PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: invflatspin on November 09, 2018, 08:29:55 AM
-
I've been giving this some thought since the concert shooting in LV, and I think I might have a framework for a solution. It will necessarily infringe on the current almost unlimited liberty we have, but so far I don't see a way to prevent that. The reason I've taken this up is to move the US away from the murder capital of the first world(many third world countries have far more gun deaths), and see if we can provide the security that the framers intended when making the bill of rights.
First off, the reasoning for the 2nd A must be examined. I've always considered that the amendment stands at a guarantee of all the other amendments, and also as the final brake and regulation on an out of control federal govt. In the last, worst case the people rising up with arms would suppress a truly mad dictator or despot should one ever seize control of the fedguv and start making massive changes like suspending rights, and locking up legislators/judges. My goal is to protect the republic, and the people while still regulating gun ownership to some extent.
There are and always will be those who do not want, and will not accept any limitations on gun ownership and operation. I have been one of those for a long time, but I'm gradually changing my thinking. The 2nd A is not without limits. Right now, ownership of automatic weapons is generally considered unlawful, although that regulation hasn't really been tested. However, 'arms' has never been accepted to mean rockets, mines, artillery, missiles(explosive), chem weapons, nuclear devices, and various other war-making materiel. So, practically speaking, there are already limits to the 2nd A for the benefit of the govt, and the limitations of the people.
The wording of the amendment does allow us a bit of leeway to work with. I'm talking about the 'militia' clause. "A well-regulated militia..." gives us an opportunity to mess around with definitions, and also to frame the law in a way that would not gut the original use and meaning too much.
Here's my start, fully willing to hear complaints, and rants, and screaming fits. Some might even use this opportunity to offer edits, and modifications either way, rather than base critique.
"The second amendment to the US Constitution is hereby modified as such:
* A well regulated militia will be founded in each state of the republic.
* The militia of each state shall be maintained by the governors of the various states.
* All responsible citizens are eligible to become militia, without any limitation but that they be over 16, and of good standing.
* All citizens of the various states shall be authorized to keep and bear arms unless found unfit under due process of high crimes or felonies.
* Each state shall respect the rights of citizens of the various states, and no person shall be denied keep and bear arms when in another state.
* ANY business, location, school, house of worship, or other place or building which prohibits the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms shall take full responsibility, control, and regulation that the security of those in such prohibited locations are fully, and completely protected from harm by those with arms. "
Here's how I see it play out. First, the power to keep and bear arms is moved out of the fedguv and into state jurisdiction. I have always been a proponent of distributing the power away from the fedguv and into the states. What works in NY doesn't work in WY. Next, the governors of the state will have input on just how forcefully they want to try to control the gun regulations. Some states will work with the rest of the judiciary to limit via due process, and some will not. Everyone by default can be a member of a militia, and therefore eligible to keep and bear arms, unless or until they are found unfit. This is the way it is now, but the state gov will be responsible for maintaining the right. Reciprocity means if a citizen of FL travels with their weapon to NJ, they cannot be denied the right just because they left their own home state. Finally, I'm tired of places putting up "No Firearms" and then exposing the people to harm without responsibility. If a nightclub, or church, or library is going to deny the 2nd A right by individuals, then that facility must be responsible for the peoples security. This includes hotels, bars, offices, etc. If my place of business says no firearms, then it's up to the management of the facility to see that NO ONE has firearms. Which means searching, and denial of entry and also secure perimeters to prevent a weapon being smuggled in.
Nothing is foolproof. Nothing is complete. Nothing is absolute. This is what I have so far.
-
Thanks.
Let's just stick with our constitution as written.
-
State control, yes ... but ...
State militias, I like. Switzerland does that, I believe.
Trouble starts for me when you have governors regulating the militias. Dem governors could castrate the whole program to the degree it’s nonfunctional.
Big trouble with deciding who is “unfit.” Dems can foul that, too.
Agree totally that responsibility for security falls on those who refuse to allow people to defend themselves. I prefer a society where it is expected that wrongdoers will be instantly taken down by right doers.
Likelihood of Dems going for any of your suggestions, zero.
-
State control, yes ... but ...
State militias, I like. Switzerland does that, I believe.
Trouble starts for me when you have governors regulating the militias. Dem governors could castrate the whole program to the degree it’s nonfunctional.
Big trouble with deciding who is “unfit.” Dems can foul that, too.
Agree totally that responsibility for security falls on those who refuse to allow people to defend themselves. I prefer a society where it is expected that wrongdoers will be instantly taken down by right doers.
Likelihood of Dems going for any of your suggestions, zero.
Uh, there is no clause for "unfit". However, if you mean not in "good standing" that would be up to the governors, yes. They could deem that anyone who is a republican is not in "good standing". Conversely, a governor could deem anyone who is a Dem is not in "good standing". BTW, there are a lot more republican govs than dem. For those governors who castrate the whole scheme, that would be those govs of Dem states. Seems like a decent plan to me, let the govs themselves castrate their own people. For those living in Rep governed states, their would be little or no prohibition and the Dem states would have no power to regulate, or legislate due to the reciprocity clause.
I think you have unwittingly exposed my plan. Remove guns from Dem states, but strengthen the militia from states where Rep are governors. Works for me.
-
I don't like "authorized"; this plays to the leftist mindset that the Government is the provider of "permission" and ignores the Constitutional paradigm of God-given Rights.
-
What you suggest isn't that far from what we have now.
There is an official militia in the states. The National Guard is the official organized militia. Members of the public not part of the military are the official unorganized militia. The last time the unorganized militia was called was...I think...WW-II in Maryland, for the purpose of defending the shoreline against German landing parties.
But what would constitute well regulated? Should unorganized militia members be required to maintain physical conditioning and if so, how would that support safely bearing arms? Before they can bear arms, should they be required to undergo mental health standards similar to what pilots do? How about gun training, should they be required to take and maintain a far higher level of gun training than anyone does now? Or maybe a state could decide that all the unorganized militia needs is pitchforks, so no guns for anyone?
I'm personally of the opinion that the problem with gun violence is a problem of violence, not a problem with guns. No matter how you reorganize the deck chairs, you're never going to solve the problem by trying to control legal guns. Unless you can come up with a way to get 275 million illegal guns out of the hands of the criminals who have them, any measure that focuses on controlling guns attacks the wrong side of the problem.
It's a violence problem and it stems from ...IMO...a defect in the moral code of criminals. Specifically, they don't really care how their actions impact others, they only care about themselves. Unless you can fix that, you're never going to solve the violence. As long as people are told to do whatever they want, do whatever makes you feel good, do whatever you can get away with, then you'll have people who are not responsible enough to be restrained in the use of violence, including guns.
-
What you suggest isn't that far from what we have now.
There is an official militia in the states. The National Guard is the official organized militia. Members of the public not part of the military are the official unorganized militia. The last time the unorganized militia was called was...I think...WW-II in Maryland, for the purpose of defending the shoreline against German landing parties.
But what would constitute well regulated? Should unorganized militia members be required to maintain physical conditioning and if so, how would that support safely bearing arms? Before they can bear arms, should they be required to undergo mental health standards similar to what pilots do? How about gun training, should they be required to take and maintain a far higher level of gun training than anyone does now? Or maybe a state could decide that all the unorganized militia needs is pitchforks, so no guns for anyone?
I'm personally of the opinion that the problem with gun violence is a problem of violence, not a problem with guns. No matter how you reorganize the deck chairs, you're never going to solve the problem by trying to control legal guns. Unless you can come up with a way to get 275 million illegal guns out of the hands of the criminals who have them, any measure that focuses on controlling guns attacks the wrong side of the problem.
It's a violence problem and it stems from ...IMO...a defect in the moral code of criminals. Specifically, they don't really care how their actions impact others, they only care about themselves. Unless you can fix that, you're never going to solve the violence. As long as people are told to do whatever they want, do whatever makes you feel good, do whatever you can get away with, then you'll have people who are not responsible enough to be restrained in the use of violence, including guns.
I don't know what the 'unofficial' militia is so can't comment.
Well regulated would be whatever the gov of that state says it is. 'Unorganized' people would follow the regulations for whatever the governor decides. If that means PT, then take PT. If that means regular rifle qualifications, then provide qualifications, if it means monthly meetings with close order drill, then do close order drill, etc. No a-priori regulation or restriction. All persons are eligible. Can only be restricted under due process for cause as written. If the gov says no firearms for anyone, and only pitchforks qualify as 'arms' then so be it. I'm sure that the Rep controlled states with firearms would be happy to face their Dem counterparts armed with pitchforks.
Again, making this sound better all the time for those in Rep controlled states. Keep up the good work.
-
Again, making this sound better all the time for those in Rep controlled states. Keep up the good work.
Fatal flaw is that with unchecked vote fraud such as we are seeing this week, all states will eventually be blue.
-
I don't know what the 'unofficial' militia is so can't comment.
Well regulated would be whatever the gov of that state says it is. 'Unorganized' people would follow the regulations for whatever the governor decides. If that means PT, then take PT. If that means regular rifle qualifications, then provide qualifications, if it means monthly meetings with close order drill, then do close order drill, etc. No a-priori regulation or restriction. All persons are eligible. Can only be restricted under due process for cause as written. If the gov says no firearms for anyone, and only pitchforks qualify as 'arms' then so be it. I'm sure that the Rep controlled states with firearms would be happy to face their Dem counterparts armed with pitchforks.
Again, making this sound better all the time for those in Rep controlled states. Keep up the good work.
Militia Act - I think the unorganized militia was defined in the 1908 version.
Well, probably not the governor, but the laws of the state. Otherwise, it would change with every governor and right now guns would be entirely illegal in North Carolina.
What I heard you say is that you're fine if each state were to outlaw guns for the militias and nobody but the criminals could have them.
-
Randy Jackson says it best...
-
The Constitution tells us what the Government cannot do.
Which part of the First Amendment would you like to give up?
-
We're moving into criticism for the sake of acting like shit-for-brains. If it doesn't work for you, tell me why. If you don't like your gov change your gov. I can tell you what my gov would say right now: Everyone of lawful age is expected to be a member of the militia of the state. There are no restrictions aside from the standing fed restrictions on rockets, missiles, claymores, nuclear weapons, etc. No requirements for those people of good standing. Should one be convicted of high crimes or felonies, then no arms for them. Buildings and locations which the owner/manager deems as 'gun free' will be required to provide armed, and defensible security for those who visit the gun free location, and insure that no one ever brings arms inside, except for state LEO.
If y'all don't want to pony up your own suggestions, and leave it as is, then say that, and we'll live with the next massacre, and the next, and the next, and the next after that.
-
The right to keep and bear arms is already separate from the militia clause. However, with regards to the militia, the thought was private citizens needed to own and carry their own firearms in order to bring them should the militia be needed. The Well Regulated statement has nothing to do with restrictions, but means well equipped, and well trained.
But, again our right is an individual right, and you don't need to be part of the militia to exercise that right given to us naturally as human beings. There is no need to re-write the 2A. The courts just need to strike down all other gun laws passed illegally, and upheld by corrupt courts.
-
We're moving into criticism for the sake of acting like shit-for-brains.
Uh, no. People are responding to your inane rant by standing up with what is written in the constitution. I'll take the words of the founding fathers over an Internet bullshit artist anytime, especially when it comes to my rights.
If it doesn't work for you, tell me why. If you don't like your gov change your gov. I can tell you what my gov would say right now: Everyone of lawful age is expected to be a member of the militia of the state.
Show us where Abbott made that statement.
If y'all don't want to pony up your own suggestions, and leave it as is, then say that, and we'll live with the next massacre, and the next, and the next, and the next after that.
How fuckin' pathetic. So what do plan to do with the people who use trucks to drive into crowds of people and massacre them? How about those who massacre using pressure cookers? Or how about those who use fertilizer and diesel fuel to build a bomb to massacre people with? You going to propose constitutional amendments to cover those as well?
Criminals and people hell bent on killing on a large scale will do so with whatever means necessary. Placing restrictions on honest law abiding citizens doesn't prevent criminals from committing crimes.
Prohibition was suppose to stop alcoholism. Yet as the rights of Americans were taken away it spawned a crime spree by organized crime, and the alcohol still flowed, just illegally. And it made people like Joseph Kennedy extremely wealthy.
-
We're moving into criticism for the sake of acting like shit-for-brains. If it doesn't work for you, tell me why. If you don't like your gov change your gov. I can tell you what my gov would say right now: Everyone of lawful age is expected to be a member of the militia of the state. There are no restrictions aside from the standing fed restrictions on rockets, missiles, claymores, nuclear weapons, etc. No requirements for those people of good standing. Should one be convicted of high crimes or felonies, then no arms for them. Buildings and locations which the owner/manager deems as 'gun free' will be required to provide armed, and defensible security for those who visit the gun free location, and insure that no one ever brings arms inside, except for state LEO.
If y'all don't want to pony up your own suggestions, and leave it as is, then say that, and we'll live with the next massacre, and the next, and the next, and the next after that.
The problems with the massacres are the gun restrictions now in place which means not only laws restricting where you can carry, but the entire culture that has raised generations not familiar with guns, not familiar with the idea an individual might need to protect themselves from attack.
Gun education should be provided from elementary school onward. How to safely hold a gun (finger off the trigger, not on like in every movie and TV show you see) not muzzle sweeping, and so on.
I guess it's part of the population becoming more and more urbanized. You don't need guns in the city so the thinking goes. You don't hunt and you aren't in danger from wild animals. Never mind criminals. Some criminals exist - that plus racism is why gun control began. Once it began and people got used to not having guns around, it becomes fear of the unknown and unfamiliar. One generation is all it takes.
You want to fix gun crime? Educate all blacks in their gun rights, and arm all non-criminal black ghetto residents. Then REQUIRE citizens to go armed anywhere there are public crowds. That would put a fast end to these "gun free zone" massacres.
-
Yet we watch in Chicago every week murders and shootings at record levels. And Chicago has some of the most, if not the most, restrictive gun laws in the country.
And the MSM? Hey, can't be reporting on stories that go against the narrative.
-
Ever notice that criminals tend to not care about the law and what it says? ::)
-
Ever notice that criminals tend to not care about the law and what it says? ::)
You mean like placing signs at public places saying "This is a Gun Free Zone" and expecting a criminal to walk up and say "Oh damn!, Well, I can't shoot anyone here! Shucks"
-
The 2nd is not the issue, the issue is that we have a conflict on privacy rights.
Which makes more sense?
* Do something that will potentially effect a small portion of the population (make it possible for mental health issues to be recorded and discussed, reintroduce a path to involuntary commitment for study/treatment, and ensure LEOs have access to this data and ensure it is used if/when a yellow form is sought)
or
* Do something that restricts a natural right for every man, woman and child in the entire country (change the Bill of Rights)
There is only one right answer.
'Gimp
-
The problems with the massacres are the gun restrictions now in place which means not only laws restricting where you can carry, but the entire culture that has raised generations not familiar with guns, not familiar with the idea an individual might need to protect themselves from attack.
Gun education should be provided from elementary school onward. How to safely hold a gun (finger off the trigger, not on like in every movie and TV show you see) not muzzle sweeping, and so on.
I guess it's part of the population becoming more and more urbanized. You don't need guns in the city so the thinking goes. You don't hunt and you aren't in danger from wild animals. Never mind criminals. Some criminals exist - that plus racism is why gun control began. Once it began and people got used to not having guns around, it becomes fear of the unknown and unfamiliar. One generation is all it takes.
You want to fix gun crime? Educate all blacks in their gun rights, and arm all non-criminal black ghetto residents. Then REQUIRE citizens to go armed anywhere there are public crowds. That would put a fast end to these "gun free zone" massacres.
Agreed on all points. Who is going to pay to arm all non-criminal blacks? a right does not engender a requirement that the fed/state provide for the individual defense. Or the individual welfare(although we do that now), or the individual healthcare. Which leads to the ACA. A right is simply what the individual has liberty to do as a result of being a person in the US. I'm not sure I want to get on board with arming non-criminals whether they are black or not. As for requiring people go armed in public, we have that now, but we also have gun free zones. I want to put the onus on the person or organization that declares a place gun free, in that they have now taken on the responsibility for the safety of all who go there. Maybe some gov want to make every public building in their state a gun free building. That means millions of armed security guards at every gas station, market, movie theater, club, bar, etc. If that's what it takes to have a real gun free zone, then they can go that way. Optionally, there will be no such thing as a gun free zone, and when some asshat whips out his blaster to take a shot at innocents someone else will have a fighting chance. as it is right now, the only ones who obey 'gun free' are law abiding people.
-
The 2nd is not the issue, the issue is that we have a conflict on privacy rights.
Which makes more sense?
* Do something that will potentially effect a small portion of the population (make it possible for mental health issues to be recorded and discussed, reintroduce a path to involuntary commitment for study/treatment, and ensure LEOs have access to this data and ensure it is used if/when a yellow form is sought)
or
* Do something that restricts a natural right for every man, woman and child in the entire country (change the Bill of Rights)
There is only one right answer.
'Gimp
I think you're on to something, but this will not catch those who are perfectly sane, but angry enough to go on a rampage. The Las Vegas shooter was sane. The kid in New England school was sane, Columbine kids were sane. None of them showed enough issues with mental health to qualify. Unless the standards for mental health issues are lowered to an arbitrary point where anyone who laughs at the wrong time can be committed. Or, someone who sings to themselves in the shower. Or, someone who writes incendiary prose on the internet. Or, a rapper who taunts and threatens LEO in a song. Slippery slope, messing with mental health diagnosis. Also, whats to say someone is suffering from mental defect, and they get better?
-
I think you're on to something, but this will not catch those who are perfectly sane, but angry enough to go on a rampage. The Las Vegas shooter was sane. The kid in New England school was sane, Columbine kids were sane. None of them showed enough issues with mental health to qualify. Unless the standards for mental health issues are lowered to an arbitrary point where anyone who laughs at the wrong time can be committed. Or, someone who sings to themselves in the shower. Or, someone who writes incendiary prose on the internet. Or, a rapper who taunts and threatens LEO in a song. Slippery slope, messing with mental health diagnosis. Also, whats to say someone is suffering from mental defect, and they get better?
This is the slippery slope, because here in CA with INSANELY draconian gun laws we just had a mass shooting that killed 12 - you have to buy AMMO from a FFL now, ammo. You can't buy, OR POSSESS hig cap magazines, can't buy 'assault weapons', and so on.
If the law is not enough of a disincentive to keep from killing, if the law is not enough of a disincentive to prevent the use of a gun to kill, and we focus on the weapon instead of the deed, and we focus on the weapon instead of the person who commits the act, then 100% confiscation and elimination of the 2nd is the ONLY answer to remove all risk (and all of us here who are intellectually honest should be able to readily admit that this IS the ultimate aim of everyone on the Left as well as more than a couple in the middle).
IF we are to have a free and open society as the Founders intended, it comes with inherent risk that some individuals, as well as social groups, will simply reject the common morays and ethos and behave badly for their own aims be that for personal, religious, political, or mental health reasons.
Life is tough, wear a helmet if you have to.
-
(https://factsnotmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/abortions-and-guns-e1520022738626.jpg)
-
(https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Hypocrite.jpg)
-
Hey, no worries!
The "fix" is on it's way!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-plan-to-pursue-most-aggressive-gun-control-legislation-in-decades-1541791440
-
Even the Democrats know that more gun control laws are political suicide. Yeah, they will talk a good game, but doubt there will be any legislation.
-
The only fix I would make to the Second Amendment is to eliminate any reference to a militia. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Very simple--and we won't have to listen to any more bullshit from the ACLU or other gun-haters who still claim that the right to bear arms is a collective one, not individual.
Tim
-
This is the slippery slope, because here in CA with INSANELY draconian gun laws we just had a mass shooting that killed 12 - you have to buy AMMO from a FFL now, ammo. You can't buy, OR POSSESS hig cap magazines, can't buy 'assault weapons', and so on.
Life is tough, wear a helmet if you have to.
You did see my point on insuring public no weapons requirement that the owner/manager provide complete security? Would this have made a difference? Either the bar would have armed citizens in it, or no one would be armed ever.
-
Agreed on all points. Who is going to pay to arm all non-criminal blacks? a right does not engender a requirement that the fed/state provide for the individual defense. Or the individual welfare(although we do that now), or the individual healthcare. Which leads to the ACA. A right is simply what the individual has liberty to do as a result of being a person in the US. I'm not sure I want to get on board with arming non-criminals whether they are black or not. As for requiring people go armed in public, we have that now, but we also have gun free zones. I want to put the onus on the person or organization that declares a place gun free, in that they have now taken on the responsibility for the safety of all who go there. Maybe some gov want to make every public building in their state a gun free building. That means millions of armed security guards at every gas station, market, movie theater, club, bar, etc. If that's what it takes to have a real gun free zone, then they can go that way. Optionally, there will be no such thing as a gun free zone, and when some asshat whips out his blaster to take a shot at innocents someone else will have a fighting chance. as it is right now, the only ones who obey 'gun free' are law abiding people.
I agree with your proposal to hold responsible the parties who ban guns from the premises. I think it was Peet's that banned carry in their cafes and I called them up and asked if they will be providing armed guards to protect my daughter when she went there to buy coffee if they weren't going to allow her to carry her own protection.
-
Even the Democrats know that more gun control laws are political suicide. Yeah, they will talk a good game, but doubt there will be any legislation.
Yes, and some kind of olive branch should be held out there by the Reps so that the Dems can be hung on it. I would like either of two things. Legislation that works, or STFU and live in an armed society. Pick one and live with it. Dems just want to whine, but not do anything.
-
Thanks.
Let's just stick with our constitution as written.
Of course, if that would always have been our philosophy as a nation then we wouldn't have:
1. An amendment process which is in the Constitution as written.
2. Any of the amendments including the Bill of Rights which of course includes the Second Amendment.
-
One thing that always amazes me is that some folks say that the founding fathers couldn't have possibly envisioned modern day weapons so the Second Amendment should not apply to them and that there is no right to have a fully automatic weapon or more destructive weapons.
However they have no problem applying modern technologies to the First Amendment starting with photography, video, tv, the internet, etc.
And capital punishment including hanging was used prior to and after the Eighth Amendment was ratified so it would seem that hanging and other forms of capital punishment was not considered cruel or unusual. Now many folks think it is.
Maybe as technologies and society advances and evolves, our constitution should as well. If not, why even have an amendment process in it?
-
I told my husband I’d feel safer if I got a gun and learned how to use it. He said he’d feel safer if I didn’t.
Having tons of armed people might not work out well.
Tangentially, I’ve seen several armed guards standing around lately. One at a drugstore where homeless hang out, and two at banks. I’ve sometimes thought that must be one of the most soul crushingly boring jobs ever. If those guys were to snap one day ...
-
One thing that always amazes me is that some folks say that the founding fathers couldn't have possibly envisioned modern day weapons so the Second Amendment should not apply to them and that there is no right to have a fully automatic weapon or more destructive weapons.
However they have no problem applying modern technologies to the First Amendment starting with photography, video, tv, the internet, etc.
And capital punishment including hanging was used prior to and after the Eighth Amendment was ratified so it would seem that hanging and other forms of capital punishment was not considered cruel or unusual. Now many folks think it is.
Maybe as technologies and society advances and evolves, our constitution should as well. If not, why even have an amendment process in it?
Excellent points. We certainly are discovering that modern communication technologies can be weaponized. And we have no real defense against it unless we have access to alternative platforms.
-
Of course, if that would always have been our philosophy as a nation then we wouldn't have:
1. An amendment process which is in the Constitution as written.
2. Any of the amendments including the Bill of Rights which of course includes the Second Amendment.
Well no shit Sherlock. How about reading my response in the context of the discussion, rather than you fuckin' lame attempt to take my quote out of context.
-
One thing that always amazes me is that some folks say that the founding fathers couldn't have possibly envisioned modern day weapons so the Second Amendment should not apply to them and that there is no right to have a fully automatic weapon or more destructive weapons.
However they have no problem applying modern technologies to the First Amendment starting with photography, video, tv, the internet, etc.
And capital punishment including hanging was used prior to and after the Eighth Amendment was ratified so it would seem that hanging and other forms of capital punishment was not considered cruel or unusual. Now many folks think it is.
Maybe as technologies and society advances and evolves, our constitution should as well. If not, why even have an amendment process in it?
No one us saying it can't be amended.
The problem the liberals have is they can't get it amended through the constitutional process, so they resort to legislation and the left wing courts.
-
I told my husband I’d feel safer if I got a gun and learned how to use it. He said he’d feel safer if I didn’t.
Having tons of armed people might not work out well.
Tangentially, I’ve seen several armed guards standing around lately. One at a drugstore where homeless hang out, and two at banks. I’ve sometimes thought that must be one of the most soul crushingly boring jobs ever. If those guys were to snap one day ...
It depends. Here in Vermont, it works out quite well.
Though in the interest of full disclosure, I must add a bit of disquieting recent news.
After a mentally ill kid was found to be planning to shoot up his former school not far from Rutland, our Governor signed the first significant gun control legislation ever in Vermont into law this past summer. A knee-jerk reaction IMO, and many thought it was political suicide at the time. Actually, it may have guaranteed his re-election this Tuesday since he needed a fair percentage of votes from the Left to win. But I am not suggesting that politics had anything to do with Scott's change of heart. I think he thought, and still thinks, that it was the right move.
Unfortunately, now the camel's nose is in the tent, and Scott no longer has enough support to sustain a veto.
-
If those guys were to snap one day ...
This is the gun-haters' favorite fantasy. In their minds, every gun owner is a latent maniac, just waiting for some triggering event to push him over the edge. They can't even comprehend the notion that guns in the hands of decent, everyday people are not a threat.
Tim
-
We're moving into criticism for the sake of acting like shit-for-brains. If it doesn't work for you, tell me why. If you don't like your gov change your gov. I can tell you what my gov would say right now: Everyone of lawful age is expected to be a member of the militia of the state. There are no restrictions aside from the standing fed restrictions on rockets, missiles, claymores, nuclear weapons, etc. No requirements for those people of good standing. Should one be convicted of high crimes or felonies, then no arms for them. Buildings and locations which the owner/manager deems as 'gun free' will be required to provide armed, and defensible security for those who visit the gun free location, and insure that no one ever brings arms inside, except for state LEO.
If y'all don't want to pony up your own suggestions, and leave it as is, then say that, and we'll live with the next massacre, and the next, and the next, and the next after that.
How exactly would the ideas in your original post stop the next massacre and the next and the next and the next after that?
-
Question, what was the background of the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooter?
-
How exactly would the ideas in your original post stop the next massacre and the next and the next and the next after that?
If you want guarantees, the only thing I can suggest is North Korea. I guarantee you will not be shot by a rogue with a gun there, because the public is not allowed to own guns, or bullets. I'm working with what I have now. That is - massacre in a 'gun free' zone. It is either a gun free zone, or it isn't. If it is a gun free zone, then the people who have declared it so, have to back it up with the actual power to stop anyone with a gun being there. If it is not, then a nut with a gun will hopefully be met with a citizen with a gun(militia member, or otherwise).
-
I told my husband I’d feel safer if I got a gun and learned how to use it. He said he’d feel safer if I didn’t.
Oh do. They are so much fun. But you have to find a good instructor. Take a good civilian defense class like an IDPA prep course. It's really fun.
-
If you want guarantees, the only thing I can suggest is North Korea. I guarantee you will not be shot by a rogue with a gun there, because the public is not allowed to own guns, or bullets. I'm working with what I have now. That is - massacre in a 'gun free' zone. It is either a gun free zone, or it isn't. If it is a gun free zone, then the people who have declared it so, have to back it up with the actual power to stop anyone with a gun being there. If it is not, then a nut with a gun will hopefully be met with a citizen with a gun(militia member, or otherwise).
I’m not asking for it expecting guarantees. I am highlighting the folly of anyone thinking that any law can prevent such things, and your belief that it can.
-
I’m not asking for it expecting guarantees. I am highlighting the folly of anyone thinking that any law can prevent such things, and your belief that it can.
Prevent? Who wrote prevent? Can you find it for me in this thread? I can't find it.
-
I told my husband I’d feel safer if I got a gun and learned how to use it. He said he’d feel safer if I didn’t.
Having tons of armed people might not work out well.
Tangentially, I’ve seen several armed guards standing around lately. One at a drugstore where homeless hang out, and two at banks. I’ve sometimes thought that must be one of the most soul crushingly boring jobs ever. If those guys were to snap one day ...
Your husband is WRONG, and we already have tons of law abiding armed citizens around. It is the criminals that will always get guns that are the problem. Having more legallly armed, and trained citizens is a very good thing.
As Rush said, take a course, but first go to a range and rent a gun WITH an NRA instructor for a hour or so. You will be surprised that you probably can shoot pretty well. It will also take the mystery out of guns which are nothing more than a tool to launch a small projectile. There are many, new female shooters at my gun club, and they shoot well, get training, and practice. It is also a lot of fun.
-
Your husband is WRONG, and we already have tons of law abiding armed citizens around. It is the criminals that will always get guns that are the problem. Having more legallly armed, and trained citizens is a very good thing.
As Rush said, take a course, but first go to a range and rent a gun WITH an NRA instructor for a hour or so. You will be surprised that you probably can shoot pretty well. It will also take the mystery out of guns which are nothing more than a tool to launch a small projectile. There are many, new female shooters at my gun club, and they shoot well, get training, and practice. It is also a lot of fun.
I was kind of assuming her husband was kidding. I hope he was anyway.
-
I am pretty sure he was somewhat pulling her leg about her shooting him. OTOH, I think anyone has the potential to use a gun in anger.
-
I am pretty sure he was somewhat pulling her leg about her shooting him. OTOH, I think anyone has the potential to use a gun in anger.
I don't think so. Most people are sane and restrained enough they wouldn't pull out a gun and shoot a person just out of anger. I know I never would. Self defense is another matter entirely.
There are many people who would, but not most by a long shot. When people say "anyone" could do this or that I think they mean from outside perspective we can't predict who would, but that's not the same as meaning "anyone" i.e. 100% of people are potentially capable of it. I'm not talking about the zombiepocalypse here but normal circumstances.
-
He wasn’t joking, but his comment was more general, I think, in that he feels everyone would be safer if I was unarmed. I followed up on this yesterday and he he said I was too “jumpy.” I don’t agree. I’m really quite a placid, deliberate, focused person. Until I start thinking about the goons, loons and idiots controlling our political system ... oh.
-
He wasn’t joking, but his comment was more general, I think, in that he feels everyone would be safer if I was unarmed. I followed up on this yesterday and he he said I was too “jumpy.” I don’t agree. I’m really quite a placid, deliberate, focused person. Until I start thinking about the goons, loons and idiots controlling our political system ... oh.
You don't need your husband's permission. You're not a loon, you can be trained properly, and safely handle a firearm. It isn't difficult at all. The Left likes to project their insecurities, and flaws onto others. (not saying your husband is one of those). I have heard things like "Well what if you were in a bar, or stadium, and you had a disagreement with someone? You'd pull your gun out, and shoot them!!!"
No I wouldn't do that. Just like I wouldn't punch someone. It is ridiculous the arguments they use.
-
In keeping with my current pessimism, I see that the Dems are going to make gun control their campaign theme and rallying cry.
I know, many of us think that will never fly, good luck with that! Ha ha, and so on.
But it will fly. Even if they have to stage more horrific shootings. As can be seen with this 2A thread of invflatspin’s, gun control is like abortion in that it has nuances, and allowance must be made for compromise after thoughtful discussion. The left and its sycophants don’t do nuance, compromise, thought, or discussion.
In fact, I posit the left, subsidized as they are by the trillionaire thug state and their lapdog media, can and will win in 2020 by pushing gun control alone.
-
Just for the ultra-cons, here's a prediction. Gun control is coming. The neo-cons failed to stop abortion laws, because too many people want abortions. The neo-cons failed to stop state funded health care, because too many people wanted free stuff. The neo-cons had TWO YEARS to tank it but they were too damn chicken. And, they lost the house anyway.
It won't be next year, or the year after. But - it is coming. Better to get our plan in place or it's going to roll over us with little input, just like ACA. We are the only industrialized first world nation with nearly unlimited access to private weapons. That does not mean that they are right, and we are wrong, it simply means we are the outlier in the world, and the rest of the world wants us to get with the program and do something about the gun crime.
I'm not big-headed enough to think I have all the answers(well, yes - I guess so). but at least I'm offering up some suggestions. For those who think this is going to stay status quo for the next 30 years, you are being childish. Get what you want, and get it now, or the libs will control the discussion.
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da9b9dbb3343632117f1768b103a7182172f4b0c3a9269c8e8bcb7caafdfa369.png?w=800&h=341)
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/54f4e47a4b19319946608ae5aecc7d01eba75d3387631b68c86e59d011ef761f.jpg?w=800&h=494)
-
In keeping with my current pessimism, I see that the Dems are going to make gun control their campaign theme and rallying cry.
I know, many of us think that will never fly, good luck with that! Ha ha, and so on.
But it will fly. Even if they have to stage more horrific shootings. As can be seen with this 2A thread of invflatspin’s, gun control is like abortion in that it has nuances, and allowance must be made for compromise after thoughtful discussion. The left and its sycophants don’t do nuance, compromise, thought, or discussion.
In fact, I posit the left, subsidized as they are by the trillionaire thug state and their lapdog media, can and will win in 2020 by pushing gun control alone.
Nuance is a double-edged sword. It can balance-walk its way toward a reasonable solution. Or it can be the camel's nose inside the tent, allowing moderate laws to be enacted which the next administration, with more extreme views, take to the next level. And eventually a way of life that has endured for centuries is gone, in the name of a principle (public safety) that was always an illusion.
And so it will be in Vermont, where gun control is needed the least. If it happens here, it will happen throughout the country.
On this issue, I share your pessimism, Becky.
-
We have 22,000 restrictive gun control laws already on the books violating the Second Amendment that says our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. These laws, often on the state, and local level ARE infringements. Corrupt courts uphold these laws.
The purpose of yet MORE gun contriol laws is not to reduce violence, murder, nor "gun crime". Look at the recent mass shooting. It occured in California where there are already very, very restrictive, and loony gun laws, and laws restricting even ammunition. The purpose of more gun laws is to lead to bans, and confiscation, and to disarm the law abiding populace. Criminals will always get guns.
The ELITES know all of the above, and want us disarmed to further considate their power. Private firearm ownership is our last line of defense of an overbearing government, and their elite masters.
-
My blue state just passed an initiative requiring that guns be kept in gun safes when not in use.
We have now essentially criminalized self defense.
If you, God forbid, have to confront an intruder who threatens your family in your home, you’ll have to ask him to wait while you get your gun from the safe.
If you defy the law and keep your gun ready, and shoot an intruder, you will be prosecuted.
-
My blue state just passed an initiative requiring that guns be kept in gun safes when not in use.
We have now essentially criminalized self defense.
If you, God forbid, have to confront an intruder who threatens your family in your home, you’ll have to ask him to wait while you get your gun from the safe.
If you defy the law and keep your gun ready, and shoot an intruder, you will be prosecuted.
I believe the state of Washington has passed or is going to pass similar legislation. As you say it makes using a firearm as a self defense tool impossible. If the gun is unloaded, and locked in a safe, it can not be used when needed. It also renders the legal concealed carry permit useless as a holstered firearm is not considered "in use". Let's see if the corrupt courts uphold this unconstitutional law! It is an INFRINGEMENT of the highest order.
-
I’m in Washington State. We are controlled by the leftists in Seattle/King County.
-
I’m in Washington State. We are controlled by the leftists in Seattle/King County.
I thought you may be. Is there talk of this being overturned by the courts? I wonder what the NRA is doing about it?
-
Unless/until those laws are broken, challenged, and escalated to SCOTUS, the defendant will LOSE in every case. Heller v DC is the gold standard of defense for the 2nd A and here's a snippet at the end of the ruling: "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 on the commercial sale of arms."
So, the SCOTUS just carved out a HUGE loophole in the 2nd A allowing lesser govts to stand with their laws and regulations until each one is tested at the fed level. It's estimated that the cost of the Heller decision was about $3.6 million and it took more than 5 years. The court was divided by 5-4, and could easily have gone the other way. While the current court is in no danger of overturning Heller, the forces of gun control took careful note of the arguments, and the limitations of the ruling. Modern laws on gun control have been carefully designed to work their way around Heller. In the case of WA it sounds exactly like they are 'permitting' the individual to keep and bear, but that the 'bear' is being restricted by the various trigger lock, unloading, locked cabinet, etc.
Each and every one of these cases will have to go through state appeals, then the fed circuit, and finally to the SCOTUS. If you live in a circuit with a liberal court, even if you have the money, it will likely get rejected from cert to SCOTUS, and the circuit court ruling against the defendant will stand.
Sorry.
-
I’m in Washington State. We are controlled by the leftists in Seattle/King County.
Unfortunately that is getting to be the story in most the rest of the country.
-
My blue state just passed an initiative requiring that guns be kept in gun safes when not in use.
Pretty easy to get around this one. At the time I was arrested, the gun was "in use" in defense of my person/family/property. Unless the legislation defines "in use" as 'draw, aim, fire or something, anytime it's on my person it is "in use".
-
Unfortunately that is getting to be the story in most the rest of the country.
States don't have Electoral Colleges so the Metro Areas now control entire states due to their dense population. The biggest swing in the last few decades has been that suburbs around cities are now mostly Democrat as are the cities of course.
The outcome, as these Metro areas continue to grow, mostly in the suburbs, is that states will become more Democrat controlled (Blue). I don't know how to counteract this trend. It is a huge problem. Soon there will be nowhere to go in voting with your feet, as formerly conservative states like my previous state of Colorado become Blue.
-
Unless/until those laws are broken, challenged, and escalated to SCOTUS, the defendant will LOSE in every case. Heller v DC is the gold standard of defense for the 2nd A and here's a snippet at the end of the ruling: "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 on the commercial sale of arms."
So, the SCOTUS just carved out a HUGE loophole in the 2nd A allowing lesser govts to stand with their laws and regulations until each one is tested at the fed level. It's estimated that the cost of the Heller decision was about $3.6 million and it took more than 5 years. The court was divided by 5-4, and could easily have gone the other way. While the current court is in no danger of overturning Heller, the forces of gun control took careful note of the arguments, and the limitations of the ruling. Modern laws on gun control have been carefully designed to work their way around Heller. In the case of WA it sounds exactly like they are 'permitting' the individual to keep and bear, but that the 'bear' is being restricted by the various trigger lock, unloading, locked cabinet, etc.
Each and every one of these cases will have to go through state appeals, then the fed circuit, and finally to the SCOTUS. If you live in a circuit with a liberal court, even if you have the money, it will likely get rejected from cert to SCOTUS, and the circuit court ruling against the defendant will stand.
Sorry.
You’re right, and subordinate courts have already ruled in cases that go against the ruling in Heller. Democrats will continue to overplay their hand here, and there should be more cases in the future going to SCOTUS. All the more reason to maintain the Senate and get Trump elected for a second term.
I cringed when I read Scalia’s otherwise insightful opinion in Heller precisely for this reason.
-
None of the BOR are unlimited. The 2nd is no exception. I can understand the court opening the door to local regulation where 'one size fits all' doesn't work. When I'm up in NM in the back country, There's usually a rifle around, and it's no big deal. Downtown Detroit would be a bad place to strap on a 30-06 and MAGA hat. I think the court decided to let the states and counties have some modest control.
Where we are going from a nation level is what's concerning. If the SCOTUS is not going to stand and deliver, I'm guessing at some point the legislature is going to find some way to strip it down.
-
Humans possess judgement as well as Natural Rights. How often do you see someone walking around the downtown of any city with a .30-06? I have a PA LTCF. Everywere in the state, people can open carry legally without a LTCF. The only place that requires it is PHILLY. So, I can legally open carry as well as legally conceal carry in Philly. If I choose to open carry a HOLSTERED PISTOL, even legally, I will be stopped immediately and harassed by Philly PD. I know people who have done so and had this treatment. One guy sued them because they took him in to custody, and he WON. I don't want to be hassled so I CC there.
My point is, people don't want to be hassled by police so you rarely if ever see them brandishing rifles in public in cities. Trying to justify more restrictions on our rights for that reason, is ridiculous. We already have 22,000 restrictive gun laws on the books.
-
My point is, people don't want to be hassled by police so you rarely if ever see them brandishing rifles in public in cities. Trying to justify more restrictions on our rights for that reason, is ridiculous. We already have 22,000 restrictive gun laws on the books.
My point is, what does 22,000 gun laws tell you? The state legislatures are just going to say 'oh well, we understand the right, so we'll just quit'. Next election there will be 25,000 laws. You and I can't stop it. So -- why not take control of it?
-
If I choose to open carry a HOLSTERED PISTOL, even legally, I will be stopped immediately and harassed by Philly PD.
The only time I open carry is on the motorcycle, of course in states where I am permitted to open carry. People say they don't see motorcycles, bull shit! When the see I'm carrying, they stay way the hell away from me. Sometimes, though, people still have a lot of curiosity. I was fueling the bike at a gas station once, and a guy walks up:
Guy: You a cop?
Me: No
G: You military?
M: No
G: I don't see the wisdom in what your doing
M: Look the guy in the eye and say "I can see that"
He walks away.
-
The only time I open carry is on the motorcycle, of course in states where I am permitted to open carry. People say they don't see motorcycles, bull shit! When the see I'm carrying, they stay way the hell away from me. Sometimes, though, people still have a lot of curiosity. I was fueling the bike at a gas station once, and a guy walks up:
Guy: You a cop?
Me: No
G: You military?
M: No
G: I don't see the wisdom in what your doing
M: Look the guy in the eye and say "I can see that"
He walks away.
I'd have said, "Well I have to fuel the bike or it won't run." ;D
-
The Media, and our Educational system K - University has created an environment of HOPLOPHOBIA. We have one gun law that needs to stand, and that is the Second Amendment. All others are unconstitutional, and ILLEGAL.
-
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/doj-issues-new-machine-gun-rule
This rule is intended to clarify that the statutory definition of machinegun includes certain devices (i.e., bump-stock-type devices) that, when affixed to a firearm, allow that firearm to fire automatically with a single function of the trigger, such that they are subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the Gun Control Act (GCA). The rule will amend 27 CFR 447.11, 478.11, and 479.11 to clarify that bump-stock-type devices are machineguns as defined by the NFA and GCA because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger. Specifically, these devices convert an otherwise semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun by functioning as a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that harnesses the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm in a manner that allows the trigger to reset and continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.
-
The Media, and our Educational system K - University has created an environment of HOPLOPHOBIA. We have one gun law that needs to stand, and that is the Second Amendment. All others are unconstitutional, and ILLEGAL.
Then I would opine that at some point in the not to distant future the survival of the amendment itself is going to be tested through bearing arms. I'm not disagreeing with you - but saying 'it needs to stand' means that one is ready and willing to use the right for its ultimate purpose - to defeat tyrant(s) who are infringing it at the state and local level. The courts determine what is legal and illegal. The people will use their right to overturn what legislators and courts have so far deemed lawful exercise of authority. It will not be pretty.
We are now fighting a losing battle of lawsuits, and escalation to a SCOTUS that is out of touch with more than half of the circuit courts it supervises. Surely, the 9th, 13th, and 5th circuits would not hear a challenge to state/local infringements on the 2nd A. How are you going to get to the SCOTUS if these courts reject cert on people being denied their constitutional rights?
-
https://thefederalistpapers.org/opinion/doj-issues-new-machine-gun-rule
I can do the same thing with my finger + my belt loop. Guess it’s back to suspenders for everyone.
-
I can do the same thing with my finger + my belt loop. Guess it’s back to suspenders for everyone.
The only legal gun to own will have to be a flintlock.
-
I can do the same thing with my finger + my belt loop. Guess it’s back to suspenders for everyone.
What I especially like about this regulation is that now, a black injection molded piece of plastic, about 1x3" is a "Machine gun". Because the feds say so.
-
You know what, this mother's going down anyhow so why not just take the freaking guns away and hasten the end.
-
Some gun owners in WA state are going to fight it.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-rights-advocates-sue-to-block-new-gun-control-law-in-washington-state
Hope they make a dent. Costly.
-
You know what, this mother's going down anyhow so why not just take the freaking guns away and hasten the end.
Because when the end comes is when we will all need the guns the most.
-
That Washington law is a travesty, and a huge violation of the 2A. It effectively renders the gun useless for self defense. I doubt if a criminal enters your home, he is going to wait until you unlock your gun storage cabinet, or gun safe, load the firearm, and proceed to defend your life, or the lives of your family.
Liberal/Progressives are absolutely nuts with this stuff. Yet another gun law that will be ignored by criminals, thus putting the law abiding more AT RISK.
-
One word.
Chicago.
-
That Washington law is a travesty, and a huge violation of the 2A. It effectively renders the gun useless for self defense. I doubt if a criminal enters your home, he is going to wait until you unlock your gun storage cabinet, or gun safe, load the firearm, and proceed to defend your life, or the lives of your family.
Liberal/Progressives are absolutely nuts with this stuff. Yet another gun law that will be ignored by criminals, thus putting the law abiding more AT RISK.
I read an article in National Review Online today on this. The article attacks the NRA and other groups as going against the electorate.
Unlikely to believe in a greater power than government, I presume these leftists have little ability to comprehend the idea of inalienable rights. They believe the tyrant of the majority should prevail in all things, including the denial of basic human rights.
This is why we have the Electoral College, people. To prevent tyranny of the majority via the election of the Executive by the mob.
-
I don't think the 2nd needs fixing.
It just needs enforcing.
-
I don't think the 2nd needs fixing.
It just needs enforcing.
I agree. Fixing is what we did to our dog to neuter him.
-
Convince your state legislatures and governors. I have no desire to change the 2A but it appears it's coming no matter what.
-
Convince your state legislatures and governors. I have no desire to change the 2A but it appears it's coming no matter what.
This is almost certainly true. I'm surprised no one has mentioned retired justice Stevens, who (last spring, I think it was) wrote that it's time to repeal the 2nd A.
If that happens, I may just up and move to Canada... or France. There will be little difference between the US and them.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well, no, not seriously. My roots here are pretty deep. But..................yeah, that, seriously.
-
What troubles me, is that we have here people who are reasonably rational. They can float down the river of denial until the cows come home, and the feds are knocking on the door demanding the guns. What are they gonna do then? Start shooting? Sad to see such poor strategic thinking in this area. The govt WILL come for your gun. I don't know exactly when, where or how, but they will come for them.
-
Yes, OTHER people besides myself will pick up a gun, and start shooting. The 2A is very clear. It does not need to be re-written. Opening it up to modification is unnecessary.
-
What troubles me, is that we have here people who are reasonably rational. They can float down the river of denial until the cows come home, and the feds are knocking on the door demanding the guns. What are they gonna do then? Start shooting? Sad to see such poor strategic thinking in this area. The govt WILL come for your gun. I don't know exactly when, where or how, but they will come for them.
I don't think I'm quite as pessimistic as most. I still hold on to a little tenuous glimmer of hope.
What I see happening is the far left will get a few more of their community organizing, socialist activists elected and they will overplay their hand. They might get some strong anti-gun legislation passed in some of the blue states, but it will surely be challenged in court, and will go to the Supremes. That is why it is essential that we support Trump and retain the Senate for as long as possible. A solid conservative court will not only overturn the unconstitutional new gun laws, but in so doing will affirm the part of the 2nd that says "shall not be infringed".
But we still need to get another conservative justice or two to assure it plays out that way.
-
I don't think I'm quite as pessimistic as most. I still hold on to a little tenuous glimmer of hope.
What I see happening is the far left will get a few more of their community organizing, socialist activists elected and they will overplay their hand. They might get some strong anti-gun legislation passed in some of the blue states, but it will surely be challenged in court, and will go to the Supremes. That is why it is essential that we support Trump and retain the Senate for as long as possible. A solid conservative court will not only overturn the unconstitutional new gun laws, but in so doing will affirm the part of the 2nd that says "shall not be infringed".
But we still need to get another conservative justice or two to assure it plays out that way.
It's being challenged in court every week around the nation. How are all these cases going to get to the SCOTUS? First the case will get to the state appellate court which will find for the state, and against the individual, then it will be up to the fed circuit to accept or deny cert(take the case to review). If they decline, then the petitioner has the option of sending it to the SCOTUS. We're talking about 100s if not 1000s of cases each year. SCOTUS has to pick and choose. But the state legislators can easily overcome the burden of making new laws which is exactly what happened in Heller. the various states looked at the decision in Heller, and several of them wrote laws or ordinances that worded their restrictions just around the edges of the Heller decision.
In the mean time, while the cases get escalated to the various courts, the state law stands, unless an upper court stays the implementation. Everyone is tinkering with the 2A, to see what they can get away with. As noted, there are currently 22,000 gun laws on the books, and that state will NOT stop writing new ones. The SCOTUS cannot enjoin a state legislature from writing laws, all they can do is cancel them after the fact.
-
One WA state police chief is going to ignore the gun law.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/17/washington-police-chief-gun-laws/
(BTW, Republic WA is a small burg, in the middle of nowhere with about 1000 people living there)
-
Republic is a purty ‘lil place. Great fly-in every year.
http://www.republicwa.org
Website quote: “We have air you can’t see and water you can’t taste.”
Now they can add, “... and laws you don’t have to obey.” :)
If we all move there, it won’t be little anymore. But at least we’ll be with right-thinking folk.
-
I don't think I'm quite as pessimistic as most. I still hold on to a little tenuous glimmer of hope.
What I see happening is the far left will get a few more of their community organizing, socialist activists elected and they will overplay their hand. They might get some strong anti-gun legislation passed in some of the blue states, but it will surely be challenged in court, and will go to the Supremes. That is why it is essential that we support Trump and retain the Senate for as long as possible. A solid conservative court will not only overturn the unconstitutional new gun laws, but in so doing will affirm the part of the 2nd that says "shall not be infringed".
But we still need to get another conservative justice or two to assure it plays out that way.
Optimism is good, and in fact essential for a happy life. The thought of two years of hope culminating in crashing defeat at another election is more than I can stand however.
Truth is that our current population obviously contains enough more idiots than right-thinking Americans, at least in some some critical places, to turn the ship left. If they’ll elect the slate of moonbats they just did, they’ll do it again no matter how the moonbats behave.
Saw some folks standing at a busy intersection (I’m in Washington State where the law was just passed criminalizing self defense), holding signs protesting the law and standing with a flag. My first thought was that such people are remnants of an America we will never see again.
While I can whine I’m done!” and give up, there remains a spark of hope. Miracles happen. Millions of good people are praying. One amazing WalkAway story was of a couple who had been at a hockey game, then went to see the wife’s elderly mother on Election night 2016 when they learned Trump had won. The house was dark, but they couldn’t believe she wasn’t up because she’d been so concerned about HRC winning. Turns out she was on her knees in the dark, praying, and had been doing so since 6:00 pm.
The changing of minds and hearts on a national and global scale, against the forces of the globalists and their media and shill politicians, requires a power greater than any human, but humans can be enlisted in the process.
So I’m going to have hope, but live as joyfully and hopefully as I can, AND begin to gently talk with our liberal friends. Even my husband has begun to agree on this. Framed as globalists and financiers against ALL of us, perhaps a chink of light will open.
Book “Reckless Endangerment” gives good basis for supporting resistance to multi-national globalists on a non-party-threatening level.
-
One WA state police chief is going to ignore the gun law.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/17/washington-police-chief-gun-laws/
(BTW, Republic WA is a small burg, in the middle of nowhere with about 1000 people living there)
Washington, Oregon, and California are blue states only because that is the way their urban areas trend. In the red rural areas the second amendment is well supported by citizens and police alike; this last election included local ballot measures defending the second amendment:
"Voters in 10 Oregon counties will decide on Second Amendment Preservation Ordinances this Election Day. The ordinances state that county residents have the right to own semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines, and the right to own firearms without any registration requirement." Remainder of story:
https://www.opb.org/news/article/some-county-ballot-measures-give-sweeping-authority-to-sheriffs/ (https://www.opb.org/news/article/some-county-ballot-measures-give-sweeping-authority-to-sheriffs/)
-
It's being challenged in court every week around the nation. How are all these cases going to get to the SCOTUS? First the case will get to the state appellate court which will find for the state, and against the individual, then it will be up to the fed circuit to accept or deny cert(take the case to review). If they decline, then the petitioner has the option of sending it to the SCOTUS. We're talking about 100s if not 1000s of cases each year. SCOTUS has to pick and choose. But the state legislators can easily overcome the burden of making new laws which is exactly what happened in Heller. the various states looked at the decision in Heller, and several of them wrote laws or ordinances that worded their restrictions just around the edges of the Heller decision.
In the mean time, while the cases get escalated to the various courts, the state law stands, unless an upper court stays the implementation. Everyone is tinkering with the 2A, to see what they can get away with. As noted, there are currently 22,000 gun laws on the books, and that state will NOT stop writing new ones. The SCOTUS cannot enjoin a state legislature from writing laws, all they can do is cancel them after the fact.
Well, I'll admit that you sound like you know more about the process than I do.
But I think you are wrong, or at least overly pessimistic.
Yes, we have thousands of laws on the books restricting gun rights, but for the most part, these were sold as "reasonable limitations" to 2A.
I still think that if a radical left gets some draconian mandatory gun confiscation law passed, it would get to SCOTUS in record time and be overturned, with a clear statement. This is assuming that we get at least one more conservative Justice.
-
Let's be honest. The Media, Education, Corporate America, most of our GOVERNMENT, and Judicial System HATES that private citizens can legally own, and carry firearms. They view us as a threat to them, and also believe many of us are "unqualified" to use firearms. The prevalent thought is you must be some type of government official like police, and military to be "qualified" to have a gun. This, of course is B.S. because many citizens are well trained, and very qualified, even more so than most police, or military member.
This is EXACTLY the type of thinking the 2A is meant to resist. When our politicians, and government officials believe they are "special" and entitled means they are now acting like ROYALTY. We all know what happens next.
-
I tend to agree that truly draconian laws will probably be overturned by SCOTUS, at least eventually, as long as we have a conservative majority. We have been chipping away at the 2A for a long time though, and I expect that to continue and get worse gradually.
FTR, the new gun law here in Vermont (new as of this year) mandates universal background checks and requires all purchases to be through a licensed firearms dealer, bans bump stocks and high capacity magazines, and imposes a minimum age of 21 to purchase. The over 21 restriction can be gotten around if the person has passed a hunters safety course. There is also a "red flag" provision to confiscate with a court order if someone is deemed a threat.
The law does nothing to limit constitutional carry, as long as the weapon is obtained legally.
Our Dem/Prog state legislature had been chomping at the bit to get a bill like this for a long time, but Gov. Scott promised a veto... until Fair Haven (almost) happened.
-
FTR, the new gun law here in Vermont (new as of this year) mandates universal background checks and requires all purchases to be through a licensed firearms dealer, bans bump stocks and high capacity magazines, and imposes a minimum age of 21 to purchase. The over 21 restriction can be gotten around if the person has passed a hunters safety course. There is also a "red flag" provision to confiscate with a court order if someone is deemed a threat.
The law does nothing to limit constitutional carry, as long as the weapon is obtained legally.
I would like to question these two themes above. First para lists a group of requirements that are as I see a priori to owning and bearing a gun. If Joe Bagodonuts wants to sell a used six shooter to Jane Norapes, then that sale has to go through a licensed gun dealer? Also, restrictions on age, type, and capacity sound like infringements to me. How does that square with the second statement that the law does nothing to limit keep and bear?
The restrictions listed sound exactly like the infringement the 2A was intended to deny. the 2A doesn't say 'shall not be infringed much' or 'shall not reasonably be infringed'. There is no qualifier in the statement.
-
The COURTS have infringed on the 2A for over a century. How was New York City's Sullivan Act, passed in 1911 not an "infringement". All the Fed, STATE, and local gun laws are also illegal, unconstitutional infringements.
The Supreme Court acknolwedged "Reasonable Retrictions" can be placed on the 2A. Any court in the land can now declare whatever restriction they want as "REASONABLE". Courts are not immune from being both legally wrong, and corrupted by personal, political and societal beliefs. As they are mostly "above the law", judges, and politicians don't care what restrictions are placed on the average, law abiding citizen.
-
I would like to question these two themes above. First para lists a group of requirements that are as I see a priori to owning and bearing a gun. If Joe Bagodonuts wants to sell a used six shooter to Jane Norapes, then that sale has to go through a licensed gun dealer? Also, restrictions on age, type, and capacity sound like infringements to me. How does that square with the second statement that the law does nothing to limit keep and bear?
The restrictions listed sound exactly like the infringement the 2A was intended to deny. the 2A doesn't say 'shall not be infringed much' or 'shall not reasonably be infringed'. There is no qualifier in the statement.
No, I agree that these requirements are an infringement on the 2A; as I said, we have been chipping away at it for some time, meaning many if not most states have similar laws by now. It was new only to VT. And as to requiring purchases between individuals to go through a licensed dealer, I believe that's affirmative. The only exception, I think, is for transfers between family members.
Many old guard Vermonters are VERY unhappy with this law, understandably so. VPR has played and replayed a clip where someone laments that the Vermont he grew up in is gone now that we have this law, it doesn't exist any more.
The second statement was about "constitutional carry" which, as I understand it, refers to not needing a permit to carry either open or concealed, not that there is NO infringement on the 2A. Maybe I misunderstood the term?
-
Constitutional Carry means that only those people LEGALLY able to own firearms can carry in their home state without a permit. I believe there are currently 13 or 14 states that have Constitutional Carry today.
-
Constitutional Carry means that only those people LEGALLY able to own firearms can carry in their home state without a permit. I believe there are currently 13 or 14 states that have Constitutional Carry today.
That's what I thought it meant. But 13 or 14 surprises me! I thought it was 1 or 2 (VT and maybe WY). Which other states have CC?
edit: In VT, I'm pretty sure CC applies to anyone whether or not they're a resident here. As long as the firearm is legally gotten, it is legal to carry it pretty much anywhere (though a couple of exceptions exist, court buildings and schools I believe).
-
I was wrong. There are 15 states as of 2017 (there may be more now) that have CC.
15 STATES WITH CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY
(in chronological order):
Vermont has had Constitutional Carry since the nation's founding in 1791 --
they never enacted any law banning the right to discreetly bear arms.
Montana enacted Constitutional Carry in 1991, for all areas
outside city limits (99.4% of the state by area, not by population), and is working on the rest.
Alaska enacted true Constitutional Carry in 2003.
Texas enacted Constitutional Carry "light" in 2007
as the "Motorist Protection Act," freeing people to carry in their vehicles,
and to and from their vehicles and their homes, land or business (but not otherwise).
Arizona got full Constitutional Carry in 2010,
the third state with real Freedom To Carry (FTC),
coined the phrase Constitutional Carry to describe the new law,
and the sky has not fallen, despite desperate fears to the contrary.
Wyoming enacted Constitutional Carry, for state residents, in 2011.
Arkansas passed HB1700 (Act 746) on August 16, 2013 to get Constitutional Carry.
Kansas pushed Constitutional Carry through with widespread support in 2015.
West Virginia had to override the Governor's veto to pass its law in early March 2016.
Idaho pushed it through and got it signed later in March 2016.
Mississippi succeeded in enacting Constitutional Carry in April 2016.
Missouri overrode a governor's veto of SB656 to pass Constitutional Carry on 9/15/16, effective Jan. 1, 2017.
New Hampshire passed SB12 for Constitutional Carry on Feb. 22, 2017.
North Dakota passed HB1169 for Constitutional Carry and the governor signed it on March 23, 2017.
(as of June 14, 2017)
https://www.gunlaws.com/ConstitutionalCarryIndex.htm
-
That's right, I had heard about NH recently but forgotten. Thanks for the others, I had no idea!
-
Armed resistance in the burn zone in CA.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/a-few-hardy-wildfire-survivors-hunker-down-for-long-haul
Seems like the LEO may have learned the lesson of Katrina where they used force to disarm citizens.
-
‘Tis holiday season, so a little festive good news is in order ...
https://freedomoutpost.com/gun-girl-kaitlin-bennett-from-kent-state-wins-round-1-in-lawsuit-against-university/
-
Good for her!!! These bastions of Communism, and radical left wing thought need to be taken down several pegs!
-
K, so my beloved and adored liberal family member insists she has never seen nor heard anything on mainstream media (on which she relies) to indicate the Democrats want to take away all guns, now or ever. I am wrong! I am brainwashed!
My window of opportunity with her is about 6.8 seconds. How do I get all the evidence into a space that small?
-
K, so my beloved and adored liberal family member insists she has never seen nor heard anything on mainstream media (on which she relies) to indicate the Democrats want to take away all guns, now or ever. I am wrong! I am brainwashed!
My window of opportunity with her is about 6.8 seconds. How do I get all the evidence into a space that small?
You don't.
The narrative is "we don't want to take away guns, we just want "common sense" gun control."
You would have an easier time teaching your cat to use the toilet and flushing it.
-
Try to find Hillary's statement during the campaign about wanting to use the Australian and UK style mandatory gun buy backs, which is essentially mandatory bans, and confiscation. It is hard to find in the MSM because Google blocks it so use Duck Duck Go. Also, there was some Dem Congressman, forget his name who wants to ban and confiscate all guns. Also point to states like CA, NY, NJ, MD, MA, CT, RI, HI, and others have already have gun bans, and ammunition purchase requirements, and very strict gun laws. They will also not typically approve a concealed carry permit unless you are politically connected.
Remind her we've already had an assault weapons ban, and magazine ban 1994 - 2004 which did nothing but restrict the law abiding, yet Congress is now talking about another one.
-
K, so my beloved and adored liberal family member insists she has never seen nor heard anything on mainstream media (on which she relies) to indicate the Democrats want to take away all guns, now or ever. I am wrong! I am brainwashed!
My window of opportunity with her is about 6.8 seconds. How do I get all the evidence into a space that small?
Don't bother trying, it own't change her mind one iota.
-
K, so my beloved and adored liberal family member insists she has never seen nor heard anything on mainstream media (on which she relies) to indicate the Democrats want to take away all guns, now or ever. I am wrong! I am brainwashed!
My window of opportunity with her is about 6.8 seconds. How do I get all the evidence into a space that small?
Don't even try to talk to her. Just give her a copy of this:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Man-Gun-Responsible-Americans/dp/156167656X
Hopefully curiosity will make her open it and start reading. That was the book that got me into guns.
Wait he has an updated version? That might be better:
https://www.amazon.com/Black-Man-Gun-Kenn-Blanchard/dp/1618080873/ref=pd_sbs_14_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1618080873&pd_rd_r=60230a6f-f97c-11e8-938d-b52a24014cb0&pd_rd_w=6BYSY&pd_rd_wg=Gzw0D&pf_rd_p=7d5d9c3c-5e01-44ac-97fd-261afd40b865&pf_rd_r=4MS90V9SC3EFS3Y8T4P8&psc=1&refRID=4MS90V9SC3EFS3Y8T4P8
-
Have her watch this.
-
When the subject of legally owned guns come up, most liberal/progressives won't listen to factual information, but will resort to a diatribe of Democrat talking points, mistruths (lies), and disinformation. Then when they realize they can not make a reasonable, factual argument resort to name calling, and/or the demonization of all legal gun owners.
-
K, so my beloved and adored liberal family member insists she has never seen nor heard anything on mainstream media (on which she relies) to indicate the Democrats want to take away all guns, now or ever. I am wrong! I am brainwashed!
My window of opportunity with her is about 6.8 seconds. How do I get all the evidence into a space that small?
Agree with her. Then quote House Representative Jim Hines (D-CT) who said "We don't want to take away everyone's guns, we just want to be like England, Canada and Australia". Yeah, you should look up the gun laws in England.
Then leave it. Let her figure out that the guy just contradicted himself. Every time you see her, have another 2-3 second quote that sounds like you're agreeing with her while proving that she is wrong. You won't convince her, she has to convince herself.
Or if she cannot, then don't argue with dumb people. They will wear you down and beat you with their experience.
-
Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is the guy I was referencing previously.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066
WASHINGTON — A Democratic congressman has proposed outlawing “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” and forcing existing owners to sell their weapons or face prosecution, a major departure from prior gun control proposals that typically exempt existing firearms.
So anything semi auto can be classified "military style", as it is based purely on cosmetics which can be widely defined. So, Becky start with this one. They certainly want to ban, and confiscate our LEGALLY OWNED, and responsibly used guns.
-
Appreciate the responses.
So many great arguments, so little time before the ears snap shut and the relationship implodes. That’s my main decision ... say something and lose her forever, with only faint hope of actual interchange, :( or keep quiet and let the feelz rule the realz.
That book looks interesting, Rush. I’m really enjoying (?) the one you recommended called “Enjoy the Decline.” I tend to resist pessimism but am being worn down ... it’s good to just relax into despair.
Keep Calm and Carry!
-
(https://i0.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/n30.jpg?w=625)
-
I have very, very few anti (legal) gun friends. Typically, they will also be big man made climate change proponents, want everyone else but them to pay higher taxes, like big government, Open Borders, Globalism, etc. In other words they are Progressive whack jobs. So, I tend to gravitate away from them. They very few I do have, I don't see much, and just agree to disagree during the very small time I may communicate with them.
Becky, these people are usually not worth the time.
-
My experience with the "Those big, black, scary, guns need to be confiscated and destroyed," crowd is reminiscent of those poor, demented, Moonies, that used to panhandle in airports. They were so brain washed by Sun Yung Moon that they couldn;t saya single word that wasn't an embedded response.
The modern, brainwashed, progressive is incapable of independent thought and deeply resents anyone who challenges their imposed opinions, because they truly believe that disagreement is, or should be, illegal. These same people never object when government kills citizens that they identify as people who disagree with the progressive religious mantra. When ANTIFA brutalizes old, crippled, helpless people, these brainwashed zombies refuse to see it anything but those folks getting what they deserve.
To further describe their utter hypocrisy of thought and deed, these same people loose their shit when they hear about someone saying they don't support homo marriage. It makes them feel physically violent, not just annoyed.
When you hand them the facts about legal gun owners, the hoax surrounding the mmgw scam, and everything obama ever said, did, or lied about, they simply shut down intellectually and wall themselves off from the facts, because the facts are racist, bigoted, homophobic, and triggering.
They infest every facet of American life, such as the moderator board at POA, the local school board, virtually every media outlet, and all public and most private schools, daily lying out their ass to brainwash another generation, making them helpless when it comes to thinking for themselves, reasoning, or applying good sense to solve any problem.
We had a couple of pretty devastating hurricanes in Florida in the last two years. My church is committed to providing relief to the hungry and homeless following those types of events. I have almost never seen a single young, able bodied, progressive actually helping, though I've met thousands sitting on their ass,waiting for someone else to do the work and complaining about how long it took, not liking the food, or whining about the utility crews not working enough hours to restore their iPhone service.
For teh most part progressives are useless in an emergency and will make great canon fodder for the communists when they stop using propaganda and start shooting at us.
-
Eric Swalwell (D-CA) is the guy I was referencing previously.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/dem-congressman-force-gun-owners-sell-assault-weapons-n871066
So anything semi auto can be classified "military style", as it is based purely on cosmetics which can be widely defined. So, Becky start with this one. They certainly want to ban, and confiscate our LEGALLY OWNED, and responsibly used guns.
OR, prevent you from owning one in the first place.
Tucker Carlson interviewed an New York DEMOCRAT legislator who wrote a bill requiring someone who wants a gun permit to have to turn over all their social media passwords so they can examine your social media accounts to see if you are promoting anything that would deem you to be dangerous.
Who are the fascists again?
http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/12/05/tucker-carlson-new-york-senator-spar-over-gun-bill-would-require-social-media-checks
-
Younger people have been brainwashed by Education, K - University, the Media, and Social Media to be afraid of guns, and think all guns are bad. They believe that the gun can basically act on its own, they are so scared.
Also, they came up with the concept of "hate speech" so are willingly giving up free speech and allowing censorship crying they want to be inclusive, tolerant, and diverse. They are being inclusive by EXCLUDING everything in which they disagree, and not tolerating anything the disagree.
This is the new NORM. It is scary. It is VOLUNTARY FASCISM due to indoctrination.