long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[Alan Klein]

I realize that there are legal differences that affect how easily (or not) they can be changed. Step and look at the bigger picture. They are all laws invented by man at a particular place and time, so of course they can be changed by people under which they are governed. None of those codified laws are sacred. It's your personal choice to treat them as sacred, nothing more.

As I have stated previously in another thread, the US Constitution did not prevent slavery or the genocide of American Indians and the 14th amendment did not prevent Jim Crow. These are not small things that just need a little tweaking.

Bob, I don't understand your point.  Slavery was ended through modification of the Constitution (14th Amendment) and the blood of the Civil War.  It took many more years for Jim Crow laws to be ended, but they were ended.  The fact is that the country held together due to the respect of the Constitution despite all the problems ego-centric man has to deal with.  The Constitution isn't perfect because man isn't perfect.  But it's done a pretty good job so far.

Regarding American Indians, the Constitution wasn't written to prevent wars between the us and the Indian Nations or anyone else for that matter.  Although morally we may be queasy about some of what we did, there's nothing in our Constitution that prevents the country from being aggressive towards others including war.    Also, a lot of the Indian nations were defeated before the country became a nation during the period when we were under British or other nation's rule. So you can blame Europeans.  Look at the mess in the Middle East we're still trying to straighten out created by former European colonial rule. 

[Alan Klein]

1.) Mandatory background checks for all gun purchase irrespective of where they are bought (close the gun show loophole)
2.) Mandatory registration of all firearms going forward so that someone who is purchasing 19 weapons in one month can be identified (does anyone really need that many?)
3.) Ban all weapons capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a single loading (does anyone need to fire more than 10 rounds for either sporting or self defense purposes; police officers did quite well for a lot of years with six shot S&W revolvers)

These are the ones that quickly come to mind.  I am not advocating a limitation on the number of firearms one can own, only documenting things.  #1 was tried after Sandy Hook but the Senate Republicans filibustered it despite the fact that it got 54 votes (including some Republican votes).

Remember the 2nd Amendment was written during the time of muzzle loading rifles and hand guns that were neither accurate or safe.  the world has changed.

If I'm protecting my family against a home invasion by a bunch of thugs or during a riot, which the 2nd Amendment allows me to do, why should I be limited to 10 rounds?  Especially since the law prevents me from taking the weapon out of the home.  So because someone using guns illegally and harms someone, 99.9% of the people who protect their homes and families in a responsible manner have to be punished? 

People "soup" up their cars so they can drive 180mph way over the legal limit anywhere in the country.  Thousands of people are killed every year because of it.  Yet no one is suggesting laws that that stop people from modifying their cars or in fact buying them "souped" up directly from the manufacturer.  Dodge autos are "souped up" as the American "muscle" car.  And why is it necessary to have a Ferrari that goes 225 mph?  People drag race these cars both legally at race tracks but they also do it illegally on the street.  Again thousands are killed.  Why aren't you pushing for laws to stop it?  Cars have no constitutional protection like guns do.  It seems people are more concerned about cars polluting than running people over due to speed.

[Farmer]

Cars have no constitutional protection like guns do.  It seems people are more concerned about cars polluting than running people over due to speed.

But really, they do.  All other rights are retained by the states and the people.  So since the constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to ban cars or their top speed, the right to those things exists due to the constitution.  The only difference is this problem that we've been discussing wherein you give special prominence to certain rights and that effectively reduces the protection of all others contrary to the intent of the constitution.

Also, cars is a very good analogy if you take our local experience.  People who want very high powered weapons here can own them for recreational use at range or competitions and so on, but they can't use them out on the street.  Just as you can't drag race legally on the streets but can at a race track.  So we let people own such weapons but don't let them take them home or carry them around except for the stated purpose.  Typically, they are secured at their clubs or local ranges except when there's a legitimate need to transport them.  Similarly, race cars don't drive on the road.  It's not so difficult.

[Alan Klein]

Las Vegas Shooting: N.R.A. Supports New Rules on ‘Bump Stock’ Devices

I'm surprised they support a ban only because they're usually afraid of the slippery slope.  They may regret it.  In any case, I guess they figured this relatively minor change in the law won't effect gun law if no other changes are included.  So they're trading off potential changes that are more restrictive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/las-vegas-shooting.html?_r=0

[Alan Klein]

But really, they do.  All other rights are retained by the states and the people.  So since the constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to ban cars or their top speed, the right to those things exists due to the constitution.  The only difference is this problem that we've been discussing wherein you give special prominence to certain rights and that effectively reduces the protection of all others contrary to the intent of the constitution.

Also, cars is a very good analogy if you take our local experience.  People who want very high powered weapons here can own them for recreational use at range or competitions and so on, but they can't use them out on the street.  Just as you can't drag race legally on the streets but can at a race track.  So we let people own such weapons but don't let them take them home or carry them around except for the stated purpose.  Typically, they are secured at their clubs or local ranges except when there's a legitimate need to transport them.  Similarly, race cars don't drive on the road.  It's not so difficult.

Both your claims are deficient. First, cars and driving are not constitutionally protected.  You are mistaken.  The US Constitution does not prevent the States from imposing restrictions on cars and driving and most things.  Those privileges are granted to the States where as freedom of speech, for example,  is guaranteed not to be taken away by either the Federal or State governments.  The States can Constitutionally and in fact do regulate who can drive a car and at what speed.  There are no constitutional protections.  The part of the Constitution that grants the States the right to do these restrictions and impose penalties for violating them is: 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  So the States have the power to do what they want.  But that's wonderful because that allows the states who are democratically controlled by the people to decide how they want to live.  So if NYS allows a maximum speed of 65mph other states can allow top speed limits to whatever they want.  Each state makes its own regulations according to how the people want to live. That's why some states allow "carry" laws for guns and others don't.  Each state regulates itself.

As an aside, the Federal government does enforce certain rules under the "Regulate Interstate Commerce" clause of the Constitution.  So interstate highway rules, interstate truck regulations and the like are regulated Federally as well.  But again, there is no constitutional protection like arms protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Your second point is deficient because Ferraris, which can be taken home, drive at over 200mph.  They don't have to remain at the race track.  In fact most people who own them never even race them at a track.  Yet you want guns to remain at the gun range.  You trust people with 200mph Ferraris.  But, you don't trust people to take their guns home from the shooting range without shooting a couple of fellow citizens on their way. 

[RSL]

1.) Mandatory background checks for all gun purchase irrespective of where they are bought (close the gun show loophole)
2.) Mandatory registration of all firearms going forward so that someone who is purchasing 19 weapons in one month can be identified (does anyone really need that many?)
3.) Ban all weapons capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition in a single loading (does anyone need to fire more than 10 rounds for either sporting or self defense purposes; police officers did quite well for a lot of years with six shot S&W revolvers)

So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think? Actually, the only people who'd be in the state's sights would be honest people who follow the law. Do you really believe people who don't follow the law wouldn't be able to find a way around that kind of requirement? The fact is there's no law that's going to solve this problem.

[Littlefield]

Bump stocks were approved for sale in 2010 by Barack Obama’s ATF and as a hunter owner of guns could care less if they are banned. 
Don

https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf

[Chairman Bill]

So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think?

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly about ensuring states had a 'well-regulated' militia, i.e. a citizens' army, to offer protection for the nation in the absence of a standing army. Being well regulated implies a knowledge of who has what.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Bump stocks were approved for sale in 2010 by Barack Obama’s ATF and as a hunter owner of guns could care less if they are banned. 
Don

It's more nuanced than that.  They technically were not approved as they were not a firearm and therefore not subject to the current regulations.  It's a loophole and the manufacturer was just seeking clarification.  All this is publicly available.

[Littlefield]

https://www.slidefire.com/downloads/BATFE.pdf
They can ban them with a bill in Congress but I doubt that will happen when the Dems overplay their hand.
Don

[Alan Goldhammer]

So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think? Actually, the only people who'd be in the state's sights would be honest people who follow the law. Do you really believe people who don't follow the law wouldn't be able to find a way around that kind of requirement? The fact is there's no law that's going to solve this problem.

I said "going forward" as it will be very difficult if not impossible to track the existing gun owners.  This is a simple database problem and thus an easy technical solution.  Gun dealers would have to register each sale.  This is currently done for automobiles.  It is the only way that one can determine whether someone is accumulating a small arsenal and of what type of weapon.  Law abiding citizens would have no worry other than those that harbored paranoid thoughts about the government.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Bob, I don't understand your point.  Slavery was ended through modification of the Constitution (14th Amendment) and the blood of the Civil War.  It took many more years for Jim Crow laws to be ended, but they were ended.  The fact is that the country held together due to the respect of the Constitution despite all the problems ego-centric man has to deal with.  The Constitution isn't perfect because man isn't perfect.  But it's done a pretty good job so far.

But those Jim Crow laws were grounded in the legal "separate but equal" provisions that the court found and were not settled until Brown v Board of Education in 1954.  Even then it took a long time to equalize things (some would argue that things are not equal today).

Regarding American Indians, the Constitution wasn't written to prevent wars between the us and the Indian Nations or anyone else for that matter.  Although morally we may be queasy about some of what we did, there's nothing in our Constitution that prevents the country from being aggressive towards others including war.    Also, a lot of the Indian nations were defeated before the country became a nation during the period when we were under British or other nation's rule. So you can blame Europeans.  Look at the mess in the Middle East we're still trying to straighten out created by former European colonial rule.

I don't think your comment about most Indian nations being defeated before the country was a nation is true.  Certainly the Plains' Indians were not finally subjugated until the late 1800s when they were forced onto reservations.  Same thing for the Indians of the Southwest.  The Spanish who controlled Florida did not fight the Seminoles, nor did the French who controlled the Louisiana territory (in fact most of the French footprint was in New Orleans).  Your comment highlighted is also questionable.  Are you saying that Indians who either lived in the original 13 states that were signatory to the Constitution or those that were subsumed into the United States following territorial acquisitions did not have any rights as citizens?

[Alan Klein]

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was clearly about ensuring states had a 'well-regulated' militia, i.e. a citizens' army, to offer protection for the nation in the absence of a standing army. Being well regulated implies a knowledge of who has what.

A militia comes under State law not federal.  The militia would be controlled by each of the 50 States to defend the sovereign State and its residents.  If you're concerned about a tyrannical federal government, you don't want the national government to know where the weapons are and who got them. 

By the way, this is really the elephant in the room that people dance around.  The whole issue with the NRA's concern is the fear that only the government in Washington will have guns if guns are outlawed or controlled for personal use and ownership.  There will be no protection against a regime that grabs power as we have seen throughout history and something the Founders feared as well, hence the 2nd Amendment.  An armed citizenry is the last defense against that tyranny.  (The Civil War was a reaction to that.  Personally armed southern citizens, state militias,  fought to maintain their state rights whether you agree with the reasons or not.  Of course, the southern states eventually joined together in to a common army.  But the armed populace originally provided the muscle). 

That's why dictators take away guns as the first things they do.  Look at the Soviet Union, Cuba, etc.  You also see it in rightist regimes as well.  Dictators come in all varieties.  The liberal left should remember that.  They could protect against a fascist government too.  This is why the Heller decision in the Supreme Court was monumental.  It cleared up the argument that people have the constitutional right be bear arms personally.  The fight to limit that right will continue however so the NRA will stay busy. 

[Alan Klein]

But those Jim Crow laws were grounded in the legal "separate but equal" provisions that the court found and were not settled until Brown v Board of Education in 1954.  Even then it took a long time to equalize things (some would argue that things are not equal today).
I don't think your comment about most Indian nations being defeated before the country was a nation is true.  Certainly the Plains' Indians were not finally subjugated until the late 1800s when they were forced onto reservations.  Same thing for the Indians of the Southwest.  The Spanish who controlled Florida did not fight the Seminoles, nor did the French who controlled the Louisiana territory (in fact most of the French footprint was in New Orleans).  Your comment highlighted is also questionable.  Are you saying that Indians who either lived in the original 13 states that were signatory to the Constitution or those that were subsumed into the United States following territorial acquisitions did not have any rights as citizens?

Regarding Jim Crow laws, my point agrees with yours, so I'm not sure of your point.  I said it took a long time to reverse them and you gave the date 1954.  OK I agree.

Regarding Indian Wars, a huge number were fought in the territories that made up the original 13 colonies that became the first states after our independence declared in 1776.  Those wars were controlled by the European powers, mainly England, as we were their colonies.  It is true that afterwards, many wars were fought by America against the indigenous Indians.  ll I said was that there is nothing in the Constitution that prevented us from making war on Indians or anyone else for that matter.  All it requires is a 51% majority vote in Congress to declare war.  No reason even has to be given.  By the way, Indians were not strangers to war.  They made war on each other continuously, long before the "white man" arrived.  They conquered territory of other Indians, killed their men and took the women and children as slaves.  So to make them out as some sort of victims doesn't truly reflect history just another thing to make us feel guilty. 

[James Clark]

So you're suggesting we allow the state (and I use that term to encompass governments at all levels) to know who owns all weapons. That sort of runs counter to the intent of the second amendment, don't you think?

Not at all.  It's irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment, which says nothing about the mechanism for protecting the right. In fact, I could argue that because the 2nd Amendment demands a "well-regulated" (meaning, in 18th century language, effective and efficient, basically) citizen militia, registration/certification of weapons might be the only way to ensure that. 

It's also consistent with the interpretations of other Constitutional protections over time.  That is to say, courts have repeatedly held that the rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute and are open to limitation (yelling "fire" in a theatre, incitement of violence, kiddie porn etc.) 

Actually, the only people who'd be in the state's sights would be honest people who follow the law. Do you really believe people who don't follow the law wouldn't be able to find a way around that kind of requirement? The fact is there's no law that's going to solve this problem.

This (laws only hurt honest people, criminals break them anyway) is an argument against law in general.  It's silly.

[Farmer]

This (laws only hurt honest people, criminals break them anyway) is an argument against law in general.  It's silly.

Indeed.  Any given law will dissuade a certain percentage of people who were otherwise inclined or open to behaving in a certain way from doing so.  The level of behaviour modification relies on many things ranging from the perception of equity, probability of being caught, the level and type of possible sanction, community or public opinion and support, likely long term impact, and the overall risk versus potential reward (and the reward itself has numerous variables, of course).

[Alan Klein]

Not at all.  It's irrelevant to the 2nd Amendment, which says nothing about the mechanism for protecting the right. In fact, I could argue that because the 2nd Amendment demands a "well-regulated" (meaning, in 18th century language, effective and efficient, basically) citizen militia, registration/certification of weapons might be the only way to ensure that. 

It's also consistent with the interpretations of other Constitutional protections over time.  That is to say, courts have repeatedly held that the rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute and are open to limitation (yelling "fire" in a theatre, incitement of violence, kiddie porn etc.) 

This (laws only hurt honest people, criminals break them anyway) is an argument against law in general.  It's silly.

The right to bear arms is an individual right not a group right as determined by the Supreme Court.  Individuals form militias not under the control of the government. They have their own leadership. They are entirely separate from government armies, state national guards, or state reserve units.  To force them to provide the government what their makeup is and the arms they have could prevent them to act as a bulwark against the government becoming tyrannical.  Militias have been used in the past to fight wars.  Although there use may not be prevalent today, the constitution would have to be amended to get rid of them.  So the 2nd Amendment still stands as regards to militias.  Also, the Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment allows individual right to be armed to provide personal protection to the individual in his premises.  However,  SCOTUS also determined that there are limits that can be enforced.

Regarding arguments against laws in general and laws regarding arms as being "silly", there is a difference between a law against bank robbery and a law to register your gun.  An honest person doesn't rob a bank.  However, an honest person would be forced to register his arms or not allowed to use arms that might be more protective for him, his family and home even though he isn't using it to break any other law.  The terrorist would avoid all such restraints.  To compare bank robbery to arms restrictions is "silly".  There's a huge difference. 

[Robert Roaldi]

In another conversation elsewhere, I was told that the legislation that was designed to make silencers (dumb name for them, but I'll continue to use it since it's what everyone seems to be using) also had language to make armour-piercing ammunition easier to obtain.

What kind of madness is this? Is there anyone who thinks that it's a good idea to have this stuff out there for sale?

I presume that the only explanation for any of this is money. The NRA must simply be a shill organization for the gun manufacturers, no other explanation makes any sense. There is no way this is about constitutional rights or citizens' ability to defend themselves, that's got to be just a plausible con.

Silencers and armour-piercing ammunition? Really? Am I alone in thinking that all this is just batsh*t crazy?

[Farmer]

If only they were just shills.  Instead, they're often religiously fanatical about the subject and there's a large cross-over with the conspiracy theory nutters

[Robert Roaldi]

One last point for today. You have to admire the NRA strategy. The news sites are reporting how the NRA is backing down on the "bump stock" ban. Alan, in an earlier  thread post, was surprised by this move and was surprised because the NRA would normally have regarded this as a slippery-slope. Which caused me to laugh out loud, btw. They are elsewhere backing legislation to make silencers and armour-piercing ammo easier to buy, but a concession on bump stock might be seen as a slippery slope.  Slippery slope down into what, exactly?

I am just expressing my admiration for the ability of the NRA to frame the debate in this way. There is a public discussion under way about insane topics but everyone is behaving as though this is all normal.

Humans must really enjoy doing this to ourselves. During Prohibition, most everyone probably knew how to get a drink. During my lifetime, any number of drugs have been illegal, but most everyone knew how to get some. Reality isn't anything like what we think it is, is it?