USSC is set to hear the DC gun ban case

[DavidofColorado]

Linky (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119558157276599395.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news)
The Supreme Court last considered the issue nearly 70 years ago, when two men challenged their convictions for violating a federal law banning interstate transport of short-barreled shotguns. The court upheld the convictions, observing that since the weapons had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." A sawed-off shotgun isn't "part of the ordinary military equipment" that would find a place in "the common defense," Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote then.

[The Black Knight]

I like this part of the article:

"The 58-page appeals-court opinion striking down the district's law, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, was a shot across the bow of prevailing jurisprudence. Plumbing history as well the amendment's placement within the Bill of Rights, Judge Silberman, one of the bench's most influential conservatives, wrote that the individual right to gun ownership predated the U.S. and was enshrined in the Constitution, "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

I really like that last part. Lets just hope and pray that the Supreme Court Justice's get it right in July. Because it they strike down the Gun Ban at the highest level, it will cause a chain reaction or ripple effect in the rest of the nation. Especially in states that have completely Un-Constitutional gun control laws.

Surely if the Supreme Court rule in favor of the Second Amendment. It will be a definative statement saying that the Second Amendment is now off limits.

To be perfectly honest I'm glad it is coming in a election year. Mainly because it will be a huge issue the closer to July we get. All of the Presidential candidates will be asked about it. And I'm glad that candidates like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Edwards will be crippled by the fact that they can't back the Second Amendment. And that in itself will draw many votes from them.

[wulf]

And I'm glad that candidates like Hillary Clinton, Obama and Edwards will be crippled by the fact that they can't back the Second Amendment. And that in itself will draw many votes from them.
But how many will be drawn to them?

The supreme court ruling could go either way, lets just get it over with.

[The Black Knight]

But how many will be drawn to them?

The supreme court ruling could go either way, lets just get it over with.

Well I think you will have the diehards that still believe in the Gun-Control agenda, even "when" not "if" the DC gun ban is struck down permanently. You'll always have those that just eat up whatever the Anti-Gunners put out. So those you'll never change.

I think the Supreme Court ruling will affect the gun-control people more then anything else. Because if they due rule in favor of striking down the gun ban, then it's a monumental step in the right direction for getting rid of every piece of gun ban and gun control legislation. It would force the rest of the states in the Union to get rid of their gun-control laws because the biggest anti-gun city just got drop kicked.

I think it might force more citizens to come out of the woodwork to demand that gun control be lifted in their cities.

If they rule the other way and let the gun ban stand. Well then we really haven't lost any ground. Just right back to where we were. Only thing is it might open a door for other cities to try and push some form of Gun-Control legislation. With it being D.C. it's kind of a exception to the rule. It's not a real state, and it's all Federal control.

Which in my eyes if it is totally Federal control, then the Constitution should be the supreme law of D.C.(as it should be in all states) and D.C. would be forced to recognize the Second Amendment. See that's the big problem I have. How is it people get off discarding the Constitution. It's only the biggest piece of law that governs this country.

I agree with you, I'd love to just get it over with. Because anticipation of a ruling is more apprehensive then the actual ruling. Fact that we have to wait until July makes it even moreso. But you never know why things work out the way they do. And for some reason they have decided to take 8 months to review it and listen to both sides. And I'm sure that it does work in favor during the Presidential runnings, because I foresee it becoming a huge issue next year. Especially with a ruling in July being so close to November elections.

I think if we have a ruling for the gun ban to be lifted. It will put immense pressure on Democrats. If we have a ruling that the gun ban stands, then the pressure will fall back on Republicans to promise that our Gun Rights are safe from those who would love to take them away.

And I'm not just saying this because I'm a Republican and Pro Gun. But I think the pressure will be more severe on the Democrats if the gun ban is struck down then it would be on Republicans, because it will deal a heavy blow to the whole Democrat agenda(mainly the Liberals).

It's going to get real interesting that's for sure.

[DavidofColorado]

I think the only reason they agreed to hear it is to overturn the appeals court decision. I mean whenever a case has come before the supreme court before and it wasn't listen too by the court it was because the it upheld a gun ban. This one is different.

But I want to hear the case heard too. Either way I think the courts should take it up and either rule on it that gun bans are unconstitutional or rule that the constitution means nothing and get the gun banners to start the next civil war.
Either way I see Sara Brady hiding in a spider hole come august with a beard and wanting to negotiate for her life.

[cu360r6]

Everyone already tacitly accepts the 2nd amendment has limits. Even the most conservative gun lovers agree cruise missiles or nuclear weapons are not acceptable 'arms' for the public to possess, so the policy debate is simply over where we draw the line not if there should be a line. Either way the Court decides it likely won't have an effect anywhere but in DC.

[DavidofColorado]

I want to see what limits are set. While nucular weapons and cruise missiles are not arms they are ordinance. I don't think that this is about people in DC wanting a nuke to protect their homes. I think they want and are denied a pistol to protect themselves. Pistols are all but banned in the district and even rifles have to be dismantled and stored with out ammunition. Which also makes them useless for self defense. But I don't think that I talk for everyone nor do I think that I know what's best for everyone either. I think that it comes down to the individual to decide what he should have for protection.

[The Black Knight]

Everyone already tacitly accepts the 2nd amendment has limits. Even the most conservative gun lovers agree cruise missiles or nuclear weapons are not acceptable 'arms' for the public to possess, so the policy debate is simply over where we draw the line not if there should be a line. Either way the Court decides it likely won't have an effect anywhere but in DC.

Obviously there are going to be certain limits. Nuclear Weapons and Missles are something that only trained personnel should handle(especially Nuke's). While I would venture to say that artillery is off limits as well. I mean you're dealing with explosives and I would agree that there needs to be limits on explosives. Because they cause widespread damage. It's not that you need to keep law abiding citizens away from explosives, because they aren't going to use them for a crime. But keep explosives hidden away from criminals is a good idea.

The Second Amendment does however guarantee our use of arms. Meaning firearms. And I'm of the opinion that everything from a BMG .50 to Full Automatic weapons all the way down to the .22 you give your son for his birthday should be fair game for the citizens to own.

Reason being, if I'm a law abiding citizen why can't I be allowed to obtain proper paperwork that allows me to own full automatic weapons and even silencers.

I think the studies are out that full auto's aren't anymore dangerous then semi-auto's. In fact all a full auto is for, is supression fire. Spray and Pray. It's been studied that most of your kill shots are from rifles or semi-auto's or pistols. Just because something is full auto just means it's a more diverse weapon.

I would have to disagree that whatever ruling the Supreme Court decides, it will affect more then just D.C. It will in essence affect the entire US.

[DavidofColorado]

I want a mini gun. That's all. I think liberals will even agree that it doesn't sound that scary and everyone should have one. It doesn't have the same conditations that say an UZI or AK-47 does.

[merlin]

I want a mini gun. That's all. I think liberals will even agree that it doesn't sound that scary and everyone should have one. It doesn't have the same conditations that say an UZI or AK-47 does.

Move to Nevada.

Automatic weapons are legal as marriage there, if a little slower to acquire.

Pay your money, fill out a form 4 and take it to the county sheriff. He signs your form, then you send it to the BATF with fingerprints and pictures. In a few months (2-5) you get it back approved, and take it back to the dealer who sold you the weapon. You pick up your gun and take it home. Costs $200 (tax stamp). Course, full auto is a little expensive. Just looked a bit, and a re-furbished 7.62mm mini-gun will set you back about $65,000.00 (http://www.armamentsales.com/miniguns.htm)

Probably legal here too- I haven't researched. Availability of Class 3 weapons is purely a State thing. There's NO federal restriction past the tax stamp and BATF background check.

Yet another useless fact from the mind of Merlyn.

Merlyn

[DavidofColorado]

Thanks Merlyn, They are legal here. I had a MP5 a while back but the Denver Cheif o police wouldn't sign off on it. I had to incorporate myself in order to get it. There is no need for a Cheif LEO to sign off then. When I sold it I made 3,500 off it. But it was the full package Sear gun SBR with silencer. Sometimes when I go camping I will I had it still. It was fun as hell to shoot. But a mini-gun is what I want... it sounds small and cute. Mini gun can't hurt anyone.

[The Black Knight]

Move to Nevada.

Automatic weapons are legal as marriage there, if a little slower to acquire.

Pay your money, fill out a form 4 and take it to the county sheriff. He signs your form, then you send it to the BATF with fingerprints and pictures. In a few months (2-5) you get it back approved, and take it back to the dealer who sold you the weapon. You pick up your gun and take it home. Costs $200 (tax stamp). Course, full auto is a little expensive. Just looked a bit, and a re-furbished 7.62mm mini-gun will set you back about $65,000.00 (http://www.armamentsales.com/miniguns.htm)

Probably legal here too- I haven't researched. Availability of Class 3 weapons is purely a State thing. There's NO federal restriction past the tax stamp and BATF background check.

Yet another useless fact from the mind of Merlyn.

Merlyn

Yeah that's what I've heard for here in Colorado. Full Auto's(3-6 months) and for Silencers(7-8 months).

A guy at the range a few months ago had both there. I asked him how the process was. He said it's just the wait is the main thing. And the fact that you have to keep your paperwork with you at all times when you have the gun or silencer out.

He said Silencer's were pricey because for each Silencer you had to have paperwork. You couldn't just get approved for one and just buy more later. Nope each one required it's own paperwork that had to be with it all times and each time was another 8 month wait. And that paperwork for just one silencer was $200.00. Crazy thing was he had 5 guns there each with their own silencers!! Dude had alot of money dumped into just Silencers alone. Figure $200 for each Silencer and then you had to add the actual price of the Silencer itself. He said they usually run around $800.

Was alot of money, but just to be able to hear what it sounded like was too cool. It was nothing like in the movies, because he was using both subsonic and supersonic rounds. The sub's were almost dead quit. But the faster rounds, were muffled and had a loud pop to them. Still way quieter then without a Silencer.

[merlin]

He said Silencer's were pricey because for each Silencer you had to have paperwork. You couldn't just get approved for one and just buy more later. Nope each one required it's own paperwork that had to be with it all times and each time was another 8 month wait.

Here's a wild one- I talked to a guy in Vegas when I was working at the gun shop that had a grenade launcher- an old M-79. Not only did he have to have his form 4 for the launcher, he also had to fill out a form for EACH ROUND of ammo. Falls under the "destructive device" laws, and you can get the things... just have to wait 8 months between shots :: chuckle ::

Merlyn

[cu360r6]

Obviously there are going to be certain limits. Nuclear Weapons and Missles are something that only trained personnel should handle(especially Nuke's). While I would venture to say that artillery is off limits as well. I mean you're dealing with explosives and I would agree that there needs to be limits on explosives. Because they cause widespread damage. It's not that you need to keep law abiding citizens away from explosives, because they aren't going to use them for a crime. But keep explosives hidden away from criminals is a good idea.

I would have to disagree that whatever ruling the Supreme Court decides, it will affect more then just D.C. It will in essence affect the entire US.

I used an extreme example because everyone agrees with it, but very few people consider its relevance when talking about gun control. As you pointed out those weapons can cause severe damages and take training to operate effectively, but there are many lessor weapons available to consumers that you could say the same things about. Large calibur sniper rifles, mini guns, automatic shotguns, etc. all could cause severe damage in a crowd, so why not require some extra training, registration, background checks, or licensing to own these weapons as well? Most states don't, but if they did none of it would interfere with a lawful citizens right to own these weapons.

Legally speaking unless the Court does something outrageous which is very unlikely this case will probably only have an effect on DC because they have the most restrictive gun regulations of any municipality in the country. I imagine the Court will say that a ban this restrictive prevents the individual right of the second amendment from being exercised, but they won't say any differently worded and less restrictive ban is unconstitutional. I imagine if DC allowed shotguns to be kept loaded at homes while still banning pistols this case would be decided for the city. I hope when this case is decided some people finally stop worrying about the big scarry government coming to take their guns. :)

[The Black Knight]

I used an extreme example because everyone agrees with it, but very few people consider its relevance when talking about gun control. As you pointed out those weapons can cause severe damages and take training to operate effectively, but there are many lessor weapons available to consumers that you could say the same things about. Large calibur sniper rifles, mini guns, automatic shotguns, etc. all could cause severe damage in a crowd, so why not require some extra training, registration, background checks, or licensing to own these weapons as well? Most states don't, but if they did none of it would interfere with a lawful citizens right to own these weapons.

Legally speaking unless the Court does something outrageous which is very unlikely this case will probably only have an effect on DC because they have the most restrictive gun regulations of any municipality in the country. I imagine the Court will say that a ban this restrictive prevents the individual right of the second amendment from being exercised, but they won't say any differently worded and less restrictive ban is unconstitutional. I imagine if DC allowed shotguns to be kept loaded at homes while still banning pistols this case would be decided for the city. I hope when this case is decided some people finally stop worrying about the big scarry government coming to take their guns. :)

I agree with you on training. I think training is the main staple of being able to operate a firearm. I'm all for a background check. They don't bother me. I'm a law abiding citizen with a super clean record. So background checks don't bother me and I think background checks are good for mainly convicted felons. But by the same token, most convicted felons(if they are still criminals) won't go to Sportsman's Warehouse to buy a firearm. The get them through private sales or off the street(I'd say 95% off the street).

I'm with you on training and background checks. I do however don't like registrations or licensing of firearms. Now I'm a licensed CHP(concealed handgun permit) holder. I don't mind that form of license. Sort of like a Driver's license albeit with alot more involved in getting one. I mean they issue any moron with a good score on a driving test a license, yet you have to jump through more hoops for a Concealed Carry. Which is odd, because carrying a firearm is a Right in this country, and Driving is a privilege. So it's kind of backwards.

Same goes with registrations. In my opinion, it's not the government's business to know what kind of guns I have. Nor is it anyone else's business. I mean granted I know all guns sales go in a archive. Regardless of what state officials say(new law requires them to destroy your info in 36 hours). But you know it all gets filed away. But the fact of the matter is, in Colorado you don't have to have a permit, nor register a firearm and I like it that way. It's the way it should be and I'm proud of the fact that Colorado backs that mindset.

Now one issue I have with what you said about large caliber "Sniper" rifles. What exactly is a "Sniper" rifle? Because anything from a .22LR all the way up to a .50 BMG could be used as a "Sniper" rifle. And I mean everything, from 300 Ultra Mags, 300 Win Mags, .375 H&H mags, 7mm's, .45-70's, .308's, .223's the list goes on. But the funny thing is, the rifles I just listed are all designed for hunting. What you just said about "large caliber 'Sniper' rifles" sounds alot like what Joe Biden(D) loves to say about all firearms. He considers everything to be an assault rifle or "Sniper" rifle. And that's absured. You know "Mini-Guns" I can maybe give you some credit for being destructive(because that's their design). But semi-auto shotguns? Most auto-shotguns are used for hunting(bird hunting). And they don't hold a ton of shells as it is. It's not like an AR-15 with 40 round mags. And see that's the problem I have. Everyone bangs away on the "assault weapons" drum. You know it's either, "oh god, they have high capacity rifles" or "those guns are illegal" or "those semi-auto pistols shouldn't have more then 10 round capacities".

That is the main thing I don't get. Is the "those are illegal guns" card. Just because my 9mm has 18 round capacity, in Joe Biden's eyes it's illegal. Last I checked I bought it legally, through a licensed dealer. Hmmmm.

And lastly, well our opinions of what happens in the Supreme Court are vastly different. You don't think it will effect much and I foresee a specific ruling either for or against, causing major ripples throughout the states. Like I said before, the pressure is on the Gun-Control crowd and not as much on the Pro-Gun contingent. If against the Pro-Gun, well we're still at the same point(fighting to keep our gun rights), but if it's against the Gun-Control crowd, then a mighty blow has been dealt. Basically it will have shot off both legs of Gun-Control mindset and send it tumbling to the ground, because their whole idealogy has been crushed.

And you do sound somewhat for Gun-Control and with regards to your comment about people worrying if the scary government takes our guns. Let me ask you this man, you'll want your guns and gun rights the minute the government starts imposing the "our way or the highway" mindset on the country. And if you want the government running your life and telling you what to do, well then welcome to Socialism.

[cu360r6]

Yes, I am for a few more restrictions on the sale of guns, and I'm also a gun owner. I don't see those as mutually exclusive, but most gun owners seem to. As a gun owner I don't ever worry about the government taking my right to bear arms from me. There have been no efforts towards this in the 217 years since the constitution was adopted, so I'm not worried about it in the next few. The military has tanks and artillery. If they wanted to take our guns no amount of small arms is going to prevent that, so I do see this as an irrational fear populated by the pro gun lobby. It's so absurd a fear it just seems like scare tactics to me especially it is the government, like the Court in this case, that is continuing to preserve our right to bear arms.

Many gun owners seem to be against any gun control policy even if it would improve the image of guns in the future. Mandatory registration is one of these policies. If every gun owner and every gun sale had to be recorded it would allow evidence gathering and prosecutions of the illegal uses of guns to be much quicker and more accurate. This would help improve the image of guns and gun owners from Waco type crazies to acceptable and normal which would eliminate almost all of the rhetoric to ban guns that most gun owners are afraid of. We accept licensing and registration on many other forms of property, so why are guns special? This would also incentivize gun owners to be more responsible to who they sell to because it might allow civil liability against the sellers of guns to criminals.

This case will be heard in late March/Early April, and the decision will be announced in the summer, so we'll just have to wait and see. I'm going to ask a constitutional law professor about their thoughts on the case, and I'll post again if they have something interesting to say. Generally though the Court works very incrementally to change the law, so I wouldn't expect a watershed case like Roe or Brown v Board here.

[The Black Knight]

Yes, I am for a few more restrictions on the sale of guns, and I'm also a gun owner. I don't see those as mutually exclusive, but most gun owners seem to.

This case will be heard in late March/Early April, and the decision will be announced in the summer, so we'll just have to wait and see. I'm going to ask a constitutional law professor about their thoughts on the case, and I'll post again if they have something intersting to say.


O.k. and get you are for more restrictions. But what kind of restrictions? Because if someone has a perfectly clean record. Then what place is it of yours or anyone else, to tell someone they can't own a specific firearm?

I understand keeping felons from getting guns. Like I said before most felons(that keep leading a life of crime) won't buy their guns at a Gun Store. They get them off the street(black market), or private sales(private sales are legal by the way).

But the fact of the matter is, if I have a superb record and go through all of the paperwork. Why do you want to deny me access to a AK47 or M16, if I so choose to want to own one of those guns?? I guess I just fail to see people's reasoning behind wanting to keep me from obtaining what I have a constitutional "RIGHT" to own.

Like I said, I'm all for background checks. They are fantastic. But I don't want to be forced to register a firearm, or have to obtains a permit for a firearm. The Second Amendment is my permit and that's all I need. When people start wanting to know what kind of firearms other people have. Well then you are starting to show attributes of a Socialist.

Yes it would be interesting to hear what a Constitutional Law professor has to say. Though I would hope their own personal politics wouldn't cloud the actual understanding of the Constitution. What I mean by that, is right now there seems to be a huge problem with the way people read the Second Amendment. We have a big hang up on the whole "Militia" part. Seems like everyone only makes to the "comma" and stops. They don't finish the rest of the Amendment as it reads:"..the right of the People, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was drafted, so that state's had their own Militia's to protect them, and the second part was drafted, so that an Individual person had the right to own,keep and defend themselves with firearms.

So I'm looking forward to hearing what a Law Professor in Boulder might say.

[DavidofColorado]

You know what he'll say. Its a states right and it was only meant to protect muskets for the militia. Just like the freedom of speech and press is only meant to protect our printing presses.

They keep a list of firearms purchases is only a requirement for the next restriction and eventual confiscation. That's what happened in Nazi Germany, UK, Canada... Making a list of where the guns are and who has them.

[cu360r6]

Last time I checked anyone who sold or bought real property had to have it recorded and notarized in writing, but we don't see this as the first step of the government to taking away our houses. :D

[The Black Knight]

Yes, I am for a few more restrictions on the sale of guns, and I'm also a gun owner. I don't see those as mutually exclusive, but most gun owners seem to. As a gun owner I don't ever worry about the government taking my right to bear arms from me. There have been no efforts towards this in the 217 years since the constitution was adopted, so I'm not worried about it in the next few. The military has tanks and artillery. If they wanted to take our guns no amount of small arms is going to prevent that, so I do see this as an irrational fear populated by the pro gun lobby. It's so absurd a fear it just seems like scare tactics to me especially it is the government, like the Court in this case, that is continuing to preserve our right to bear arms.

Many gun owners seem to be against any gun control policy even if it would improve the image of guns in the future. Mandatory registration is one of these policies. If every gun owner and every gun sale had to be recorded it would allow evidence gathering and prosecutions of the illegal uses of guns to be much quicker and more accurate. This would help improve the image of guns and gun owners from Waco type crazies to acceptable and normal which would eliminate almost all of the rhetoric to ban guns that most gun owners are afraid of. We accept licensing and registration on many other forms of property, so why are guns special? This would also incentivize gun owners to be more responsible to who they sell to because it might allow civil liability against the sellers of guns to criminals.

This case will be heard in late March/Early April, and the decision will be announced in the summer, so we'll just have to wait and see. I'm going to ask a constitutional law professor about their thoughts on the case, and I'll post again if they have something interesting to say. Generally though the Court works very incrementally to change the law, so I wouldn't expect a watershed case like Roe or Brown v Board here.

O.k. let me hit on the Government vs. People war. Sure the military have tanks, aircraft and artillery. Only problem is, they have about 2 million people total in the military? At best? Dude there are over 80 Million gun owners in America. In 2004 alone there were over 240 Million guns sold(legally). Believe me if a Cival War were to erupt, and it will if they try and take our guns. How many of the military do you think would also desert because our own Government is telling them to attack their own people??

Regardless of how powerful our military is. 80 million gun owners would invade every base and piece of military controlled establishment quickly. Sure there are going to be alot of casualties. Fighting our own military would be a hard battle. But you would eventually win by attrition. Overwealming numbers would eventually destroy our military.

Civil War 2.0 would make the first one look like a small battle. And I'd be willing to bet that at least 1/2 or 1/3 of the military would defect and well right there they have access to the equipment(tanks, planes, artillery). Dude it would be a mess believe me. But the one thing that scares the hell out of our own government is the fact that there are 80 Million + gun owners running around with stuff that is just as high tech as the military(as far as small arms and even explosives, after all they are easy to make). Remember this country is "By the People". Not "By the Government". The People of this country control it(or should) but every day we let our Politicians have more and more power.

I've said it before, that when a Government succesfully disarms it's own population. The extermination of the population soon follows. Either conform or be destroyed. If you don't believe me, just look at history. Every powerful nation the disarmed it's population, turned in on itself and began to persecute it's own population.

Lastly to hit on your second paragraph. I get what you're saying about trying to pinpoint criminals. Only thing is, is that criminals don't guy guns legally. I don't know why people don't understand that. A criminal(of any kind) isn't going to buy a gun from Sportsman's Warehouse. When they can score one cheaper on the streets. Plus they keep themselves off the grid for passing background checks.

I can't remember the study or source I should say. But there was a study release on criminals who commited crimes with firearms. Of like I think 120 criminals only 1 of them actually commited a crime with a gun they bought at their local Gun Store. The rest said they commited crimes with guns they bought off the street.

So based on those figures, how is it reasonably possible that requiring law abiding citizens to register their guns, keeps criminals and crime down??? Because law abiding Citizens aren't committing crimes. They buy their weapons legally. So you see, there is no logic behind that argument that. All it does is create more hoops for law abiding people to jump through, while doing nothing to help lower crime and in the end give the Government the ability to keep tabs on "Law Abiding People". That's a weak argument and holds absolutely ZERO water.

I mean if need be, I can repost 20/20's segment on Gun Control they did a few months ago. They showed that when Gun Control laws were enacted and guns banned, violent crimes with guns actually went up? What? wait a minute I thought Gun Control lowers crime? Oh that's right, the "Law Abiding People" can't defend themselves, so now they are victims.

Why is it when Washington D.C. enacted their gun ban in 1977, shortly thereafter violent crimes skyrocketed? And has stayed high since then? Look at New York, L.A. and San Fran. All of whom have tough gun control, have the highest amounts of crime commited with guns. The B.S. doesn't work. Cops can't be everywhere at once. They aren't personal Body Guards. A Cops job isn't to be your protector and guard you. Their jobs are to investigate crimes and solve them. Do some paperwork and hand out tickets. About all they can do.

Again if people think, that the Police are there to protect them and that the Government is going to take care of them. People are sadly mistaken and in for the ruddest awakening.

[cu360r6]

I've restrained from arguing the merits of this case specifically because I don't have the legal education in this area, but it does strike me as amusing that every layperson seems to have a black and white opinion on the constitution when the uber-geniuses and presidents of their law reviews on the Court find these issues incredibly complex. Perhaps they know a bit more than we do.

[The Black Knight]

Last time I checked anyone who sold or bought real property had to have it recorded and notarized in writing, but we don't see this as the first step of the government to taking away our houses. :D

You're right. Reason for doing that is so that people don't "squat" on your land. Also that people know where your land boundaries are.

To be perfectly honest, owning land isn't a right. It's a privalege that you've worked to get. Owning a Gun on the other hand is a right, protected under the Constitution.

Oh and if you don't see it as a step to the Government taking away land. Just ask people who've fallen victim to "Eminent Domain". The government plays nice, by offering a fair market value for property. But make no mistake if the Government wants it, they'll take it.

The only question is, will you be willing to fight for it and ultimately die for it??? And that encompasses more then just your land. Or your rights to Firarms. But your absolute Freedom.....

[dirkterrell]

Last time I checked anyone who sold or bought real property had to have it recorded and notarized in writing, but we don't see this as the first step of the government to taking away our houses. :D

Haven't been paying attention much to eminent domain cases lately, have you? :) Gun registration has historically been the first step down some very dark paths. An armed populace was viewed by the founders as the insurance against a tyrannical government. Besides, the Supreme Court has already ruled that requiring criminals to register weapons violates their 5th amendment rights, so only law-abiding citizens would have to register. History is replete with examples: registration leads to confiscation leads to tyranny.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

I've restrained from arguing the merits of this case specifically because I don't have the legal education in this area, but it does strike me as amusing that every layperson seems to have a black and white opinion on the constitution when the uber-geniuses and presidents of their law reviews on the Court find these issues incredibly complex. Perhaps they know a bit more than we do.

EDIT: and - Perhaps they tend to screw more Sh** up then we do.


Understanding the Constitution is black and white. It was written so that every person would know it. The Bill of Rights were the 10 most simplest things commanded to paper.

But you're right the Uber-Minds and Scholars alike, have a unique way of complicating the hell out of "anything". When the answer is only as deep as the ink written on the paper, they won't succumb to the notion of something being so easy to understand. So they delve into it and thus creating more of a problem when what actually there is. It's the age old, "Making a Mountain, out of a Mole hill" Syndrome.

And for sure a Professor would know more about "Law" then I would. After all he's devoted his life to learning all of the parts of every law. But the Constitution however is something everyone can understand. Not just the privaleged and scholarly.

The only reason I made the crack about a Professor from Boulder. Is Boulder is known for being pro Gun-Control.

[The Black Knight]

History is replete with examples: registration leads to confiscation leads to tyranny.


and tyranny leads to the eventual elimination of the populace.

Excellent post Dirk :up:

[cu360r6]

Once again, the big scary government hasn't made a single move to take away any lawfully owned gun in 217 years, so I'm not too worried. Given the probability of that happening I'm actually more worried about beings struck by lightening. At least that happens once in a while.

As for registration... Guns are not either magically created as legal or illegal, and we can do something to stop that progression. The US is the largest arms maker in the world, and at the point of manufacture and initial sale all guns are legal. Guns transfer from legal to illegal mainly through personal sales, or a series of sales, that are currently unregulated and completely hidden from law enforcement. By requiring registration of these sales we can hold those people accountable that are responsible for the increase in illegal guns. This is a win/win for both sides of the issue, but when the gun lobby refuses to support even the minor inconvenience of registration for the huge benefit of reducing illegal guns and gun crimes they show how truly irrational they are.

You may think that guns make people safer, but almost every police department nationwide is in favor of mandatory licensing and registration because it doesn't hurt legal owners, and it allows illegal guns to be eradicated.

[cu360r6]

To be perfectly honest, owning land isn't a right. It's a privalege that you've worked to get. Owning a Gun on the other hand is a right, protected under the Constitution.

I doubt the founders would agree with you on that one. If voting is a fundamental right in a democracy then they held property ownership as just as fundamental.

you're distorting my example though. I used to to show that registration hasn't led to a slippery slope in any other area of society.

This is like 4 on 1 here. You guys gotta slow down so I can write and watch Kansas get hammered at the same time. :D

[The Black Knight]

Once again, the big scary government hasn't made a single move to take away any lawfully owned gun in 217 years, so I'm not too worried. Given the probability of that happening I'm actually more worried about beings struck by lightening. At least that happens once in a while.
We are a young country. Give it some time.

As for registration... Guns are not either magically created as legal or illegal, and we can do something to stop that progression. The US is the largest arms maker in the world, and at the point of manufacture and initial sale all guns are legal. Guns transfer from legal to illegal mainly through personal sales, or a series of sales, that are currently unregulated and completely hidden from law enforcement. By requiring registration of these sales we can hold those people accountable that are responsible for the increase in illegal guns. This is a win/win for both sides of the issue, but when the gun lobby refuses to support even the minor inconvenience of registration for the huge benefit of reducing illegal guns and gun crimes they show how truly irrational they are.
The thing is, in Colorado private sales aren't regulated. And I'd dare say(though I have no statistics) but most private sales on guns are o.k. When I say criminals score them on the streets, I mean through blackmarket. That's how they get the full auto's and so forth. Believe me, if I had a gun in the paper for sale, and some kid shows up in a low rider, with baggy pants, hat tilted to the side and putting on the gangsta persona. HAHA I'm not going to sell him the gun. Why? because I reserve the right and a gut feeling tells me the guy is out to score a "drop gun". But see when I post a ad in the paper, guys like that won't show up. Because they know they won't get the gun(at least not from me). The ones who do show up are your average run of the mill gun enthusiast. When I sold my 1911's the guy who bought them, was just a huge 1911 fan. He had tons of them. That was just the gun he's into and the chance to add to the collection is why he bought them. Criminals will always get guns through the Black Market and I will always stand by that. The chances of them getting a gun out of the newspaper are very remote.

You may think that guns make people safer, but almost every police department nationwide is in favor of mandatory licensing and registration because it doesn't hurt legal owners, and it allows illegal guns to be eradicated.
And see I don't care what the Police Departments are in favor for, because I don't rely on them to protect me. As long as my gun rights are intact I can do just a fine job of protecting myself and family. And you'll never eradicate Illegal guns. That's near impossible.


I doubt the founders would agree with you on that one. If voting is a fundamental right in a democracy then they held property ownership as just as fundamental.

you're distorting my example though. I used to to show that registration hasn't led to a slippery slope in any other area of society.

This is like 4 on 1 here. You guys gotta slow down so I can write and watch Kansas get hammered at the same time. :D

Well I'm sure property ownership was/is a fundamental. It just wasn't written into the first 10 Amendments. The founders would undoubtly be all for property. Hence why they came to America. To own "stuff" and be free to own the "stuff" they wanted. They wrote the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, so everyone could protect their "stuff". Though I will agree it could be construed as part of the founding of the nation in the phrase, "Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness". Residing in the "Pursuit of Happiness" part, because if owning land makes you happy, then no one can tell you otherwise or keep you from it.

Well you know hot topics. It was just you and I. Now others join in. It happens. I'm just glad this topic has gotten a chance to thrive. It's a important issue, that in my opinion will affect many in America in July. :)

[dirkterrell]

Once again, the big scary government hasn't made a single move to take away any lawfully owned gun in 217 years, so I'm not too worried. Given the probability of that happening I'm actually more worried about beings struck by lightening. At least that happens once in a while.


It's the first step of a slow progression of public disarmament. Look at what has happened in Canada and England.


illegal guns. This is a win/win for both sides of the issue, but when the gun lobby refuses to support even the minor inconvenience of registration for the huge benefit of reducing illegal guns and gun crimes they show how truly irrational they are.


Canada has a registration system in place. It apparently hasn't done much to solve crime, according to Saskatchewan MP Garry Breitkreuz:

The government has admitted on three separate occasions in the past few years that since handgun registration was implemented in 1934, not one single crime in Canada has been solved using the national pistol registry.


You may think that guns make people safer, but almost every police department nationwide is in favor of mandatory licensing and registration because it doesn't hurt legal owners, and it allows illegal guns to be eradicated.

You see, that's the issue: what's an "illegal" gun? My semi-auto Glock or Beretta is legal today but I don't trust politicians enough to not decide a year from now that they should be illegal and come marching into my house to take it away.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

You see, that's the issue: what's an "illegal" gun? My semi-auto Glock or Beretta is legal today but I don't trust politicians enough to not decide a year from now that they should be illegal and come marching into my house to take it away.


Oh, and let me echo BK's comment about the opinion of police departments. The Supreme Court has ruled that they don't have any obligation to protect me (and I happen to agree with that ruling), so I don't give a damn what their opinion is.

Dirk

[cu360r6]

Give it time? If that's the best reason you're afraid then getting struck by lightening is still much more likely than the government taking away our guns.

This black market you refer to, where do these guns come from? At some point they were manufactured (most likely in the US) legally, so by requiring tracking of each sale these guns don't make it to the black market. If everyone had the discretion you had in choosing who they sell their guns to we wouldn't need any registration, but unfortunately they obviously don't. If the police find a gun at a crime scene they can trace the last owner of that gun, and make a conviction much more likely. This will incentivize gun owners to register their sales to prevent them being found liable or guilty as well. This will make it much easier for the police to target those that initially sell guns into this black market. If you eliminate the supply illegal guns will decrease significantly in the long term. Even if you agree this policy has even the slimmest chance of reducing illegal guns why oppose it? It is such a slight inconveience for such a potentially huge benefit to society.

[cu360r6]

It's the first step of a slow progression of public disarmament. Look at what has happened in Canada and England.

I don't see other countries as relevant examples because they don't have as explicit rights to gun ownership as we do in our constitution, so similar bans can't occur here. Regardless, gun crime in Canada and England is so low that personal gun ownership isn't necessary to protect your property.

[dirkterrell]

I don't see other countries as relevant examples because they don't have as explicit rights to gun ownership as we do in our constitution, so similar bans can't occur here.


Well, you clearly have more faith in governments and politicians than I do. :)


Regardless, gun crime in Canada and England is so low that personal gun ownership isn't necessary to protect your property.

Violent crimes like assault and robbery are significantly higher there than here. A large fraction of burglaries there are committed in occupied homes as opposed to here where that is the case in the vast minority of cases.

A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")Dirk

[The Black Knight]

Give it time? If that's the best reason you're afraid then getting struck by lightening is still much more likely than the government taking away our guns.
I mentioned give it time, because if you look at other nations in history. Then all you really need is time.

This black market you refer to, where do these guns come from? At some point they were manufactured (most likely in the US) legally, so by requiring tracking of each sale these guns don't make it to the black market. If everyone had the discretion you had in choosing who they sell their guns to we wouldn't need any registration, but unfortunately they obviously don't. If the police find a gun at a crime scene they can trace the last owner of that gun, and make a conviction much more likely. This will incentivize gun owners to register their sales to prevent them being found liable or guilty as well. This will make it much easier for the police to target those that initially sell guns into this black market. If you eliminate the supply illegal guns will decrease significantly in the long term. Even if you agree this policy has even the slimmest chance of reducing illegal guns why oppose it? It is such a slight inconveience for such a potentially huge benefit to society.
Actually the AK47(probably the most popular auto) is communist made(Chinese and Russian). And the waves of untold AK's coming in are astounding. It's a gun easily made and it works. It's design was greatly superior to that of the M16 in the Vietnam era. AK's work in all conditions, whereas the M16(Vietnam era) were very fickle in operation.

You mention tracking guns via registrations. And that if private sales were registered then we could track back. Well the only caveat to that is. When I sell a firearm, I'm no longer legally bound to it. Because a "Bill of Sale" is signed by both parties. The "Bill of Sale" is the transfer of ownership and all legal ramifications.

Even if you had gun registrations the margin for error is infinitely greater then what good it would do. Because guns get stolen or say for instance a guy sells a gun to someone, and someone else steals the gun from that guy who just bought it. Well even with serial number registration, the cops could track the gun back to the original owner or new owner(s), but couldn't prosecute on any grounds. So see all it would do is inconvience the law abiding people, because the Police would just be hounding them and not out searching for the real problem. Sure finding out who had the gun is one thing, but in the event of a Theft you can't track that.



I don't see other countries as relevant examples because they don't have as explicit rights to gun ownership as we do in our constitution, so similar bans can't occur here. Regardless, gun crime in Canada and England is so low that personal gun ownership isn't necessary to protect your property.

If you don't see other countries as examples then feast your eyes on this. http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html - Gun Control's Twisted Outcome.

Here's a quick exerpt:
On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, "theirs is worse than ours." The response was swift and sharp. "Have a Nice Daydream," The Mirror, a London daily, shot back, reporting: "Britain reacted with fury and disbelief last night to claims by American newsmen that crime and violence are worse here than in the US." But sandwiched between the article's battery of official denials -- "totally misleading," "a huge over-simplification," "astounding and outrageous" -- and a compilation of lurid crimes from "the wild west culture on the other side of the Atlantic where every other car is carrying a gun," The Mirror conceded that the CBS anchorman was correct. Except for murder and rape, it admitted, "Britain has overtaken the US for all major crimes."

In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice.

None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. For the better part of a century, British governments have pursued a strategy for domestic safety that a 1992 Economist article characterized as requiring "a restraint on personal liberty that seems, in most civilised countries, essential to the happiness of others," a policy the magazine found at odds with "America's Vigilante Values." The safety of English people has been staked on the thesis that fewer private guns means less crime. The government believes that any weapons in the hands of men and women, however law-abiding, pose a danger, and that disarming them lessens the chance that criminals will get or use weapons.

The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell reflected this conventional wisdom when, in a 1988 speech to the American Bar Association, he attributed England's low rates of violent crime to the fact that "private ownership of guns is strictly controlled."

In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted. A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld." Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954. Violent crime has been climbing ever since. Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing." In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent. And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police. In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people. <--- DAMN!!

I recommend you read the rest of it at the link provided. It's a long article but well worth the read. I'm still reading it.

That was just one article on England's gun control and how it doesn't work. I know there are tons more on England,Canada and now Australia.

[The Black Knight]

The article is just to freaking juicy! Check this part out:

Even more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act, which made it illegal to carry in a public place any article "made, adapted, or intended" for an offensive purpose "without lawful authority or excuse." Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Police were given extensive power to stop and search everyone. Individuals found with offensive items were guilty until proven innocent. <--- That's B.S.!!

During the debate over the Prevention of Crime Act in the House of Commons, a member from Northern Ireland told his colleagues of a woman employed by Parliament who had to cross a lonely heath on her route home and had armed herself with a knitting needle. A month earlier, she had driven off a youth who tried to snatch her handbag by jabbing him "on a tender part of his body." Was it to be an offense to carry a knitting needle? The attorney general assured the M.P. that the woman might be found to have a reasonable excuse but added that the public should be discouraged "from going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty of society to protect them."

Another M.P. pointed out that while "society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender."


The last paragraph of the article OWNS all.

"The English government has effectively abolished the right of Englishmen, confirmed in their 1689 Bill of Rights, to "have arms for their defence," insisting upon a monopoly of force it can succeed in imposing only on law-abiding citizens. It has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. Despite the English tendency to decry America's "vigilante values," English policy makers would do well to consider a return to these crucial common law values, which stood them so well in the past. "

[wulf]

Even if you had gun registrations the margin for error is infinitely greater then what good it would do. Because guns get stolen or say for instance a guy sells a gun to someone, and someone else steals the gun from that guy who just bought it. Well even with serial number registration, the cops could track the gun back to the original owner or new owner(s), but couldn't prosecute on any grounds. So see all it would do is inconvience the law abiding people, because the Police would just be hounding them and not out searching for the real problem. Sure finding out who had the gun is one thing, but in the event of a Theft you can't track that.

Don't forget the amount of guns that legally don't have a serial number on them.

[The Black Knight]

Exactly, the possiblities are endless.

[cu360r6]

That article and its author are debunked here: http://timlambert.org/2002/10/international-00037/ and here http://timlambert.org/2004/11/malcolm2/
Apparently she simply lied about the stats and statutes in Britain.

Remember since Britain is a parliamentary monarchical system it does not have a bill of rights fundamental to its constitution like the US, so once again other countries are not relevant when talking about constitutional freedoms. Their 'bill of rights' was passed by thier parliment as a symbolic measure, and can be repealed if the publics will shifts. That's not possible with our 2nd amendment.

[cu360r6]

Don't forget the amount of guns that legally don't have a serial number on them.

You guys are simply relying on the stereotypes that most guns used illegally don't have serial numbers or are foreign made ak-47s, but even if we accept those assumptions there is still a large portion of guns used in gun crimes that are domestically made and still have their serial numbers. Are you guys going to claim that the simple act of registering your gun is too much of an inconvenience when compared to the huge benefit it would have for law enforcement in those cases?

Just like in products liability where the original owner is liable for any harm caused by a defective product regardless of how far down the line of commerce the injury is caused a simple statutory change would be all that's necessary to make gun owners that sell to criminal liable civilly and guilty criminally.

Also, if you want to bring up guns lacking serial numbers there is a very easy fix for that when considering gun crimes. Congress has already looked at forcing gun manufacturers to have each bullet fired from a gun stamped with a micro imprint of the gun's serial number. This is different because it requires ZERO effort from lawful gun owners and could help immensely in law enforcement, but of course it was opposed by the gun lobby.

[cu360r6]

Violent crimes like assault and robbery are significantly higher there than here. A large fraction of burglaries there are committed in occupied homes as opposed to here where that is the case in the vast minority of cases.

Not according to the official stats published by the English govt here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf

There has been a 33% decline in violent crime just since '95.

[wulf]

You guys are simply relying on the stereotypes that most guns used illegally don't have serial numbers or are foreign made ak-47s, but even if we accept those assumptions there is still a large portion of guns used in gun crimes that are domestically made and still have their serial numbers.

Also, if you want to bring up guns lacking serial numbers there is a very easy fix for that when considering gun crimes.
What the fuck are you talking about?

Firearms made before 1968 were not required by law to have a serial number. There are MANY guns around that were made legally, and have no serial number. They are not stolen, they are not an AK47.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act

Also non guns, any gun manufactured before a certain year (1899) is not considered by the ATF to be a firearm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antique_firearms

Know the law before you start spouting bullshit as fact.

As far as the serial number on the chamber thing, how do you get a gun thats not in the system to come in and have it's chamber lasered to have a serial number added when the gun has none?

[wulf]

Also, if you want to bring up guns lacking serial numbers there is a very easy fix for that when considering gun crimes. Congress has already looked at forcing gun manufacturers to have each bullet fired from a gun stamped with a micro imprint of the gun's serial number. This is different because it requires ZERO effort from lawful gun owners and could help immensely in law enforcement, but of course it was opposed by the gun lobby.

Once again, educate yourself.

It's not a stamp on the bullet, it's a stamp on the casing

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/local/california.shtml

[wulf]

That article and its author are debunked here: http://timlambert.org/2002/10/international-00037/ and here http://timlambert.org/2004/11/malcolm2/
Apparently she simply lied about the stats and statutes in Britain.

First off i have no interest to debate the UK/Auz vs US gun laws because we are not discussing a gun ban right?

From the first link
"Internal Server Error"
From the second link
There are no sources sited for either side, no official transcripts, no police reports nothing. So both articles are suspect.
Not according to the official stats published by the English govt here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf

There has been a 33% decline in violent crime just since '95.
You fail to mention that the '95 statistic is the peak of crime in the reports 20 year study, so of course it would go down. Also without honorable mention is that the study stops sometime in 2002. Anyone who cares to look it's page 48. On top of all that, it's VIOLENT CRIME not GUN CRIME, these facts have absolutely no bearing on what we're discussing.


Edit for clarity, this is a quote from the PDF pg 47 regarding where the numbers come from
Both police recorded crime and the BCS cover a wide range of violent offences, of varying levels
of seriousness (see below). Common assaults, that involve at most minimal injury, account for 62
per cent of BCS violence but only 32 per cent of police recorded violence. This reflects the
relatively low recording and reporting rates for common assault. Police recorded violence also
covers a generally wider category of offences including the most serious crimes, such as murder,
but also many less serious offences. Sexual offences are included in the police recorded
violence, including some non-violent offences such as bigamy. The BCS does, however, include
snatch theft which would be classified by the police within the (non-violent) theft from the person
category.FYI: Hand guns were banned in 97 in the UK
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=uk+gun+ban&btnG=Google+Search
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm ---interesting article

[cu360r6]

You guys pointed out exceptions like foreign made weapons even though the US is by far the largest manufacture of guns, antique guns although this seems so insignificant it isn't even relevant, guns made 40 or more years ago which seem like a very small percentage of guns in circulation today, and guns that don't have serial numbers. I'll concede that these are all examples that won't be helped by registration, but what I'm contending is that all of these exceptions combined are that large of a percentage of guns used in crimes. You've shown nothing to confirm your assumption here. In fact, statistics indicate jsut the opposite of your assertion. A BATF study concluded that more than 26,000 illegal firearms were purchased in straw-man transactions between July 1996 and December 1998. Registration would prevent these exactly type of sales that allow guns to descending into criminals' hands.

Also, registration would allow retailers that are not following the existing gun laws to be prosecuted much easier just like this: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Retail-giant-fined-19m-for-illegal-gun-sales/2005/01/06/1104832226789.html

Regardless, you still haven't answered my question... Are you guys going to claim that the simple act of registering your gun is too much of an inconvenience when compared to the huge benefit it would have for law enforcement in those cases? If you're so worried about the government taking your guns then you would think the gun lobby would take simple steps like supporting registration to prevent the public from gaining the political will to demand real restrictions. If you improve the image of gun owners the public becomes less reactionary towards them, but when even the slightest infringement is seen as a grave abuse by gun owners many see this as proof of the irrationality of one side of the issue.

[cu360r6]

The link to the first article works for me, and it directly addressed the previously posted article. The second link only shows the author had a history of distortion in this area.

You're the one who brought up burglaries, robberies and other countries, so I showed that violent crime had decreased. If it's not relevant don't bring it up.

If you can show me that more restrictive gun laws in Britain have led to higher crime like you're claiming I'm open to read them, but I don't see any.

[cu360r6]

Once again, educate yourself.

It's not a stamp on the bullet, it's a stamp on the casing

http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/local/california.shtml

Yup, you're right on that one, but that link just seem to confirm my point. Isn't this just arguing semantics though? I was talking about federal legislation, but it's similar to the CA bill.

"Prior to final passage, the new California microstamping bill got the support of California Police Chiefs Association; Police Officers Research Association of California; Los Angeles County Police Chiefs' Association; Los Angeles Police Protective League; Orange County Chiefs' and Sheriff's Association; and 65 individual police chiefs and sheriffs."

[merlin]

Okay, I suppose I'll weigh in here...


Let's talk about registration for a moment, cause I have a couple of questions.

What does it REALLY accomplish, and how?

I buy a pistol (or a shotgun, or a grenade launcher...) and I keep it in my home. The government know I have it, I know I have it, the criminals don't know I have it and everyone is happy and serene. Okay, cool.

Fast forward a while, and Robbie the Crackhead breaks into my house and steals my shit- including my pistol (shotgun grenade launcher whatever). Now HE has my weapon. No one is happy OR serene (except maybe Robbie the Crackhead, and no one cares about him anyway). I report the weapon stolen, give the serial number to the cops and they go Crackhead-hunting. No they don't- they file that serial number with the rest of the stolen weapon serial numbers, dust for prints and go back to trying to write me a speeding ticket. I take my insurance settlement and go buy me a NEW weapon, which I dutifully register, cause I am not a criminal (usually).

How did registration make any difference here? Without registration I would have reported the weapon stolen and given the cops the serial number to file away. WITH registration, I don't have to give them the serial number to file away, cause they already have it filed. *** That's the ONLY difference *** Criminals don't buy guns legally. They STEAL them (criminals, remember?) or they buy them from other criminals that stole them. You are talking about inconvenience for the ILLUSION of safety. Kinda like post-911 airport security. It doesn't accomplish anything significant, just makes the sheep feel all warm and fuzzy and protected.

Let's look at the result here. Robbie the Crackhead is on the street with an illegally obtained weapon, which he promptly trades to his dealer for crack, being a crackhead. His dealer is shooting people with MY weapon, Robbie's high as a kite and I'm shopping for a new weapon. Now if the police CATCH Robbie's dealer shooting people with my weapon, then they'll tack a weapons charge onto whatever else they busted him for. Yippee.

You want registration? Fine- I'll even back you on it. Include a clause that makes open carry legal in all 50 states. That's a trade I'll make. It still won't accomplish shit, but at least I'll get to open carry without moving :: grin ::

As for registration NOT leading to confiscation- ask an Australian. They had registration, and after the parliament panicked because some psycho shot up a school in Tasmania- the local cops went round and collected the guns and destroyed them. They knew where to look, and they knew what to look for.

If you think the government won't ignore a constitutional right to do whatever the fuck they want to, read the 4th amendment very carefully, then read the Patriot Act, then read the testimony about Bush's wiretapping order. Then get back to me about how the government has our best interests in mind and can be trusted.

If you think the government has never tried to take our weapons- ask a Californian, or a resident of DC. Do you really see a difference between confiscation and the government telling you you can't spend your hard-earned money on something because it's "bad"? I don't. Looking at the issue from THAT point of view, the government has been eroding my right to keep and bear arms for years, a little at a time.

Merlyn

[dirkterrell]

Not according to the official stats published by the English govt here:
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf

There has been a 33% decline in violent crime just since '95.

Not according to the British press:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,441810,00.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1170336.ece

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/02/29/ncrim29.html

I tend to trust a free press much, much more than a government when it comes to these sorts of things. The government has a vested interest in making themselves look good when it comes to crime and British officials have been known to do some pretty underhanded things when it comes to the reporting of crimes:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/21/205139.shtml

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

Regardless, you still haven't answered my question... Are you guys going to claim that the simple act of registering your gun is too much of an inconvenience when compared to the huge benefit it would have for law enforcement in those cases?

You haven't listened to the answers. Registration done in other countries hasn't done squat to change the statistics of violent crimes and, more importantly, it is the first step down a path that history has shown, time and time again, leads to some very bad situations for the populace. It's not about the "inconvenience" of having to go down to the sheriff's office and fill out some paperwork. It's about preserving a right that no government has the power to take.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

That article and its author are debunked here: http://timlambert.org/2002/10/international-00037/ and here http://timlambert.org/2004/11/malcolm2/
Apparently she simply lied about the stats and statutes in Britain.

Remember since Britain is a parliamentary monarchical system it does not have a bill of rights fundamental to its constitution like the US, so once again other countries are not relevant when talking about constitutional freedoms. Their 'bill of rights' was passed by thier parliment as a symbolic measure, and can be repealed if the publics will shifts. That's not possible with our 2nd amendment.
Well I didn't check the ladies credibility who wrote the article as it was getting late. And it was only a host of articles that came up when I googled "England Gun Crime". Yeah and of course Gun-Control people are going to try and debunk her. Why wouldn't they? I mean her article had tons of facts. Plenty of cases in the past as well. I mean you just can't make that stuff up. And if you still don't believe that England has high crime rate read this BBC article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3761626.stm
Sure it shows some decrease, in some areas.
Here's another article or two that show stats:
http://johnrlott.tripod.com/2006/01/london-england-capital-gun-crime-rises.html
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article340224.ece
.



You guys pointed out exceptions like foreign made weapons even though the US is by far the largest manufacture of guns, antique guns although this seems so insignificant it isn't even relevant, guns made 40 or more years ago which seem like a very small percentage of guns in circulation today, and guns that don't have serial numbers. I'll concede that these are all examples that won't be helped by registration, but what I'm contending is that all of these exceptions combined are that large of a percentage of guns used in crimes. You've shown nothing to confirm your assumption here. In fact, statistics indicate jsut the opposite of your assertion. A BATF study concluded that more than 26,000 illegal firearms were purchased in straw-man transactions between July 1996 and December 1998. Registration would prevent these exactly type of sales that allow guns to descending into criminals' hands.

Also, registration would allow retailers that are not following the existing gun laws to be prosecuted much easier just like this: http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Retail-giant-fined-19m-for-illegal-gun-sales/2005/01/06/1104832226789.html

Regardless, you still haven't answered my question... Are you guys going to claim that the simple act of registering your gun is too much of an inconvenience when compared to the huge benefit it would have for law enforcement in those cases? If you're so worried about the government taking your guns then you would think the gun lobby would take simple steps like supporting registration to prevent the public from gaining the political will to demand real restrictions. If you improve the image of gun owners the public becomes less reactionary towards them, but when even the slightest infringement is seen as a grave abuse by gun owners many see this as proof of the irrationality of one side of the issue.

O.k. I'll answer your question directly. Yes, it is too much of a inconvienance for me to register my guns or have the microscan/imprint. I'm sorry but that's how I feel. Looks like Police departments are just going to have to do some police work in order to catch criminals. Fact is, like Merlin pointed out. All it does is go in a file cabinet. And the crime still doesn't get solved any faster.

Oh and you mention our sterotypical use of the AK47. What about Mac 10's and Czech made auto's? Dude in fact most of your Full Auto weapons are made abroad and not in the US. Sure we manufacture them. But the ones that are floating around in the "Black Market" are foreign. Much easier to get.

Oh and to reset about Black Powder guns. Yep not one of them has a serial number on them. In fact you can buy them through a catalog and have it shipped to your home in a few days. And believe me, Black Powder have killed alot of people(i.e. Revolutionary War, Civil War). And they still can smoke someone down. Did you know that a Black Powder round can actually penetrate deep into water. There was a test done with several different kinds of rounds(like in the movies where you see people shooting at someone under water). All of the high powered rounds and handgun rounds either shattered upon impact of the water or didn't go very far beneath the surface. But a black powder "Ball" managed to go close to three feet under water. I've got a black powder old west gun. Do I love the fact that it can't be registered. Oh you bet!

Here's why. A micro imprint like you mentioned would require that I have to use the same ammunition in the same gun forever. That's stupid. Because when I'm at the range I shoot range ammo. When I carry concealed I run "hot" self defense rounds. And I'm not going to be told what kind of ammo I have to have in my gun at all times.

Oh and as Wulf pointed out. It's not on the bullet, but on the case. So how would you track down rounds shot from a Revolver?? Since revolvers don't eject the spent casing. And statistics actually show that alot of crimes are commited with revolvers of small caliber .22's, .25's, .32's, .38's. At good example(off tangent a bit) is the S&W .500 Magnum. Gun-Control people cried that it would be a cop killer! They said it would punch through a bulletproof vest. So the NRA decided to prove that. Well they tested the .500 against vests. Determined that even with it's immense muzzle energy that it produces. The .500 still was to slow to penetrate a vest. Only your high velocity rifles can do that. But everyone wanted that gun banned before it was made in 2003, just because of it's size. And to this day, not one crime has been commited with a .500, because most criminals want quick "drop guns" that are small in caliber and easy to get rid of.

I shouldn't need the approval of the public to own a firearm. If the "Public" doesn't like it. Then the "Public" can sit on it and rotate. I don't give a damn what the "Public's" view of me is. For one I'm a law abiding citizen. I'm just like them, no different other then the fact I'm a firearm owner.

The reason why it's seen as a slight infringement, is because it IS a slight infringement. And it's the snowball effect. First a slight infringement, then a minor infringement, then a moderate infringement, then a large infringement, then a massive infringement, then a total infringement. And that's what Gun-Control want to lobby. Total infringement and complete abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. You don't believe me, just ask Rosie O' Fat(Donnell), she's been quoted many times as saying that we need to amend the Constitution and get rid of the 2nd.

[dirkterrell]

If you think the government has never tried to take our weapons- ask a Californian, or a resident of DC.

Hell, just ask the law-abiding citizens of New Orleans who were disarmed and left defenseless after Katrina.

http://www.nraila.org//Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=177

"No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons.""Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons." New Orleans Police Commissioner Edwin Compass IIINice post, Merlyn.

Dirk

[wulf]

You guys pointed out exceptions like foreign made weapons
Who pointed this out? You did. Post number 31. We were not debating anything about foreign or domestically made weapons until you brought it up!

In fact, statistics indicate jsut the opposite of your assertion. A BATF study concluded that more than 26,000 illegal firearms were purchased in straw-man transactions between July 1996 and December 1998. Registration would prevent these exactly type of sales that allow guns to descending into criminals' hands.


Got a link?


Regardless, you still haven't answered my question... Are you guys going to claim that the simple act of registering your gun is too much of an inconvenience when compared to the huge benefit it would have for law enforcement in those cases?
Yes i do.

You're the one who brought up burglaries, robberies and other countries, so I showed that violent crime had decreased. If it's not relevant don't bring it up.


No, i'm not the one who brought up any sort of crime.

If you can show me that more restrictive gun laws in Britain have led to higher crime like you're claiming I'm open to read them, but I don't see any.
Click the link on the bottom of my post #43, read the first paragraph.
A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned.
Or read dirkterrel's post #48

[merlin]

Originally Posted by cu360r6 http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.cosportbikeclub.org/forums/showthread.php?p=246398#post246398)
In fact, statistics indicate jsut the opposite of your assertion. A BATF study concluded that more than 26,000 illegal firearms were purchased in straw-man transactions between July 1996 and December 1998. Registration would prevent these exactly type of sales that allow guns to descending into criminals' hands.So about 13,000 straw sales a year? How's this for a statistic:

1. In the United States of America, the FBI has estimated that there are more than 341,000 incidents of firearm theft from private citizens every year on average.

Straw sales are NOT a huge issue. Also- what's to keep the people who are buying firearms for others from registering the firearms for others too? Are the police going to stop by every so often and make sure you have the weapons registered to you in your possession?

Another thing to keep in mind about those "straw sales" is that a majority of them were NOT people buying guns for criminals. I worked in a gun shop in Vegas, and we blocked a couple every week. The most memorable one was a cop coming in to buy a gun for his 10 year old son with a letter from his department allowing him to bypass the Brady check because he was buying a weapon "for the lawful execution of his duties". We got him fired over that, since he TOLD us he was buying a weapon for his son. That's one of your straw sales - to a cop. Most of those are people buying weapons for underage kin-folk, or for a friend that doesn't have his physical address on his/her driver's license (I know of a BUNCH of those, because *I* sold the gun) or something similar. "Straw Sale" doesn't equal "Felon with a gun" Someone stealing your weapon out of your house does. Sorry- ending straw sales isn't a good enough reason for me.

Merlyn

[DavidofColorado]

I must point out that this argument has been going on since gun control was first put on the map. I have been having it since 2002 myself. But it usually goes where the people who want the second amendment to be enforced exactly how its written, they are not afraid of guns and most likely own several.

Then there are the anti-gun types that don't like guns and they are scared of them even. They don't want them in society and will try whatever they can think of to support their feelings. They lie their asses off to support it too. They will goes as far as to relate to gun owners saying they own a gun or go hunting (now or when they were kids) or even say they belong to the NRA (like Micheal Moore did in his anti gun movie) just to try and con you. But they are scared of guns none the less and would never even shoot one without a lot of convincing.

However, truth be known guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are not dangerous to their owners, their family's or society. They shoot paper with them or cans (some even scored 2 big boxes of bowling pins from a trendy bowling alley downtown to shoot next time they go to the range). Guns are protected by the constitution and that is the supreme law of the land. It is higher than any other law and supersedes it. Gun bans in other country's didn't work there and it shouldn't be repeated here. Its crazy to try the same thing over and over hoping to get a different result. So let us have our guns just like the founders of the country wanted us to and end this debate. I would be more interested in seeing them try and all out ban instead of this agenda of eroding the right until there isn't anything left to the right. Banning them seams like a good idea when you spin it a certain way but it still seems evil and wrong to prevent something thing by attacking an inanimate object that has nothing to do with what you are trying to prevent, like crime.

Hop-lo-phobe: the irrational fear of weapons or tools.


Its feels better to have guns and enjoy them then it does feeling helpless and dependent on others like the police. They are only good for cleaning up a crime scene anyway.

[cu360r6]

Talked to a Constitutional Law professor at law school today... To premise her comments correctly you have to know the reason for having appellate courts and and the appeals process. Despite what most people think courts of review are not there to review or re decide cases in total. There job is not to decide fair or just outcomes but to create consistent common law for the lower courts to apply. The initial court is given great deference in deciding what facts are relevant and what evidence is persuasive. Appellate courts only accept cases when an issue of law is at question, and the Supreme Court especially almost always only accepts cases where there is a split on some legal principal or application of that principal between the various jurisdictions. They granted cert. for this case when there is almost no differences in jurisdictions across the country. A similar ban as DC has enacted would be unconstitutional almost anywhere. The SC only grants cert to cases like this when it wants to make a clear statement, and considering this is an area of the Constitution the Court has not interpreted in, well, forever it is easy for many people to think that there will be some watershed ruling that will forever ban all guns or make all gun control unconstitutional. My professor confirmed that such a ruling is unlikely. The court will almost certainly strike down DC's handgun ban, but the ruling won't go so far to affect many laws in any of the states. CO's gun laws are very liberal compared to DC's and probably won't be affected at all.

[cu360r6]

As discussions on the internet often do this one seems to have expanded a lot since the original post, so lets narrow it down a bit. I'm certainly not advocating banning guns especially since I own a rifle :), so I'm not going to rebut the posts that insinuated that. Along those lines, arguing that less guns = equals more or less crime is something we could go on and on about, but I just can't afford that time.

What I'm am suggesting is that registration will reduce crime and make honest gun owners look better thereby reducing the negative stigmas associated with guns. The ATF and FBI both believe the #1 reason guns transfer from legal owners or manufacturers to criminal is straw man sales, and the #2 reason is at home sales and corrupt commercial gun dealers. Registration would solve both those problems immediately by making both the corrupt gun dealer and the "straw man" purchaser both criminally and civilly liable for allowing guns to descend into criminals' hands. As the years went by and more illegal guns were lost, confiscated, or uncared for the number of illegal guns would drastically decrease in the long term.

As for gun thefts they are only the 4th most common way guns fall into criminal hands. According to the ATF: "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal."

An article I found very informative on the subject can be seen here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html

As for the person who posted the NRA article about New Orleans. First, look at the date on the article. It was less than a month after the storm hit. All the allegations about roving gangs of murders and rapists and police taking guns were found to be simply media hype, and I do mean ALL. I lived in post Katrina New Orleans for 8 months, and I'm well aware that most people still think these myths were real. See here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=7

"Col. Thomas Beron, the National Guard commander of Task Force Orleans, arrived at the Superdome on Aug. 29 and took command of 400 soldiers. He told PM that when the Dome's main power failed around 5 am, "it became a hot, humid, miserable place. There was some pushing, people were irritable. There was one attempted rape that the New Orleans police stopped." The only confirmed account of a weapon discharge occurred when Louisiana Guardsman Chris Watt was jumped by an assailant and, during the chaotic arrest, accidently shot himself in the leg with his own M-16.
When the Superdome was finally cleared, six bodies were found--not the 200 speculated. Four people had died of natural causes; one was ruled a suicide, and another a drug overdose. Of the four bodies recovered at the convention center, three had died of natural causes; the fourth had sustained stab wounds.
Anarchy in the streets? "The vast majority of people [looting] were taking food and water to live," says Capt. Marlon Defillo, the New Orleans Police Department's commander of public affairs. "There were no killings, not one murder." As for sniper fire: No bullet holes were found in the fuselage of any rescue helicopter."

Second, consider the source. I doubt you would consider something persuasive if I posted a Micheal Moore article, so posting an obviously debunked NRA article is just as unpersuasive to me. Third, even if you do think this is an example of the government taking your guns then I still stand by my point that the odds of being eaten by a shark or being struck by lightening are more likely than being in a once in a century hurricane that displaced 2 million people and destroyed several states.

[DavidofColorado]

CO's gun laws are very liberal compared to DC's and probably won't be affected at all.
I think you got that backwards.

And appeal courts are there not re decide a law for common law (which we don't use) its there to decide if the lower courts errors in their decision.

Registration is the needed step to confiscation. And we don't need registration because it is outside governments powers to interfere with private sales.

Your cite for guns falling into the hands of criminals is suspect. PBS is very liberal and rabidly antigun.

The police were rounding up guns after the Huricane that is what dems live for. And it took the NRA sueing them to stop it. The still have trailers full of guns that they haven't given back yet.

But I think your slanting it the way you need to so please continue.

[cu360r6]

We still use common law in many areas that most people aren't aware of... contracts, property, torts, etc. Appeal courts are there to decide if the lower court erred in their application of the law, not in determining the facts of the case. That's an important distinction here.

Our guns laws are traditionally liberalized as in very permissive. I'm not using the word with a direct political inference.

The government governs private sales and contract law in all sorts of areas already that you don't seem to object about, so why do you think arms sales are exempt?

The article wasn't written by PBS. It's just hosted on their site. If you don't think the stats or quotes are accurate why don't you point to specifics with the message rather than simply attacking the messenger.

Trailers of guns? I thought I had heard all the Katrina related myths, but this is a new one lol. Care to cite any evidence at all about trailers full of confiscated weapons? I gutted houses in NOLA for 8 months, and I confiscated guns every day. Of course they had been rotting in flood waters and were totally corroded and useless, but maybe you consider that a violation fo your 2nd amendment rights.

[dirkterrell]

A
As for the person who posted the NRA article about New Orleans. First, look at the date on the article. It was less than a month after the storm hit. All the allegations about roving gangs of murders and rapists and police taking guns were found to be simply media hype, and I do mean ALL.

...

Second, consider the source. I doubt you would consider something persuasive if I posted a Micheal Moore article, so posting an obviously debunked NRA article is just as unpersuasive to me.

Pot, meet kettle. Perhaps you'd prefer the New York Times' take on it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

They aren't exactly in the pro-gun camp.

Interesting story:

http://www.nola.com/newslogs/tporleans/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_tporleans/archives/2005_09_08.html#077896

Dirk

[cu360r6]

Once again, both articles you cite were written less than two weeks after the storm hit and are perfect examples of unsubstantiated media hype that I showed was debunked in subsequent investigations.

Regardless, when a lawful forced evacuation is ordered like in NOLA you don't have the right to defend yourself against the lawful enforcement of that order. Breaking the law is not a protection the 2nd amendment affords a person.

We're going off on a tangent again here.

[wulf]

All the allegations about roving gangs of murders and rapists and police taking guns were found to be simply media hype, and I do mean ALL. I lived in post Katrina New Orleans for 8 months, and I'm well aware that most people still think these myths were real. See here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=7
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4

So these people are just liars?

[cu360r6]

You're citing a youtube video created by the NRA as credible objective evidence? Even if you accept their story those people show the actual guns the claim were confiscated. Obviously they got them back, so I don't see the grave and huge infringement of their rights that the NRA is whining about. Under martial law that NOLA was basically reduced to immediately after the storm they can take your guns, but are you guys really afraid of martial law being declared in our state or at anytime in your lives? They don't have a right to use weapons to resist a lawful mandatory evacuation order. That's the same as resisting arrest by shooting at the police.

Again, we're going off on a tangent. If you think that Katrina was an example of the big scary government taking your guns then the next time you're in a hurricane of the century I'll hear your complaint. Until then you have a better chance of being eaten by a shark or struck by lightening.

You guys are also arguing two contradictory points. One person claimed that there were so many gun owners in America that an armed citizenry was preventing the government from taking their guns away. Now you're claiming that the government regularly violates our rights by taking away our guns. Which is it because you can't have it both ways.

[dirkterrell]

You're citing a youtube video created by the NRA as credible evidence?



If you don't think the stats or quotes are accurate why don't you point to specifics with the message rather than simply attacking the messenger.

Pot, again meet kettle.

Dirk

[wulf]

If you've read my posts before, you'd know I'm no fan of the NRA.

Guns were confiscated from legal owners. Denying that is like saying the "alleged" holocaust.

The act of confiscating guns is DIRECTLY ON TOPIC, not off tangent. You asked if the government was to be trusted with a list of who the gun owners are. This is proof of their actions in recent history. Almost every time your argument is negated, you ignore it or change the topic. Until you can hold a decent debate, i won't bother to reply to your posts any more.

[dirkterrell]

Once again, both articles you cite were written less than two weeks after the storm hit and are perfect examples of unsubstantiated media hype that I showed was debunked in subsequent investigations.


I've cited multiple sources (countering your hypocritical insistence that the NRA can't be a reliable source) stating that gun confiscations occurred. N.O. officials have admitted that it did occur and have been held in contempt in their early attempts to cover up/deny it. You've offered one view that reports of anarchy were overstated. I don't care if there was anarchy or not, or whether reports of firing on helicopters could be substantiated. I'm countering your erroneous claim that guns were not confiscated.

Dirk

[cu360r6]

If you've read my posts before, you'd know I'm no fan of the NRA.

Guns were confiscated from legal owners. Denying that is like saying the "alleged" holocaust.

The act of confiscating guns is DIRECTLY ON TOPIC, not off tangent. You asked if the government was to be trusted with a list of who the gun owners are. This is proof of their actions in recent history. Almost every time your argument is negated, you ignore it or change the topic. Until you can hold a decent debate, i won't bother to reply to your posts any more.

It's a tangent to talk about Katrina. I think any reasonable person would agree the circumstances involving much of the Gulf Coast at that time were abnormal to say the least.

As for legal gun owners I disagree with you. For those people who were using guns to avoid a mandatory evacuation order they descended from lawful citizens to criminal action at the point they chose not to respect the law.

Guns were not confiscated in any systematic manner from lawful owners after the evacuation order was lifted and people began to move back, and no one in this thread has shown otherwise.

[cu360r6]

I've cited multiple sources (countering your hypocritical insistence that the NRA can't be a reliable source) stating that gun confiscations occurred. N.O. officials have admitted that it did occur and have been held in contempt in their early attempts to cover up/deny it. You've offered one view that reports of anarchy were overstated. I don't care if there was anarchy or not, or whether reports of firing on helicopters could be substantiated. I'm countering your erroneous claim that guns were not confiscated.

Dirk

Perhaps we're arguing different points. You're saying that that government confiscated guns, right? In order for it the be the GOVERNMENT as in a choice by the government to institute a certain policy of gun confiscation it has to be systemic. If you're claiming that it happened in a couple cases by a few overzealous patrol officers then I'm not arguing that. In fact, I'm willing to concede that it did happen in a few very limited cases, but that doesn't rise to the level of government action.

First, those people in the few cases were not lawful gun owners anyone. If you disobey a mandatory evacuation order then you're in criminal violation, and the police can do whatever necessary to remove you including taking your guns.

Second, when martial law is instituted the military can take your guns, so if you're claiming it was the national guard then they have that ability.

[dirkterrell]

Perhaps we're arguing different points. You're saying that that government confiscated guns, right? In order for it the be the GOVERNMENT as in a choice by the government to institute a certain policy of gun confiscation it has to be systemic.

"No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons."

Only law enforcement are allowed to have weapons." New Orleans Police Commissioner Edwin Compass III

Sounds pretty systemic to me.

Dirk

[cu360r6]

The mandatory evacuation order was put in place at 9:30am on August 28th, 2005, the day before the storm struck. It was not lifted until Sept. 19th. During this time it was declared a Federal City, basically martial law. Anyone in the city at that time could have their guns lawfully confiscated because they were in violation of a lawful order already. If anyone can show me systemic government confiscation of guns before or after this time I'll concede that the big scary government is coming to take your weapons, and we should all buy canned goods and ammo for the impending apocalypse. Even the NRA doesn't have an article on confiscation outside this time period.

[cu360r6]

Sounds pretty systemic to me.

Dirk

I can't understand why you keep quoting this article. It was written during a period of extreme hype where the police thought snipers were firing on rescue helicopters and bands of murdering and raping gangs were roaming the city. I've shown these myths were debunked in total after some sense was restored to the city. Don't you have any other evidence that wasn't written in the days following the storm, or do you still think this is credible? One deputy police chief does not imply Federal or State government action to me. It woudl be like Colorado Springs declaring Democrats illegal. We'd all laugh at how ridiculous it was and go about our business.

[dirkterrell]

The mandatory evacuation order was put in place at 9:30am on August 28th, 2005, the day before the storm struck. It was not lifted until Sept. 19th. During this time it was declared a Federal City, basically martial law.

Got a source for this? I'm not familiar enough with the law to know where and how "martial law" is spelled out.

Dirk

[dirkterrell]

I can't understand why you keep quoting this article. It was written during a period of extreme hype where the police thought snipers were firing on rescue helicopters and bands of murdering and raping gangs were roaming the city. I've shown these myths were debunked in total after some sense was restored to the city. Don't you have any other evidence that wasn't written in the days following the storm, or do you still think this is credible?

It doesn't matter whether the officials were mistaken or not about the situation (and I do not agree with your claim to have debunked anything as it is still a sole-source claim), guns were confiscated by law enforcement officials, i.e. government officials. N.O. officials have admitted that gun confiscations took place and have been dragging their feet on returning them to their owners.

Dirk

[The Black Knight]

I've got one question bothering me. If during the aftermath of Katrina, Officials say there were no instances of mass crime. Then why did news stations covering the whole ordeal show people looting and pillaging? I mean I know it can be done, but it's pretty hard to make that stuff up on "Live" television.

It was a mess and was handled poorly.

Another question still burning in my mind is, if you(cu360r6) spoke with a law professor. And she said with almost certainty that the Supreme Court will strike down the D.C. gun ban, but that it will most likely only affect D.C.

I don't get it. If the Supreme Court strikes down a very controversial and Un-Constitutional law/ban then how could it not be the fulcrum for the rest of the states gun ban laws to come down. The way I see it, the Supreme Court's ruling would impinge upon the very fabric of the material the Gun Ban's are made of, and if completely struck down. Other cities/states would almost certainly follow suit in being pushed to drop their gun ban agendas.

If the most anti-gun city were to fall and lose it's gun ban. Then cities like New York, San Fran and L.A. would break under insurmountable weight and pressure from the People and from Pro-Gun groups. Because if the main city falls, then all others will eventually have to do away with their gun bans as well.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it as anything but monumental. For sure it won't just pass into the night. Something this important will affect more then just a few.

[merlin]

Got a source for this? I'm not familiar enough with the law to know where and how "martial law" is spelled out.

Dirk

I'll have to check, but FEMA should have a summary of their authority and guidelines on their website somewhere. To say Emergency Management's powers are sweeping during a declared emergency is a vast understatement- they can do basically anything.

I think this entire debate/argument (which I am enjoying the hell out of, since most of the comments are fairly well thought out and there's a minimum of name calling) can be summed up with one statement:

cu360r6 trusts the Government. Myself and the others debating with him don't. I very seriously doubt we'll be able to shake his faith in the Government, and he sure as HELL can't convince me that the Government is worthy of anything but distrust and a little fear. I think we may all just have to agree to disagree.

I'm going to go re-design my tinfoil hat now.

Merlyn

[dirkterrell]

I think this entire debate/argument (which I am enjoying the hell out of, since most of the comments are fairly well thought out and there's a minimum of name calling) can be summed up with one statement:

cu360r6 trusts the Government. Myself and the others debating with him don't. I very seriously doubt we'll be able to shake his faith in the Government, and he sure as HELL can't convince me that the Government is worthy of anything but distrust and a little fear. I think we may all just have to agree to disagree.


I'm beginning to think you are right. And I, too, appreciate the respectful debate on both sides that is taking place here.

Dirk

[cu360r6]

Got a source for this? I'm not familiar enough with the law to know where and how "martial law" is spelled out.

Dirk

Technically martial law was never declared by the President, but the city was declared a "Federal City" which means the Federal government takes control. However, the Mayor and the Governor all remained in their positions during the storm, and they were the ones to order the mandatory evacuation before it. With FEMA, state and local governments, civilian police, and the national guard troops all claiming some sort of authority it was nuts, and no one knew what was going on.

It was such a quagmire on so many levels after the storm that using it as an example for anything is stretching it very thin. I know you guys are seeing this as government taking advantage of gun owners, but I see this as what a lack of government, anarchy, leads to.

[dirkterrell]

It was such a quagmire on so many levels after the storm that using it as an example for anything is stretching it very thin. I know you guys are seeing this as government taking advantage of gun owners, but I see this as what a lack of government, anarchy, leads to.

All the more reason not to have government officials taking away people's means to defend themselves. It's been shown over and over that you can't count on the government to protect you (the USSC has ruled so), not that I think that (expecting government protection) is the right mentality to begin with.

Dirk

[cu360r6]

I've got one question bothering me. If during the aftermath of Katrina, Officials say there were no instances of mass crime. Then why did news stations covering the whole ordeal show people looting and pillaging? I mean I know it can be done, but it's pretty hard to make that stuff up on "Live" television.

It was a mess and was handled poorly.

Another question still burning in my mind is, if you(cu360r6) spoke with a law professor. And she said with almost certainty that the Supreme Court will strike down the D.C. gun ban, but that it will most likely only affect D.C.

I don't get it. If the Supreme Court strikes down a very controversial and Un-Constitutional law/ban then how could it not be the fulcrum for the rest of the states gun ban laws to come down. The way I see it, the Supreme Court's ruling would impinge upon the very fabric of the material the Gun Ban's are made of, and if completely struck down. Other cities/states would almost certainly follow suit in being pushed to drop their gun ban agendas.

If the most anti-gun city were to fall and lose it's gun ban. Then cities like New York, San Fran and L.A. would break under insurmountable weight and pressure from the People and from Pro-Gun groups. Because if the main city falls, then all others will eventually have to do away with their gun bans as well.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it as anything but monumental. For sure it won't just pass into the night. Something this important will affect more then just a few.

True, if you consider the looting that went on a crime then there was certainly mass crime, but as the boots on the ground later confirmed that the vast majority of it was for food/water etc. People were also urged to break into buildings for shelter and other 'crimes', but in that situation I think we'd all be doing the same thing. A bit of extra property damage during a hurricane wasn't the main concern. Most of the people there seem to draw the line of criminal conduct between property damage to stay alive and violence for the sake of violence. Despite the initial media reports there wasn't much of the latter.

Agreed on the mess part.

As for the legal argument this is how my professor spelled it out... DC's gun ban is the most restrictive in the country, so restrictive that in practice it interferes with ANY right to bear arms even if it doesn't do so explicitly in the wording of the city ordinance. There's a large gap between that kind of legislation and gun laws in all the states that are much more permissive. The Court can carve out a line where gun control is left up to the states unless it implicitly or explicitly interferes with exercising of the 2nd amendment at all. For example, banning all handguns, shotguns and rifles would basically make it illegal to "bear arms" which would be unconstitutional, but banning .50 cal. rifles, and pump action shotguns would still allow many ways to exercise the 2nd amendment. It's not that black and white because very few gun control law actually ban