng of gun absolutists.

Agnosticsherbet

(11,619 posts)
81. Not their beliefs, their actions.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 01:55 AM
Jun 2016

Last edited Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:04 PM - Edit history (1)

They lie to the public with the full intent to use murder to increase profits of corporations. That is called fraud.

They're vultures, making money off murder.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
72. I don't think it would violate the 2nd amendment (Illinois does it, at least to some extent)
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 09:57 PM
Jun 2016

I think certainly an operator license is a feasible first step; if it includes the green light from a background check that also ends the "gun show loophole" right there, as a free bonus.

JustAnotherGen

(31,683 posts)
84. Agreed and I don't think
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:14 AM
Jun 2016

George Washington would flip out over it either. He was a rank and file capitalist who had to raise money for an Army. I'm sure he could see the value in the Fed Gov using this as a way to increase the pay for actual soldiers who need these guns for our American Military. Let's do it as a new revenue stream!

fleabiscuit

(4,542 posts)
77. Congress's power is virtually unlimited.
Tue Jun 14, 2016, 11:23 PM
Jun 2016

If they don't want the Supreme Court messing with things they can do that...

Article III
Section 2:2
1. ~
2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


They have done it before too.

Sam_Fields

(305 posts)
83. I've always believed that the 2nd Amendment allows the States to regulate the militia
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:09 AM
Jun 2016

For example a State should be able to pass a law saying the only kind of fireaerm you are allowed is a six shoot revolver or a shotgun that holds five shotgun shells. These re-loadable weapons with 30 round magazines invite the deranged to murder as many people as they want.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
85. Article I Section 8 gives that to Congress
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:19 AM
Jun 2016
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
100. The states were mandated by the Articles of Confederation to keep up militias,
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 02:57 PM
Jun 2016

"every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered"

These entities were 'inherited' by the Constitution ("the president shall be CinC..."of the militias of the several states..&quot , and given very vital roles to play in securing our liberties, when in federal service.

The states could not reduce the efficiency of the Militias because it would deny the federal govt the primary means of keeping the goals & guarantees made in the constitution. Well-regulated militias, per congressional standards, were "necessary".

And because the Congress was giving substantial power over the organizing and arming of them, the 2nd amendment restricted the fed's ability to DISarm the people who's right and duty it was to serve.


States certainly pass their own gun control laws, but they are often challenged in courts, and often found in contrast with the 2nd, so it that lately it seems it comes down to the level of scrutiny applied vs 'the government interest' in passing such laws.
Obviously the militia purpose of the 2nd has lost a lot of it's teeth.

WillowTree

(5,325 posts)
107. Do you suppose that the people who ignore the current gun laws will comply with these requirements?
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:34 PM
Jun 2016

Just asking.

SwankyXomb

(2,030 posts)
108. to misquote, "The 2nd Amendment is not a murder-suicide pact"
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:41 PM
Jun 2016

but the gun scum seem damned and determined to make sure we all get shot.

Squaredeal

(390 posts)
109. Require all legal firearm owners to be resposible owners too.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:43 PM
Jun 2016

That means requiring them to register their firearms and requiring them to secure them when they are not under their personal control. That means requiring a local police report and investigation report whenever a firearm is stolen, lost, sold or given away to determine the circumstances to determine if the owner was responsible and didn't endanger society by letting it get into the wrong hands. It would also determine liability if the firearm was eventually used in some illegal fashion because of it not being properly locked. Too many deaths are caused by careless gun owners leaving their firearms easily accessible to others. If legal owners are held accountable both criminally and for any damages for not properly protecting their guns, deaths by firearms would decline significantly.
There are thousands of incidents of irresponsible gun ownership every year resulting in death due to irresponsible gun owners. You read about them just about every day.

 
110. Must be careful to remain practical.
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 03:53 PM
Jun 2016

Of course we've all seen a lot of calls to action as expected. But let's consider hypothetical firearm laws which approach an unreasonable degree and thus become impractical as a sort of "war on guns". There might be something to note by making comparison to the unrealistic elements of the "war on drugs".

Because let's be honest folks guns aren't going anywhere in our lifetimes and probably not for far beyond that, if ever. Too many already exist, they can easily be imported, and we've all see what 3D printing can do. And not to mention that playing games of legal trickery with a Constitutionally defined right can be divisive.

So we must remain reasonable and strive to seek compromise.

NickB79

(19,114 posts)
112. Most bullets fragment on impact
Wed Jun 15, 2016, 04:17 PM
Jun 2016

Hard to match serial numbers when your recovered bullet looks like this:

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Would requiring all gun o...