Am I pro-gun or anti-gun?

[Pushed To The Left]

This may seem like a silly question, but the gun issue seems fairly broad, and I find myself agreeing with both sides on different parts of it. On the one hand, I support sensible gun control to keep guns out of the wrong hands. I have no problem with background checks to make sure that those who purchase guns are law-abiding citizens. However, I think that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns in their homes. I even support CCWs in some cases. I feel that a gun in the right hands can save lives and that a gun in the wrong hands is deadly. Can I still call myself a strong 2nd Amendment supporter if I support moderate gun control?

[Wonk]

1. I think from what you've said you're a moderate on this issue, same as me.

I also think there are whackjobs on both extremes, though there seem to be more of them on the "gun rights" (like guns have rights, lol) side of this debate, imho.

[cornermouse]

2. I don't know.

I'm not against people owning guns as long as they prove that they know the rules and safety and follow them (a lot of gun tragedies are the direct result of this) and I do think background checks are good.

I just get really tired of the "intruder" argument.

[Spinzonner]

3. You will never satisfy the rabid members of the NRA

Note that is not to say that all members are rabid. But the positions taken by the leadership reflect a uncompromising position that the courts have never accepted in the past and represent an irrational reading of the Second Amendment.

Many gun owners and substantial NRA members support reasonable gun laws though there will obviously be differences as to the ecact nature and degree.

In any case, gun prohibition is completely absurd. Given history, the culture, and the existing proliferation it would be as successful as any of the other ill-advised prohibitions we have applied to twist our society and law enforcement policies and practices.

It is the responsibility of those in the middle to find common ground and reject and oppose the extremists on both sides, even and especially those with whom the are sympathetic and sometimes allied with.

[cms]

106. The Anti's are more extreme than the NRA...

If you consider both the NRA and any other Anti-gun organization, anti-gun organizations like the VPC actually seem more extreme. Anti's distort the facts and use "scare tactics" much more than the NRA.

[jody]

4. Your description is consistent with someone who supports the

inalienable right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms to defend self and property. You also support enforcement of existing laws.

You might want to reread federal law on the topic beginning with: TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922. Unlawful acts

ON EDIT ADD: The above position is held by the majority of NRA members and is the stated policy of the NRA.

[Spinzonner]

9. The Second Amendment says nothing about

defending self and property as the rationale for its existence. In fact, it explicitly states the purpose is to support a militia.

And, of course, the right to 'bear arms' is hardly inalienable. It can both be taken away or resticted both as to individuals and the types of arms. Many people are ineligible to bear them and many 'arms' are forbidden to the general public and even to some military entities.

If that is what the NRA believes and promotes, then it clearly shows the semantic fantasy world and mythology they have constructed around the Second Amendment.

[jody]

10. State constitutions that predate our Constitution state that RKBA is

an inalienable right and as such it cannot be given away.

Note when you bring militia into the discussion, you accept the M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol as the standard arms used by the organized militia. Since arms are used both to defend self and state, then the M-16 and M-9 are suitable substitutes to defend self.

In a seminal case on the Second Amendment, SCOTUS noted:

UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

QUOTE
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
UNQUOTE

QUOTE
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
UNQUOTE

Following SCOTUS' observation, the "unorganized militia", consisting of about 100 million men and women, when called to duty by the governor of their states, is expected to report with either a M-16 rifle and/or M-9 pistol supplied by themselves. The M-16 rifle and M-9 pistol are standard arms in common use by U.S. armed forces.

[Spinzonner]

11. You defeat some of your own apparent contentions

The US Constitution supercedes the State consititutions when it applies to the same matter. That has been continually been held in the case of other clauses and amendments and the Second is no exception.

Militias are now organized entities of the state(s). The states have no authority to conscript citizens at large for the purpose of waging war or preserving order. So the so-called interpretation of a citizen's militia is arguably anchronistic and surely a convention of the times and is NOT written into the Constitution. If you are going to insist on literal interpretation and application of the Second Amandment you cannot just adopt convenient temporal conventions out of context.

The arms of the time were largely those that an average citizen might have in his possession or have access to. That hardly applies to the contemporary times where incredible power is available in so-called 'arms'. So a literal interpretation would grant access to such weapons on an individual basis outside of the context of an ORGANIZED militia. That has never been held as a valid interpretation or application of the Amendment and as it is a product of a literal interpretation, further discredits such literal applications.

[jody]

12. Sorry, but when states like Penn declared that the right to defend

self and state is an inalienable right, that right cannot be given away. Regardless of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, that right exists. For example Pennsylvania says:

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Other states have similar statements in their constitutions.

ON EDIT ADD: States do have the authority to activate their unorganized militia. For a summary see State Guard Association of the United States.

If you are a male U.S. citizen between 17 and 45 and are not exempt, then you are a member of the unorganized militia.

[Spinzonner]

15. It has never been held to be an unconditional right

For example, you cannot generally defend (only) your property at the cost of someone else's life.

Pennsylvania's Constitituion of 1776 is subject to and where in conflict superceded by the US COnsitution of 1788 (ratified).

The clause 'regardless of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment' is absurd. The Consitituion is the supreme law of the land. It cannot be 'regardless'ed away with a rhetorical handwave.

[jody]

17. After Pennsylvania ratified the Second Amendment in March 1790

it adopted, barely six months later, a revised constitution on September 2, 1790 that said, "That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." (Article IX section XXI)

When Pennsylvania revised its constitution in 1790, it retained the simple statement regarding an individual’s unalienable right to use arms for defense of self and state and it did so with contemporaneous knowledge of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Pennsylvania’s action occurred a few months after it ratified the Bill of Rights setting up a simple either/or condition – EITHER Pennsylvania understood its statement “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” to be included in the Second Amendment OR Pennsylvania intended its statement to be an un-enumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment which clearly states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

[Spinzonner]

18. Regardless of Penssylvania's so-called intent

It cannot carve out a right independent of or in conflict with a one governed by the US Constitution.

So, where an applicable Federal law that is consistent with the Constitution cannot be negated by a claimed right granted by the state.

[jody]

19. Are you claiming that "We the People" do not have unenumerated rights

not covered by the BOR? What then is the purpose of the 9th Amendment?

ON EDIT ADD:

You might want to consider Tribe's view since he is a renown Constitutional scholar and respected Democrat.

New view on arms rights angers liberals

QUOTE
WASHINGTON - Publication of the first volume of a revised edition of a legal treatise would not ordinarily make news.

But even before it began arriving at law schools last week, Laurence Tribe's 'American Constitutional Law' was causing a stir.

Tribe , a Harvard law professor who is probably the most influential living American constitutional scholar, says he has already gotten hate mail about his new interpretation of the right to bear arms contained in the Second Amendment.

Relegated to a footnote in the first edition of the book in 1978, the right to bear arms earns Tribe's respect in the latest version.

Tribe , well-known as a liberal scholar, concludes that the right to bear arms was conceived as an important political right that should not be dismissed as ''wholly irrelevant.' ' Rather, Tribe thinks the Second Amendment assures that ''the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification.' '

Tribe posits that it includes an individual right, ''admittedly of uncertain scope,' ' to ''possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes.' '
UNQUOTE

[Spinzonner]

20. We are talking about rights that are claimed to be guaranteed

by the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Or at least that was the basis of this thread.

If you are willing to grant that they are not then we can discuss under what other circumstances they are or are not.

[jody]

21. Sorry but the thread author said

"However, I think that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to own guns in their homes. I even support CCWs in some cases. I feel that a gun in the right hands can save lives and that a gun in the wrong hands is deadly."

That statement can only mean using guns to exercise one's inalienable right to defend self and property as clearly stated in the majority of state constitutions.

If one wants to limit the 2nd Amendment to the militia, OK but that does not and can not take away one's inalienable right to defend self and property.

[Spinzonner]

22. Of course it doesn't

But the right to defend property is not unconditional under law.

And the right to keep and bear arms for that purpose - or any other - is also not unconditional given the 2nd Amendment. You can use other means at your disposal to enforce your inalienable right to defend self and porperty.

[jody]

23. At this point, you and I are recycling points and counterpoints made

in hundreds of previous threads on this forum.

I guess we'll just wait and see what SCOTUS says if it hears Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098 (9th Cir. 2002) which held the 2nd is not an individual right and U.S. v. Emerson, 99-10331 (5th Cir. 2001) which held that the 2nd is an individual right.

Have a nice day. :hi:

[jody]

41. SCOTUS still refuses to rule on the 2nd Amendment

even though it had two cases from districts with opposing decisions.

The petition for Writ of Certiorari in U.S. v. Emerson, 99-10331 (5th Cir. 2001) was denied by SCOTUS on 10 June 02.

The petition for Writ of Certiorari in Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098 (9th Cir. 2002) was denied by SCOTUS on 1 Dec 03.

[Inland]

46. You got it backwards. Passage of the amendment indicates that PA

didn't believe that the second amendment provided a right. If it did, the amendment wouldn't be needed.

Most probably, the people of PA had the understanding of just about all states, that is, that the BOR was not binding on the states at all, but only on the federal government.

Clearly Pennsylvania was acting pursuant to the power referenced in Amendment No. 10.

[jody]

47. I posed an either/or condition so what did I get backwards? n/t

[Inland]

48. the passage of the amendment shows PA did not consider

gun ownership to be a "protected right" under either the second or ninth amendment of the US constitution., which was your either/or.

Instead, PA was acting pursuant to the power noted in the tenth, that belonging to the state because it realized the right to be unprotected. If PA changed its mind and amended its own constitution, then PA would be able, by statute, to ban guns.

I

[hansberrym]

50. Inland, How do you explain "freedom of speech" in the PA and all

other state constitutions which were ratified after the Federal bill of rights?

Do you believe "freedom of the press" in the Federal BoR to be a different right altogether than the "freedom of the press" the individual states protected?

[Inland]

51. Same as other. The fed BOR only restrained the fed government.

Therefore the second, first and all the other federal amendments were restrictions on the federal power only. They did not restrain the states from banning speech, or banning guns. That's why each state did (or did not) address those issues in their own separate constitutions. Each state retained the power to ban guns or speech or liberty. Some did. Remember slavery?

Therefore the fact that PA felt the need to have its own gun rights language proves that PA and every other state retained the power to ban guns. There isn't anything in the second amendment that prevents PA from amending its constitution to remove the gun rights provision and replace it with a gun ban.

In conclusion, there isn't any need to make the usual strained interpretations of the US constitution in evaluating state and local gun laws. It simply doesn't apply.

http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/quilici_v_morton_grove.txt

[jody]

58. Some states that listed RKBA in their constitutions also said the topic

was off limits to state government, e.g. Alabama said in its constitution "SECTION 36 Construction of Declaration of Rights. That this enumeration of certain rights shall not impair or deny others retained by the people; and, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate."

All powers a state has is a grant by the sovereign citizens of that state, e.g. Alabama says "SECTION 2 People source of power. That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient."

States do not have the power to ban guns unless the people give them that right. When states declare the right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and property is an inalienable right, then that right can not be given away. It just happens that guns are the most effective and efficient tools to use by a citizen wishing to exercise their inalienable right to defend self and property.

[Inland]

61. States do have the power to ban guns. They DO ban guns.

They don't need particular language granting them the power. But you seem to think that there is a special right for guns, not for anything else, that makes it just plain different. You are wrong.

You can believe that there is a good reason to allow guns. You can believe that guns are effective and efficient. But to take the step to declare that the debate is over, and the result is that all guns are permissiable for any person is wrong.

[jody]

62. Not all states can ban guns. I believe Kentucky has a case that held

the state could not ban guns because it violated the state constitution.

Just because a state uses its power and authority to infringe upon an inalienable right does not make it morally acceptable.

[Inland]

64. But "morally acceptable" is the argument you have to make.

Not that there is an inalienable right. And Kentucky can't ban guns because IT has decided not to. IT can change its mind. IT can amend its constitution.

Me, I can't wait to actually join a discussion on the morality of ,50 caliber and automatic weapons. But that's the LAST thing that the NRA wants. the NRA wants to argue that, alas, no such discussion can be had because the founding fathers made sure that we could all have grenade launchers and that knowing who has them is tantamount to banning all guns for all purposes. Not true.

[jody]

66. I don't have to make an argument that it's "morally acceptable". What

is the source of an inalienable right. For some it's God, others it's Nature's Creator, others construct philosophical arguments.

Regardless of the source, history of the Declaration of Independence and the BOR clearly recognize that there are some rights that are inalienable. Those rights can not be taken away by a simple majority vote in a democratic process. Government can place limits on that right for the good of society but can not take away that right, i.e. ban it.

The problem with RKBA is that SCOTUS has refused to hear a case even though the question of an individual's RKBA has been at issue.

The petition for Writ of Certiorari in U.S. v. Emerson, 99-10331 (5th Cir. 2001) was denied by SCOTUS on 10 June 02.

The petition for Writ of Certiorari in Silveira v. Lockyer, 01-15098 (9th Cir. 2002) was denied by SCOTUS on 1 Dec 03.

You assert "Kentucky can't ban guns because IT has decided not to. IT can change its mind. IT can amend its constitution."

If that is so, then states can amend our Constitution to make slavery legal. In my mind, that is morally reprehensible, but according to your arguments it is acceptable if 3/4 of the state legislatures approve.

[Inland]

67. So don't make an argument. Let's vote.

There are some rights that can't be taken away by a simple majority, but you haven't managed to show that guns rights are among them.

All you have done is label them inalienable. Doesn't hold much weight with me.

But go ahead and make the moral argument that a felon or madman has a god given right to a .50 caliber. Or that inherent in humanity is the right to an automatic. I'd love to hear it.

[jody]

69. No, I said the right to defend self and property is inalienable. I then

argued here or in other posts that guns are the most effective, efficient tool to exercise that right.

As proof, I offer the fact that guns are the tool of choice of professionals like law enforcement officers and criminals to defend them self. I have never read an article where the author claimed that law enforcement officers and criminals have an inalienable right to defend them self.

As a minimum, I believe law abiding citizens. with an inalienable right to defend self, must be allowed to use the same arms law enforcement officers, without an inalienable right of self-defense, use to defend them self.

[Inland]

75. So now we have a right to the most effective tool to defend self?

And furthermore, you get to decide all by your lonesome what that tool is?

But you can offer all the proof you want. But that doesn't make it a right. It makes it an argument, because we still get to vote.

Me, I could just as well argue that even more effective than every citizen, including a criminal and madman, being afforded a .50 caliber or grenade launcher or as many guns they can buy is reasonable gun control and registration. Is the world less safe because I don't have an automatic weapon?

But this is exactly the debate the NRA says we can't have, because the founding fathers meant us to have all the guns we could afford. It means to say, well, whatever you think, you just HAVE to let a crazy man buy a grenade launcher. I don't buy it.

[jody]

79. Yes I do have a right to use an effective, efficient tool

to defend self. It's stupid to take a knife to a gun fight with a criminal.

[Inland]

82. Actually, its stupid to take a gun to a gun fight, too.

But these are matters for debate, and you don't get to announce that becaue you think that taking a bazooka or automatic weapon to the grocery store is necessary for an effective defense you get to do so.

That's the difference between a right and an argument on what's stupid. Having a right means you don't have to argue if it is stupid or not. The last thing the NRA wants is to discuss what's best for America. It wants to end the debate by saying that rights count for more than what's smart. But there is no right, thank god, to a rocket launcher to fend off pursesnatchers.

[Billy Ruffian]

92. Why is it

that only the folks that want to restrict guns even more keep bringing up bazookas, and rocket launchers, and full auto weapons?

[Inland]

103. Because it shows the fallacy of the logic

The argument was that a person has a right to self defense, and a futher right to decide how best to do it.

So therefore these rights include the purchase of bazookas, rocket launchers, and full auto weapons--which, by the way, enough people want to buy to make you realize that it isn't just hyperbole. There are a lot more people trying to buy .50 caliber than there are trying to ban guns.

[Inland]

77. So now you have a right to the most effective tool for defense

And furthermore, you get to decide all by your lonesome what that tool is?

But you can offer all the proof you want. But that doesn't make it a right. It makes it an argument, because we still get to vote.

Me, I could just as well argue that even more effective than every citizen, including a criminal and madman, being afforded a .50 caliber or grenade launcher or as many guns they can buy is reasonable gun control and registration. Is the world less safe because I don't have an automatic weapon?

But this is exactly the debate the NRA says we can't have, because the founding fathers meant us to have all the guns we could afford. It means to say, well, whatever you think, you just HAVE to let a crazy man buy a grenade launcher. I don't buy it.

[hansberrym]

65. So the second amendment is treated the same as the first .

But then that was my point.


And the 14th amendment incorporated both (actually all of the first 8 amendments).


Congressional debates on the Fourteenth Amendment as quoted by Justice Hugo Black in his disent in Adamson v. People of Californina.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=332&invol=46&friend=oyez

'Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be-for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature-to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; <332 U.S. 46 , 106> the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. (my emphasis)

[Inland]

72. Yeah. That was the position that LOST. It is the dissent.

The argument that won would be the opinion of the court, which did not hold that the 14th amendment incorporated the BOR. That's the way its been.

The second amendment is treated, more, the same as the seventh, that is, not applied to the states.

[hansberrym]

80. Why is the second any different from the first amendment?

Congress actually enforced the "constitutional right of bearing arms"
against the states. By words of the framers of the 14th and the actions of that same congress it is plain as day that the second is no different than the first amendmnt in terms of its applicability against the states and its nature as an individual right.

Yes, I know the Supreme Court has not ruled (Since overturning the non-incorporation doctrine) on the 14th with respect to the second amendment, but by what rationale could they treat the second any different than the first?



Freedmen's Bureau Bill:

"...in consequence of any State or Local law, ordinance, police or other regulation, custom or prejudice, any of the civil rights belonging to white persons, including the right to make or enforce contract, to sue,... to have full and equal benefits of laws and procedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms , refused or denied to negroes...it shall be the duty of the President of the United States... to extend protection..." (my emphasis)
(Equal Justice Under Law, Hymann and Wiecek, Harper&Row publishers, copyright 1982)

[Inland]

87. Actually, it HAS ruled that the second amendment does not apply to states.

What was it, US v. Miller? Old, but good.

And by what rationale could they treat the second different from teh first? Same rationale they used all along. Look it up. There's about sixty years of jurisprudence sitting there, waiting for some gun rights advocate to acknowledge its existence.

But of course, it won't happen.

[hansberrym]

91. Miller was in 1939. Adamson was in 1947.

Incorporation was not in full swing when Miller was heard. Nor did it matter since the law in question was a federal firearms law.

However it should be said that Mr. Miller had standing in the lower court and apparently in the Supreme court (the Court did not dismiss due to a lack of standing as the 9th Circuit routinely does), Miller did not claim to be a member of any organized militia, nor did either the lower court or the Supreme court even question if he was a member. Also the Miller court defined "militia" broadly, and they did not use "the right to keep and bear arms" in the conjective manner that would support the COllective or states rights meaning, in fact they used the words in the same way that the way the the individual rights or limited individual rights interpretations would use them.

The Supreme Court in Miller cited Aymette, a decision which plainly does not treat the phrase "keep and bear" in the conjunctive sense of Judge Reinhardt and the Collective rights advocates.


Maybe you should look it up and READ it.

[Inland]

94. Don't get in snowball fights with eskimos, son.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
116 U.S. 252

"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 , 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."

So I guess that's three supreme court precedents. Cruikshank and Presser, which held that the second amendment is not restriction on state power at all, and Miller, that held that outside the context of a state militia the second amendment does not restrict the state government.

All three are consistent with any reasonable reading of the second amendment. If the second amendment gave you a right to own guns, it would say so.

It is amazing what backflips you guys do to just keep anyone from discussing the most reasonable of restrictions on firearms.

[benEzra]

97. "Reasonable restrictions on firearms" are already law...

what we have a problem with are unreasonable restrictions like banning a (civilian) rifle based on how the stock is shaped, or banning my wife's 15-round handgun because she "can't hunt deer with it." (Of course she can't hunt deer with it, it's a 9mm...)

[Inland]

99. Yes, despite your postions.

By rejecting the gunnie theology regarding the second amendment, we have restrictions on firearms.

Whether they are reasonable or not, warranted or not is precisely the debate that we should have, and the NRA prevents by claiming "rights".

[benEzra]

101. The NRA SUPPORTS the current restrictions...

just not silly new ones based on fearmongering and ignorance.

No one--including the NRA--is arguing for zero restrictions.

The dichotomy <Brady Bunch Wish List> vs. <Zero Restrictions> is a false one. We already have a vast amount of gun control on the books, which is amenable to pretty much everyone, representing the legislative compromises made over the last seventy years. No one is suggesting that we throw that away...

The rhetoric about "rights" is a reminder that unwarranted restriction is prohibited, a warning that the restrictions cannot go TOO far. Just as the government can regulate free speech, but unwarranted restrictions on the free expression of ideas are unconstitutional as a violation of the "right" to free speech.

The general consensus is that the current Federal restrictions we have (e.g., the heavy restrictions on automatic weapons) are not an infringement of the right. But sweeping bans based on silly distinctions (i.e., the "assault weapon" canard) ARE such an infringement, I would argue.

[Inland]

102. There aren't any current restrictions. Laws on the books, maybe.

But the NRA is against any law that keeps track of who has guns, prevents modification to create automatic weapons, or punishment for dealers who sell to criminals.

Why? Well, the NRA says that any such laws are the first stept to removing all guns--creating the very false dichotomy of which you speak. Every restriction is a step on the slippery slope where jack booted fascists come and take your guns. There are only two choices, the NRA tells us: David Koresh has a right to stockpile guns for a shoot out with fed agents, or totalitarian governemnt.

Jack booted fascists--that was the term, wasn't it?

And the only bulwark is the right that protects all of us from every government intrustion: the right to have a gun to shoot someone with a badge if you think he is infringing on your rights.

Of course the NRA is happy with the status quo.

[benEzra]

104. Actually...

But the NRA is against any law that keeps track of who has guns, prevents modification to create automatic weapons, or punishment for dealers who sell to criminals.

Correct on the first point, to a degree. It IS possible under current law to trace who owns a particular gun, but it takes an agent getting on the phone and talking to people. It is not feasible under current law to create a database that spits out a list of, say, everyone who owns a SAR-1 and where they live, which I take it is what you are advocating.

Wrong on all the other points. Current law on preventing modifications to create automatic weapons is VERY tough, and draws no complaints from me or anyone else (including the NRA, AFAIK). Any firearm that is considered "easy to convert" by the BATFE is automatically classified as a NFA Class III automatic weapon under current law, even if not actually converted (which is why no civilian self-loaders can fire from an open bolt), and frequency or likelihood of conversion is irrelevant. Conversion parts are regulated just like complete automatic weapons.

Gun owners (and the NRA, as far as I know) are all for punishing dealers who (negligently or intentionally) sell guns to criminals. They sometimes complain about harassment of law-abiding gun dealers by the occasional overzealous agent, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

Why? Well, the NRA says that any such laws are the first stept to removing all guns--creating the very false dichotomy of which you speak. Every restriction is a step on the slippery slope where jack booted fascists come and take your guns.

Not every restriction; just those that unduly hassle the law-abiding. I understand your feelings on registration, but most of what you would accomplish with registration (as far as tracking guns used in crime) can already be accomplished under the current tracing system. What can't be done under the current system is en masse listing of who owns what, which in the current political climate I consider to be a good thing.

If I were convinced that the right to own the (civilian) firearm of one's choice were secure in perpetuity, I would have no problem with registration. As is, I see that the politicians pushing registration are the SAME politicians continually introducing bills to ban this or that type of firearm, to which the lack of a centralized registration database is a significant obstacle. But given the amount of political power the prohibitionists currently wield, I don't currently want to give them that temptation...

There are only two choices, the NRA tells us: David Koresh has a right to stockpile guns for a shoot out with fed agents, or totalitarian governemnt.

Those seventh-day adventists owned fewer guns per capita than the average Texan. Given the rarity with which this type of thing occurs--and the ease with which they could have simply arrested Koresh in town, instead of staging the ill-fated paramilitary raid in full daylight (!) for the TV cameras--I don't think that's suffient grounds to give someone the ability to browse my gun collection at will and take it away if he thinks I'm thinking "subversive" thoughts...

Besides, the BATF had an informant inside the commune; they didn't need a registration list to tell them what Koresh and his associates owned. Koresh took the agent target shooting, for pete's sake.

Jack booted fascists--that was the term, wasn't it?

"Jack-booted government thugs," I think. And the loose cannon who said that (I think his name was Knox) was justifiably FIRED, and the NRA issued a public apology.

[hansberrym]

105. eskimo had a brainfreeze perhaps?

Eskimo said:
"So I guess that's three supreme court precedents. Cruikshank and Presser, which held that the second amendment is not restriction on state power at all, and Miller, that held that outside the context of a state militia the second amendment does not restrict the state government."


For the second time, Miller was not about a state law, it was about a federal law -the National Firearms Act. And the Court in Miller did not require that the defendent be in actual service, or even ask if he were registered, nor did they make any mention of a "state militia". The Militia they spoke of was one which included every able bodied man and each man was to supply himself with arms. The Dick act had been around for 30 years at this point and yet the Court made no mention of the National Guard, or any such select militia.


How could a right that "is not in any way dependent on the constitution for its existence" support your states rights argument, or lend any support to the claim that the amendment was only intended to address the balance of federal and state power? Those Courts were clearly describing a right that is inherent and not created by government. People have rights, government derives its powers from the people. This is as basic as one can get in american government.

Furthermore, Presser and Cruikshank are both prior to acceptance of Incorporation, and both treated the second amendment the same as the first, so you are covering old ground.


We have not even disussed what might be reasonable gun control, do you have any more strawmen handy?


If you had been paying attention you would know that my argument is that the second amendment is no different than the first, therefor reasonable gun control is not at odds with an individual right to bear arms, anymore than laws against fraud, counterfeiting, slander, libel, etc. are at odds with the freedom of the press/freedom of speech.

[hansberrym]

30. "a rationale for its existence"?

The first phrase is a rationale for the "non-infringement" of the substantive right of the people that follows, but there is no question of the right's existence.

Rights do not depend on government or constitutions for their existence, they depend on government only for their protection.

Furthermore there is no qualification in the text of the second amendment as to when a person has a right to bear arms. Some state constitutions limited the right to the "common defense", others protected a right to bear arms in defense of "themselves and the state", but there is no such qualifier in the second amendment.

Those who attempt to read the first part of the second amendment as a qualifier are ignoring the actual text(which presents the necessity of the well regulated militia as a rationale for non-infringement), furthermore they find almost no support for such an argument in the historical record. However those who read the ammendment as protecting a right to bear arms in defense of one's self and in the common defense are in agreement with the text and the overwhelming historical record.

As to the range of possible individual rights interpretations:
-Those who say there are no restrictions whatever on the right are reading the amendment differently than all the other rights of the Bill of Rights, and are at odds with most of the evidence.
-Those who say there is an individual right, but that the government may make reasonable restrictions for public safety have the best argument because it best matches the evidence and the text.
-Those who would grudgingly admit an indivdual right but then seek to interpret it so narrowly as to apply only to persons designated by the state are not making an argument that can withstand a close examination of the evidence.


The collective rights argument is another animal altogether, it denies any individual right to keep and bear arms. This reading finds no support in the historical record, and can not explain why the text of the second amendment ought to be interpreted differently than similar language as used in state constitutions. It is at best a naked assertion at odds with a long historical, legislative, and doctrinal record; and as argued in Silveira (9th Circuit) it is no more than a series of rhetorical arguments which would embarass anyone who regards themselves as intellectually honest.

[Spinzonner]

36. So you concede that the rights

'guatanteed' by the 2nd Amendment are neither inviolable or unconditional.

We are now in an argument about what are 'reasonable restrictions' with respect to the number and kind of 'arms' and the individuals who exercise that right.

[hansberrym]

37. That the freedom of the press does not extend to counterfeiting

does not mean that there is not a freedom of the press which government may not violate. What it means is that the term "freedom of the press" is a term of art with an understood meaning, and it was never meant to extend to counterfeiting. Though someone might suppose from the text alone that it meant that one could print whatever one wanted, that is not the case. That the government passes laws punishing counterfeiting does not mean the government is restricting the freedom of the press. This restriction is in fact consistent with the meaning of the First Amendment "freedom of the press". The same is true for the second amendment.

That people may be prohibited from carrying a particular weapon in a particular manner, for example carrying hidden knife, would not mean that the right to bear arms is not inviolate.

[Inland]

45. And you again undercut your argument:"Bear arms" is also a term of art

One only "bears arms" in a military sense. You don't bear arms to hunt bear. You don't bear arms when grabbing the rifle off the mantlepiece to shoot an intruder.

Consistent with the first phrase and the right of "the people", it seems that all the second amendment does is prevent the fed. government from passing a law disarming the militia of a state. No matter how broadly one construes that provision, it doesn't prevent a state from disarming its own populace with its own statutes.

[hansberrym]

49. Not quite.

It is extremely odd that you would make a "term of art" and "states rights" argument, and then poke fun at the use of the term "bear arms" as is was actually used by the "state rights" advocates of the day. The Anti-federalists were the champions of states rights, and yet they used the term "bear arms" to mean a very broad individual right.

In Silveira v. Lockyer, Judge Reinhardt describes provision #7 of Address of the the Pennsylvania Minority as “unambiguously” directed to an individual right. The entire provision is shown below, although judge Reinhardt left off first phrase in his citation of the same provision in Silveira.

7) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game, and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. (my emphasis)


11) That the power of organizing, arming and disciplining the militia (the manner of disciplining the militia to be prescribed by Congress) remain with the individual states, and that Congress shall not have authority to call or march any of the militia out of their own state, without the consent of such state, and for such length of time only as such state shall agree

That the sovereignty, freedom and independency of the several states shall be retained, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this constitution expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.
(excerpted from The Anti-Federalist and the Constitutional Convention Debates; Ralph Ketcham, Mentor, copyright 1986)



Also from the Congressional debates on the Bill of Rights we see that the term "bear arms" is used in reference to an individual's actions, not the action of the collective or state.

Madison: “…no person scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person ”. (my emphasis)

George Wyethe of the Virginia convention: “…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”

From the Rhode Island convention: (nearly identical to Wyethe)
“…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”

Thus, at a minimum, this phrase ”bear arms” means “to render military service in person”. That is not to say that the phrase can not mean more, however it would be an extremely silly argument to say that those words do not have at least the meaning as was given by each of the three diverse sources at the Congressional ratification debates. Thus the term can not plausibly be applied to an exclusively collective meaning considering the use of the term (indicating an individual's action) at the Congression debates cited above.

Then there is the State bills of rights which used that same phrase ("bear arms")and have always been interpreted as protecting an individual right to own and use arms. And though the states made and still do make laws that restict how arms may be carried and which type of arms may be owned, they do protect an individual right to keep and bear arms that is very broad in comparison to what the "states rights" advocates claim.


We know that the Federalists described the second amendment as an individual right as it was sent out to the states for ratification. After ratification by the states, Madison himself sought to group the second amendment with the other individual rights. Furthemore The Anti-federalists complained that the amendment only addressed individual rights. Note that some prominent anti-federalists complained bitterly that only the indivdual right was accepted by the federalists. None of these well known facts are disputed by the gun grabbers, instead they either ignore or dismiss each with rhetorical dodges, but they can offer no evidence whatever that the term "bear arms" was used in an exclusively collective manner.



Yes, the term "bear arms" is a term of art, and in the various Bills of Rights (federal and several states) it related to the use of weapons by individuals whether for self defense or for the common defense. There is no evidence whatever that the term had a meaning different in the federal constitution than in the state constitutions. There is however plenty of evidence that "the right to bear arms" meant the same thing in the federal constitution as it did in the state constitutions.

[Inland]

52. Do you read what you cut and paste? Seems not.

The passages you quote clearly put "bear arms" as a matter of the militia, not hunting, not target shooting, not recreation, not defense of the home from burglars.

The right to "bear arms" outside of military service doesn't exist, if only because "bearing arms", by definition, is military service.

[jody]

53. Sovereign states recognized the inalienable right to defend self and

property before they signed the Constitution and an inalienable right can not be given away. For example see:

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

[Inland]

54. Well, that's Pennsylvania's take on it. So?

I didn't vote for it, and what's more, the people of Pennsylvania could amend their consitution today if they felt like it. Was slavery illegal in Pennsylvania at the time? Because there were states hard on its southern flank that had different concepts of inalienable rights.

Calling it inalienable begs the questino. It is a matter of discussion for the legislature to which we have submitted in the democratic process. I'll burden my right to own a gun by voting for registration. It really isn't a problem.

[jody]

59. Calling it inalienable is very relevant because an inalienable right

can not be given away.

[Inland]

60. Calling it inalienable doesn't make it so.

It is the constitution of Pennsylvania. It can be amended. All you need is a vote.

Pay me a thousand dollars. I'll sell my right to ever own a firearm. If I can do that, then certainly we can, through our elected representives, vote to ban .50 caliber or register handguns.

[jody]

63. I'm sorry but when the citizens of a state say a right is inalienable

that makes it inalienable. :shrug:

[Inland]

68. Until they say different. That's what amendments are all about.

Used to be that slaves were property guaranteed by the US constitution. Then we changed. Freed them without compensation to their owners. "Inalienable rights? Not any more."

So let's vote.

[jody]

70. Are you asserting that states have the right to amend our Constitution

to legalize slavery?

[Inland]

71. No. There is a fed const amend banning slavery.

There isn't one guaranteeing rights to own guns. But feel free to ask for one.

[jody]

73. My question was do you believe the states could amend our Constitution

to legalize slavery?

[Inland]

76. Um. The fed constitution is the supreme law.

But the fed constitution doesn't prohibit states from enacting gun laws. It does prohibit slavery.

[jody]

78. Do you believe the states have the right to amend our Constitution

to legalize slavery?

[Inland]

81. No. A state can't amend the federal constitution.

Anything else?

[jody]

83. Perhaps you should reread our Constitution because it says

Article. V. < Annotations >

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

That means 2/3 of the state legislatures can force the call of a convention and 3/4 of the states can approve an amendment

[Inland]

85. Thanks. I am aware of the article.

I thought you were proposing that a state change the fed const on its lonesome. Point?

[jody]

86. OK, but do you believe the states can amend our Constitution to

legalize slavery or do you believe that certain rights like freedom are outside the scope of a government freely adopted by a sovereign people, i.e. are there some rights that are inalienable?

[Inland]

88. Interesting question, and of course, irrelevant.

Equating removing "gun rights" with imposing slavery is exactly the kind of nonsense that shows that the only right that gunnies recognize is guns. If I can't carry a street sweeper into a public library, well, next stop slavery! If I can arm myself, then I don't even have to pay library fines if I don't feel like it. Sweet justice!

An inalienable right means that you get any means to procure it, in your own judgment. Hey, I say that I need a nuke to protect my liberty. If you don't like it, eat hot radiation!

Nobody agrees with that logic, but the purpose of the gun rights' lobby is to make sure that guns and not logic rules the day.

[jody]

89. Why do you refuse to answer my question about whether there are or aren't

inalienable rights?

[Inland]

95. Because we all know gun ownership isn't one of them, even if there were.

But the gunnie theology is, I get a gun to protect my inalienable rights. Everything is a reductio ad absurdum, where if I admit that God disapproves of disemboweling babies at Sunday services, you get to own a shoulder fired Surface to Air Missile for defense. It is as predictable as it is wrong, and I don't care to go through the sixty or seventy attempts at a socratic wandering before you reach that conclusion. I got there and discarded it without you.

[jody]

98. Goodbye

:hi:

[hansberrym]

74. Seems like you have the same sort of glasses as

Judge Reinhardt. You seem to be able to selectively ignore what does not suit your argument.


Actually the passages I quoted clearly put "bear arms" as a right of the people, not a right of the states.

How do you explain that the state constitutions used those same words "bear arms" in relation to an individual right? And not merely an individual right to perform military service/defend the state, but a right to defend one's self?

How do you explain that the anti-federalists (those supporting the state governments over the federal) used the term "bear arms" in a proposed amendment that was "unambiguously" directed at a broad indivdual right rather than securing state power over the militia?


How do you explain that the federalists described the second amendment as an indivdual right of the people to keep their "private arms"?


You say:
The right to "bear arms" outside of military service doesn't exist, if only because "bearing arms", by definition, is military service.

How clever! But of course the right to bear arms does exist outside of military service to the states, that is only one facet of the term. The complete meaning being "in defense of themselves, their own state, or the united states,..." as the Anti-federalist used the term.

Under the state constitutions we have the right to bear arms in defence ourselves and the state, so it would follow that under the federal constitution we would have the right to defend ourselves, our own state, or the united states.

[Inland]

84. And cut and pasting continues--now it excludes what counts.

You may have read that the passage was for the "people to defend themselves", which is consistent with the militia and "bearing arms". Nowhere does anybody so much as mention an "individual right" to guns.

Fact is, you can find lots of anti-federalist proposals for a lot of things. Fact further is, the anti-federalist proposals lost. Once again, you take the argument that lost and use it as authority for the intentions of the founders. It is the other way around: the fact that the arguments and proposals were rejected shows the founding fathers wanted no such thing.

You did the same when you cited dissents on the 14th amendment. I give you kudos for knowing an argument when you see one, but it is a loser.

[hansberrym]

90. Are you denying that Proposal #7 of the PA Minority

was a proposal for an individual right?

Are you denying that proposal #11 was for a state power?


You say the Anti-federalist proposal #7 was rejected. How clever! All of the proposals from the PA Minority were rejected, even the proposals for "freedom of the press", and the "state power" provision #11. However, when the second amendment was finally ratified it contained nearly the same wording for the substantive right as was used by the anti-federalists in their individual right proposal #7.


"That the people have a right to bear arms..." (PA Minority #7)


"the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."


If the "founders wanted no such thing", why then did they use nearly the same language to describe the substantive right as the anti-federalists used in their individual right proposal, which was also the same "right of the people to bear arms" language as used in the various state constitutions?

If the founders "meant no such thing", why then do the state constitutions say that the people have a right to defend themselves and the states? You might be aware that Founders of the federal government were also influential in their own state governments.


What is it that you think the second amendment means? A state right?
If the Framers had wanted to protect a states power, they might have said so. You do realize that Proposal #11 of the Anti-federalist was also rejected at the PA convention. Furthermore the second amendment makes no mention of a state right or a state power to do anything, it mentions only a right of the people.

If the framers (Federalists), had protected "state power" in the second amendment they might have spoken of it in that way, but they did not, And Madison might have grouped the amendment with powers reserved to the states, but he did not, he grouped it with the individual rights.



Federal Gazette ,1789 (Tenche Coxe writing about the second amendment)
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

Can you expalin how "private" arms has an exclusively collective meaning, or a states right meaning?

If "private" does not refer to "individual", what does it refer to?


Do you think it means "state-militia" arms?

[left15]

5. your somewhere in the middle

If you feel "strongly" about law-abiding citizens being able to keep guns in their homes.

then you are a "strong 2nd Amendment supporter"

[Spinzonner]

7. The Second Amendment says nothing about 'guns'

It refers to 'arms'.

So a 'strong' reading - whatever that is - would likely authorize people to have mortars, howitzers, small-yield nuclear weapeons, etc in their homes.

You need to define your terms much better.

[Somawas]

13. It certainly does

and to the extent that it creates or preserves an individual right, the 2d amendment was written by a bunch of enlightenment radicals who had just put an ass whoopin' on the greatest military power on earth. They wanted a well armed citizenry and a government ot be very scared.

[Spinzonner]

16. The word 'gun' does not appear

So by starting off with a false claim, any further statements you make are not worthy of consideration in view of your forfeited credibility.

[hansberrym]

26. "arms" includes guns (n/t)

[Spinzonner]

35. Probably so

but it also includes mortars, howitzers, bombs, nuclear weapons, and all manners of highly destructive items. So, if you want an individual right based upon a literal reading, you have to include them also.

Better be really nice to your neighbor, especially if he belongs to the National Thermonuclear Association.

[hansberrym]

38. Does the "state militia" championed by the collective rights advocates

have a right to own nuclear bombs?

Better be nice to Arnold or he'll terminate us all.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wonk]

40. Yet another classy poster child for the extreme RKBA faction here on DU :/

"I appreciate your jumping in my shit. Now go fuck yourself to death."

How to win friends and influence people :silly:

[slackmaster]

27. None of the items you listed have been banned from civilian ownership

So a 'strong' reading - whatever that is - would likely authorize people to have mortars, howitzers, small-yield nuclear weapeons, etc in their homes.

And if the Second Amendment doesn't protect the right to own all of those things, then why haven't any of them been prohibited? They're all heavily regulated, but in most states you can (at least theoretically) obtain any of them legally.

[Historic NY]

6. I'm a moderate and a gun owner myself...............I just don't ...

believe everyone should own a gun w/o being subjected to some check. Heck we have to take a test to drive a car and get a license. I don't believe every gun manufactured or ammo made should be sold to the general public. There are lots of crazy stuff being made & sold that have no legitimate purpose what so ever. I also don't believe an AK47 is a hunting weapon, unless of course your hunting humans. I'm in LE and since the expiration of the assault weapons ban (stupid law because it really was more fiction than fact) a bunch of companies are dumping junk on the market. (credit card guns, wallet guns, a new handgun caliber that will penetrate police body armor, etc....)I also don't belong to the NRA, while it likes to spout 2nd amendment issues it in reality supports the business end of guns, from which it get the majority of its funds.

[slackmaster]

25. I agree the AW ban was stupid, but it had nothing to do with

...credit card guns, wallet guns, a new handgun caliber that will penetrate police body armor, etc....

Credit card guns and wallet guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act as "Any Other Weapon" or AOWs. I don't know what new handgun caliber you are referring to, but armor-piercing ammo for handguns is illegal for sale to civilians regardless of caliber. There are some very large, powerful handgun calibers around that have been for decades. The .500 Smith & Wesson is new, but it came out before the AW ban expired.

I marked the end of the federal AW ban by putting a USGI type upper receiver assembly on one of my AR-15 rifles. Now it has a bayonet lug, and a NATO type flash suppressor that could be removed easily if I ever decide to remove it.

[Historic NY]

33. When I say dumping, I mean actively advertising this junk. n/t

[slackmaster]

34. Why do you think they are doing that now as opposed to earlier?

Are you suggesting they're getting rid of the crap guns to make more room for "AWs"?

[left is right]

8. Do I think that guns should be outlawed?

No! Do I think that owning guns is either necessary or even desirable for the average family? Again, no. I would however, like to see them licensed and regulated in the same way that we license cars and their drivers, dog ownership, food vendors, even doctors and lawyers.
I think way too many families have discovered the truth behind the adage: "you can take my gun when you pry it from the cold, dead fingers of my children." I would love to see that never come true for all families

[izzie]

14. I have trouble with this also.

I really do not care that most have guns. I do not want people running around with them on the street. I think they should check up on people before they get them. I know people who have them that the Gov. has said are mentally un-safe yet they have bought guns. Get a gov. pension for being a nut but you can buy a gun. That is crazy.I have known people who just should not have them. In fact I know one man that, the state police , took all his guns and not one of us in the family said a thing. After the man died the police returned all the guns to the family. The guy used to drink and shoot up every thing. He was also a dealer in the gun business. The rules seem to be crazy.Sorry that English is just bad.

[slackmaster]

24. You have thought out your own positions - Congratulations!

I have a lot more respect for a thoughtful opinion than one based solely on extremist propaganda.

[aikoaiko]

28. To the originator of the thread: Yes, you're 'pro-gun '

Almost everyone (including arch conservatives at right wing gun websites and "anti-gun" activists) thinks the same way as you. Almost no one says that there should be absolutely no gun control and almost no says the all guns should be banned and confiscated.

I sometimes say things like "all guns for all non-criminal, non-crazy citizens" as a simple way of saying that if you've not proven yourself too irresponsible for gun ownership, then you should be allowed to own one when you go through legal channels . But things get tricky when trying to discriminate who should get a gun and who shouldn't. For example, even if one does a background check, the background check will not have access to psychiatric information (unless the courts have been involved and they are usually not). The background check does not include people who are "known criminals" but who haven't been convicted.

There is a one background check loophole that has bothered me a little. In many states a resident can sell another resident a gun without having to do a background check. This exception to the background check is a way that ineligible people can get firearms from people like you and me who normally wouldn't knowingly sell a criminal or crazy a firearm. But on the other hand, I have bought a few handguns this way and I get a little secret pleasure at knowing that there is no paper trail showing that I own some firearms. Maybe thats the anti-government side of me. :)

[slackmaster]

29. Here in California there is only one way to acquire an undocumented gun

(Meaning one legal way) - Build it yourself for your own personal use.

[aikoaiko]

31. Wow, do you have to mill/cast the receiver?

I wonder how many Californians do this?

[slackmaster]

32. Easiest way is to start with an 80% finished frame or receiver

For example, a 1911 pistol frame with all but the grooves for the slide rails finished.

Starting with an 80% finished frame (which is not legally a firearm) you have to mill out the grooves, and do all the fine filing/reaming/whatever to fit the small parts. Once you get it all working you can finish it for the desired appearance.

It's by no means a small job but very satisfying once complete.

You can also start from scratch (raw metal stock), or a casting (sometimes called 0% finished) that needs all the machine work done.

I wonder how many Californians do this?

I think very few people actually have the time, patience, skill, and inclination to do such a project.

[benEzra]

42. How do you feel about...

How do you feel about banning things like 15-round handguns or nontraditional-looking rifles? That's the big issue in the air at the moment (and the biggest albatross around the party's neck).

To me, a candidate's stance on the ownership of nonhunting-style guns is the biggest indicator of where they stand on Second Amendment issues (since the vast majority of us gun owners are nonhunters).

[Pushed To The Left]

43. Nonhunting-style guns

I'm not a gun expert, but it seems like a handgun would be the best choice for somebody with a CCW. I think that the power of the gun is a more important factor when it comes to gun control than what the gun looks like.

[benEzra]

44. Actually, appearance is more important than lethality...

I was speaking of the so-called "assault weapon" issue, and on that issue what the gun looks like determines whether or not it gets banned. A civilian Uzi lookalike and a Glock 17 are functionally and ballistically identical (and fire the same relatively low-powered ammunition, at the same rate of fire), but the Uzi lookalike's looks--i.e., it looks a lot like a real (NFA '34 restricted) Uzi--makes it the target of bans.

My SAR-1 (civilian AK-47 lookalike) in 7.62x39 is among the least powerful of all common centerfire rifle calibers, and the prohibitionists are fighting to ban it because it LOOKS like a real (NFA '34 restricted) AK-47. But the Ruger mini-30 low-powered hunting rifle is identical to the SAR-1 in every way except appearance, and it's not the target of any bans I know of.

(Actual military AK-47's and Uzi's are restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934; such military weapons were not covered by the "assault weapons ban," just civilian guns that LOOK like military weapons.)

[aikoaiko]

55. Good stuff benEzra

I enjoy reading your posts, but thought I'd throw in my 2 cents with regard to your last post. Take it for what its worth (maybe not much since i am no gun expert).

If my memory serves me right...

Semiauto Uzi's and G17's are generally not functionally equivalent because the longer barrel of uzi increases the pressure set upon the bullet producing more zip (nice technical jargon :-))

Ruger Mini-30s were listed in the "new and improved" Feinstein AWB of 2004.

Semi autos can be just a 'military' as select fire ones, technically. But of course, most AR style guns in the military are select fire. I know what you mean, but I grimace a little when you distinquish Class 3 weapons with the word military.

Take me task if I;m wrong. I'm not being argumentative, just shooting the breeze with a fellow gun owner.

[benEzra]

56. Some thoughts...

Semiauto Uzi's and G17's are generally not functionally equivalent because the longer barrel of uzi increases the pressure set upon the bullet producing more zip (nice technical jargon :-))

This would be most noticeable in the carbine-length Uzi lookalikes with 16" barrels (the ones that looked like rifles, with shoulder stocks). The more authentic-looking short-barrel Uzi lookalikes (short barrel, and no stock per NFA SBR rules) would be ballistically very close to the Glock. But it is my understanding that a standard-pressure 9mm doesn't gain all that much oomph from a long barrel anyway, because of the relatively low case capacity and optimization for short-barreled handguns. So the difference is probably within a few percent if it's significant at all.

(A .357, on the other hand, gains quite a bit of energy from a longer barrel, and I have read that a 125-grain .357 approaches the low end of 7.62x39 or .30-30 ballistics out of a carbine-length barrel.)

Ruger Mini-30s were listed in the "new and improved" Feinstein AWB of 2004.

If you're speaking of S.1431, I know the mini-14 was included, but I think the mini-30 was not. Irrational though that may be.

Semi autos can be just a 'military' as select fire ones, technically. But of course, most AR style guns in the military are select fire. I know what you mean, but I grimace a little when you distinquish Class 3 weapons with the word military.

Actually, all military AR variants (M16, M4, etc.) would indeed be NFA Class III; I know non-select-fire AR's are used by a lot of law enforcement agencies, but I don't think any are used by the military at any level. The same is true of all military AK and Uzi variants. The only possible exception I can think of would be the "Romak" (Romanian Dragunov-style designated-marksman rifle, 10-round semi-auto only in 7.62x54R based on a heavily modified Kalashnikov-type receiver), but that's not really an AK variant as much as a derivative--and it wasn't affected by the AWB anyway since it technically has a thumbhole stock.

The reason I put it that way is that it bugs me to no end when people characterized the AWB as covering military weapons, when all modern infantry rifles are actually regulated by NFA '34 as automatic weapons. There are of course a bunch of older infantry rifles not covered by NFA '34 (Mausers, SKS's, Mosin-Nagants, Garands), but these weren't covered by the AWB either. Military M1 carbines would have been except all such carbines are pre-'94 (obviously), and I think they might have been exempted anyway.

[benEzra]

57. Did some checking on the ballistics...

and standard-pressure 9mm doesn't gain much out of long barrels; see discussion here. Average velocity gain from even a 16.5" barrel compared to a 4.5" barrel is only 107 fps, and the Uzi lookalike barrel is shorter than that (260 mm or 10.25" for non-carbine versions). So the velocity difference is there, but it's not significant with standard-pressure loads.

[aikoaiko]

100. Well written, once again.

Thanks.

[MNBiker]

93. You said "I even support CCWs in some cases" can you trust yourself

To carry a gun?

[benEzra]

96. Yes. And I trust my wife to do so as well

though she certainly doesn't need my approval to do so. But it's definitely a question that anyone seriously considering it should ask oneself.

I am a very nonviolent person; I am 34 years old and have so far avoided so much as a fistfight (and fully expect never to participate in one). I have never even cursed anyone out, nor have I had so much as a speeding ticket. I carry a S&W 3913 LadySmith (compact 9mm) on occasion, and have been licensed to do so for several years, in multiple states. My wife's carry gun is a 9mm http://www.glock.com/g26.htm">Glock 26, FWIW.