long live NRA - next convention in Mandalay Bay !

[James Clark]

The right to bear arms is an individual right not a group right as determined by the Supreme Court.

Yes - You may be surprised to know that I think Heller was probably decided accurately, if with an almost willful ignorance of practical ramifications..  That said, I think it's grossly anachronistic and stands only on a literal reading of the original document, the modern world be damned.

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.

No.  If we're staying consistent in agreeing with Heller based on a strictly originalist basis, the militia as referenced in the 2nd Amendment was clearly meant to be in the place of a standing army, and a tool of the state to be used for common defense.  The founders did not envision a random rabble of individuals running amok and either opposing or supporting the government as they saw fit. Further, if I recall correctly (don't hold me to this) the militia's officers, material etc. were meant to be determined by the state (literally - as in Virginia, Georgia or whatever, as opposed to the generic "state" or the federal government).  If you want, I can figure out what I remember that's making me thing that...

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.

Again, we agree. I think the Constitution is quite clear in granting that right.  I'm just not sure that the rationale for that right is applicable today.  I'm not sure where that leaves us.

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. 

As would a bank robber despite the law against robbing banks.  My point stands    

[Robert Roaldi]

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?

Alan, you're watching way too many Hollywood movies.

[Alan Klein]

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?

the NRA is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to handle the bump stock issue.  In 2010, under Obama, the ATF OKed bump stocks as add-on's that do not violate any laws.  By getting the ATF to review it and make it a violation, the NRA won't have to worry about Congress getting into the act to formalize it.  That would open them up to congressmen who might want to add additional restrictions - the slippery slope.  If ATF does it, it will be a sop.  Everyone will get on-board on both sides of the aisle and be pleased with themselves.  Then we all can get onto other things to argue about rather than gun regulation.

Of course, the NRA is taking a chance if it does become part of legislation.  Who knows what might happen.  Apparently they figure ATF is worth the chance to put the whole thing to sleep again. 

[Alan Klein]

1. Yes - You may be surprised to know that I think Heller was probably decided accurately, if with an almost willful ignorance of practical ramifications..  That said, I think it's grossly anachronistic and stands only on a literal reading of the original document, the modern world be damned.

2. No.  If we're staying consistent in agreeing with Heller based on a strictly originalist basis, the militia as referenced in the 2nd Amendment was clearly meant to be in the place of a standing army, and a tool of the state to be used for common defense.  The founders did not envision a random rabble of individuals running amok and either opposing or supporting the government as they saw fit. Further, if I recall correctly (don't hold me to this) the militia's officers, material etc. were meant to be determined by the state (literally - as in Virginia, Georgia or whatever, as opposed to the generic "state" or the federal government).  If you want, I can figure out what I remember that's making me thing that...

3. Again, we agree. I think the Constitution is quite clear in granting that right.  I'm just not sure that the rationale for that right is applicable today.  I'm not sure where that leaves us.

4. As would a bank robber despite the law against robbing banks.  My point stands    

I numbered your responses for clarity.

1. Certainly the right to protect oneself , your family and home with personal arms is not anachronistic, even if militias are. 

2. Since militias were tools of the state and the state also had an interest in protecting its own state's rights against a powerful national government such as what happened in the Civil War, both the individual states and their militias have an interest in protecting their ability to form and arm a militia.  That part may seem anachronistic.  However, SCOTUS did not consider it so.  They understood that the Constitution stands as it is, as it should.  You don't change any of its meaning, or you shouldn't, based on what someone thinks is anachronistic and no longer necessary.  Amend it formally.  Otherwise, everything becomes open to loose interpretation.  Then you have the whole country fighting over the political philosophies of propose justices rather than appointing people who will understand the Constitution as it is written.  Oh, so that's the problem we have now. We've turned life-time appointed justices into non-elected legislators.

3. No comment.

4.  I don't understand your point. Mine was that the honest person who would use his gun to protect himself in a legal manner, would  comply with onerous rules that he should not (added) have too while the terrorist would ignore the very same rules issued to stop the terrorist.  The laws would encumber honest people with little or nor advantage to stop murder.

[LesPalenik]

the NRA is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) to handle the bump stock issue.  In 2010, under Obama, the ATF OKed bump stocks as add-on's that do not violate any laws.  By getting the ATF to review it and make it a violation, the NRA won't have to worry about Congress getting into the act to formalize it.  That would open them up to congressmen who might want to add additional restrictions - the slippery slope.  If ATF does it, it will be a sop.  Everyone will get on-board on both sides of the aisle and be pleased with themselves.  Then we all can get onto other things to argue about rather than gun regulation.

Of course, the NRA is taking a chance if it does become part of legislation.  Who knows what might happen.  Apparently they figure ATF is worth the chance to put the whole thing to sleep again.

Excuse my ignorance (from a Canadian perspective), but when does one need a bump stock? To shoot a herd of deer or bisons?
How are the bump stocks rated? in bps (bullets or bisons per second)?

[Alan Klein]

Excuse my ignorance (from a Canadian perspective), but when does one need a bump stock? To shoot a herd of deer or bisons?
 

How many people really need an 850hp Ferrari that goes 225mph? Bump stocks are used on gun ranges because people get a kick out of firing what seems like an automatic weapon.   They also have bragging rights.  Like that Ferrari. Or a 36mp Nikon.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, you're watching way too many Hollywood movies.

I am?
"An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization"

[LesPalenik]

How many people really need an 850hp Ferrari that goes 225mph? Bump stocks are used on gun ranges because people get a kick out of firing what seems like an automatic weapon.   They also have bragging rights.  Like that Ferrari. Or a 36mp Nikon.

Ferrari I can understand, even a 36MP Nikon. However, they are more expensive than a bump stock.

[Alan Klein]

Ferrari I can understand, even a 36MP Nikon. However, they are more expensive than a bump stock.

Since Las Vegas, I understand that bump stocks are being sold out all over the country.  Everyone's buying them before they are made illegal.  Usually you can keep things you bought as it's "grandfathered" in as legal for previous purchases.  The same thing happened with the AR-15 rifle. 

[Robert Roaldi]

I am?
"An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization"

Maybe you should move to Mexico, it's probably safer.

In how many of those home invasions was the homeowner able to stop the crooks using the 10-round magazine in their AR-15?

[Alan Klein]

Maybe you should move to Mexico, it's probably safer.

In how many of those home invasions was the homeowner able to stop the crooks using the 10-round magazine in their AR-15?

Mexico isn't safer for me.  I've been there twice and nearly died twice from Montezuma's Revenge.  Well, I thought I wanted to die anyway.

I suppose you feel safer with a 15 or 30 round magazine than a 10 round.  It's probably overkill,   On he other hand, if you're a poor shot, you might need those extra rounds.  Also, a burglar's going to think twice if he sees you with an AR-15 rather than a sissy handgun.  The loudest sound he'll ever hear is when you load that first round in the chamber.  You won't need to fire the gun.  He'll be gone. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

When are you guys going to stop that obsession with the Constitution clause and its interpretation? It is not the Constitution, it is not sacred, it can be changed. It is not NRA. What you need to understand is a simple truth: the people of the United States want guns. The majority. Period. End of story. That's why it is difficult to change the Constitution. Not because it is sacred. Not because of the NRA. But because the people of the United States do not want it changed.

[Farmer]

When are you guys going to stop that obsession with the Constitution clause and its interpretation? It is not the Constitution, it is not sacred, it can be changed. It is not NRA. What you need to understand is a simple truth: the people of the United States want guns. The majority. Period. End of story. That's why it is difficult to change the Constitution. Not because it is sacred. Not because of the NRA. But because the people of the United States do not want it changed.

Actually, a majority want some form of improved/increased gun controls from the latest polls I saw.  But not enough to amend the constitution.

You are 100% correct, though, that the underlying driver is that many Americans want their guns and they aren't going to let anyone take their toys away no matter what.

[Alan Goldhammer]

It will be interesting to see if the manufacturer of the Bump Stock is sued by victims of the Las Vegas shooting.  Most firearms are exempt from tort liability because of various legislative actions but I don't believe those apply in this case.  It's a small company with sales of $10M/year.  Would not surprise me at all to see him sued.

[RSL]

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.

Bill, you really need to read up a bit on U.S. history before you make a statement like this one. The second amendment had nothing to do with protecting the U.S. with a "well-regulated militia."

[RSL]

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.

So if I become a dictator, I'll know exactly who owns weapons, and I'll be able to send my brownshirts around to those folks and either collect their arms or shoot them. If that sounds paranoid then you need to read up on German history.

[Alan Klein]

So if I become a dictator, I'll know exactly who owns weapons, and I'll be able to send my brownshirts around to those folks and either collect their arms or shoot them. If that sounds paranoid then you need to read up on German history.

+1
Of course, those on the left only want the government to have weapons for exactly that reason.  Of course, they won't talk about the real reasons they want to ban weapons for people.  They only talk about how dangerous weapons are.  It's a head fake. 

Most people today don't know that it was President Franklin Roosevelt who tried to pack the Supreme Court in 1937 with his cronies so he can rule the government.  Fortunately he failed.  Congress stopped him.  Then one realizes that the nicest people can turn out to be the biggest autocrats or dictators if you give them a half a chance.  One can only tremble thinking about what this country would look like if he was successful.  Of course those on the left call him a great president.  Well, they're the ones who believe in an all-powerful central government, a government who has all the weapons.   Protecting the 2nd Amendment is an investment in future liberty. 

Oh, it was Roosevelt's 4 terms as President, something no president ever dared to do before (2 was the max), that encouraged the country to Amend the Constitution to limit a president to two terms of four years each.  Washington, our greatest president, humbly refused to run for a third term even though he would have won.  He felt that presidents are not kings, should not become president for life, and others should lead.  He set a great example that was followed by every president afterwards until the narcissist and autocrat Franklin Roosevelt.

[Alan Goldhammer]

So if I become a dictator, I'll know exactly who owns weapons, and I'll be able to send my brownshirts around to those folks and either collect their arms or shoot them. If that sounds paranoid then you need to read up on German history.

Yes, just like we will be in danger of having our cars seized because the government knows that we own a particular make and model.  It's always easy to draw out false equivalences when looking at controversial issues such as gun ownership.  I would ask you the simple question, should an individual be able to own an unlimited number of guns?  The Supreme Court has never said this.  If one carefully reads Justice Scalia's opinion in Heller v District of Columbia one is struck by the following:

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:  “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

 “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The doors are open to gun regulation but of course this is unlikely to happen because of the NRA's desire to permit unlimited ownership

[John Brawley]

It's too late.

You can't cancel millions of weapons even if you do render them illegal, which no government, either state or federal appears to have the will to do.

Oh yes you can.

Australia did it in 1996. 

They started by getting all the states together with the federal government after a mass shooting in Tasmania.  They agreed to outlaw many weapons, and much tough regulations for those that were still available.

It took three and half months after Port Arthur, for those gun control laws to be passed, with a groundswell of bipartisan support from all sides of politics.

This happened because of the exact sentiment that's being expressed right now over Las Vegas.  The exact same despair at the pointless and preventable loss of life that happened at a mass shooting gave politicians the will to change the law.

There was at first a straight gun buy back program. The federal government PAID people to return their guns before they outlawed them. They were then destroyed.  There was an amnesty on any illegal weapons as well.  You could just walk into a police station and over over a weapon no questions asked.  Thousands of weapons were turned in.

And since then, there haven't been any mass shootings in Australia.  None.  ZERO.  Is it really worth the price of you having the freedom to own a weapon to defend yourself when the cost is school shootings, the highest incidence of gun violence in the entire western world ?  It's not talked about at all, but self harm in the US by gun is astonishingly higher than anywhere else in the world too.  How would you having a gun to defend yourself have made diddly squat difference in a scenario like Las Vegas ?

None.

Why does the US have a gun problem ?  Why do these numbers not horrify Americans even before Las Vegas ?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Here's a comic take that tells that story. But it's essentially VERY relevant to this debate.  You'll hear the exact same arguments from Australian pro gun sides. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVuspKSjfgA

As a dual Australian US citizen, that was born in the US, grew up in Australia and remembers very well the time that gun control changed in Australia, I can only hope that we don't loose more people in horrific acts of violence like this for common sense to come to those in the US that can make this change.

Rocket Launchers are very tightly controlled.  We don't have mass rocket launcher massacres.

Hand Grenades are tightly controlled.  We don't have hand grenade killings.

Military assault rifles are freely available and guess what....

JB

[RSL]

Yes, just like we will be in danger of having our cars seized because the government knows that we own a particular make and model.

Exactly, Alan. As long as the government has a registry of things we own that might be useful to the state, we're always in danger of having those things confiscated for use by a dictatorial regime.

I think it's incredibly naive to believe our nation is immune to this kind of thing. I was stationed in Canada in 1959. A couple of my troops went hunting one winter morning and did something that at least on the face of it was illegal. Their guns were confiscated on the spot along with the car they'd driven. At that time, no such thing could have happened in the U.S., at least until after a trial and conviction. Now, check what's happening in our own country with civil forfeiture. In 1959 I wouldn't have believed this. That's called naivety. Big time!