Jump to content

Is There such a thing as a "Reasonable Gun Law?"


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Grouse said:

A right delayed, is a right denied!

What is this notion of a "cooling off period"?  That is an automatic assumption that all firearms are purchased in anger with malicious intent.  That is absolutely absurd.  If you assume someone is prone to anger and needs to cool off, you are assuming that individual has an unstable personality.  If gun owners agree to "cooling off" periods, they are promoting the idea they have unstable personalities.  Waiting periods convince the public gun owners are unstable.

As far as safety courses go, simply limit the number of courses offered and you limit gun purchases.  Plus, you can charge prohibitive fees for these courses, to deter as many people as possible from going to them.

The idea of a "more thorough background check" implies the first one was "half assed".  What's the point of doing any background check if it isn't thorough?  If this means adding more restrictive requirements like a mental exam, evaluation of social media thoughts or an IQ test, that is simply unconstitutional because it is subjective.

The only gun control laws that are constitutional are laws that penalize people who have used guns to harm others.  Any law assuming I may use a gun to harm others, with no evidence that may happen, presumes guilt and is a "preventative law", meaning my rights are restricted because others have abused theirs.  That is blatantly unconstitutional. 

But as I have been advised prior, the general mood of the public may allow such unconstitutional oppression if the public thinks it makes them safer, individual rights be damned.  That's the fiddle the government is playing on to get the public to do just that.

Grouse, I agree with you if the purchase involves a rifle or shotgun, but a handgun or AR? I respectfully disagree.  Now, you said earlier that you agree with a "1 background check only" policy in regards to firearms purchase and when after that , youre good.  When if they build into that background check a waiting period so that after the check is completed (and it would be a quite thorough check , mind you), you can come pick up your gun? Like IDK,  maybe 3 days? I think thats the standard.  Would you agree with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Grouse, I agree with you if the purchase involves a rifle or shotgun, but a handgun or AR? I respectfully disagree.  Now, you said earlier that you agree with a "1 background check only" policy in regards to firearms purchase and when after that , youre good.  When if they build into that background check a waiting period so that after the check is completed (and it would be a quite thorough check , mind you), you can come pick up your gun? Like IDK,  maybe 3 days? I think thats the standard.  Would you agree with that?

If the system was set up where you get checked once, which may take some time, and are issued a Firearms ID card proving you are OK to buy guns, what would be the point of a waiting period after that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying this is an answer, just sharing. Back in Illinois, once you turned 16 you had to apply for a Firearm Owners ID (FOID). You got a card from ISP, and you had to renew every 5 years. 
There was a wait period of 24 hours on long guns, and 48 hours for handguns. Private purchases did not have a wait for either. 
I know there was a push for all purchases to go through an FFL, but I’m not sure of that ever happened. Last I knew you had to keep the each other’s FOID number in file in case they needed to trace a gun back to the owner. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

So if someone wanted to purchase an AR-15 in NY, would they be able to? 

The answer is yes as long as they are "New York" state compliant. Keep in mind that being compliant pertains to ALL styles of long guns and pistols. The government is the culprit for putting the "assault rifle" title on these weapons and everyone has accepted the terminology of "assault weapon" when in reality the term came from the original manufacturer ArmaLite which later sold it to Colt. Colt manufactured it for the military which could be fired on full automatic by means of a selector switch, under the "M-16" designation.

"The AR-15 was developed in the late 1950s as a civilian weapon by Eugene Stoner, a former Marine working for small California startup called ArmaLite (which is where the AR comes from). The gun, revolutionary for its light weight, easy care and adaptability with additional components, entered the mainstream in the mid-1960s, after Colt bought the patent and developed an automatic-fire version for troops in Vietnam, called the M16.

The civilian model wasn’t mass produced until the 1980s, after the original patent expired and a variety of companies began making them. That transformed a specific brand to a more generic offering on which a mini-industry would flourish.

The backlash peaked in 1994, when President Bill Clinton signed a ban on the sale of many types of semiautomatic rifles deemed “assault weapons,” including versions of the AR-15. Manufacturers continued making versions of the AR-15 that complied with the new law, which was allowed to expire in 2004. That set the stage for an explosion in AR-15 sales

Production of AR-style guns has soared since the federal ban expired. In 2004, 107,000 were made. In 2015, the number was 1.2 million, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), an industry trade association. The organization does not provide sales data, nor does it have 2016 production estimates, but says that year's activity likely broke all records.

Today, one of out of every five firearms purchased in this country is an AR-style rifle, according to a NSSF estimate. Americans now own an estimated 15 million AR-15s

If any of the features in the link below are on ANY shotgun or rifle, and some pistols they are considered to be illegal by the state of New York. They just happen to use the "ar-15" as a model

PowerPoint Presentation (ny.gov)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

Yes, that is true and I agree, but what about in other states where you can walk in , apply, and walk out same day with your handgun.    In Florida there is a 3 business day waiting period for firearms purchases. If you have a concealed carry permit (as 2 million Floridians do) there is no waiting period. To get the concealed permit you need to either attend a state approved course or submit a copy of your DD-214, submit fingerprints, pay $97, pass a state police background check. If there are no issues, the state is required to issue the permit within 60 days. This is a reasonable law. Non residents can obtain a permit, but they are not allowed to buy handguns. When I was in the service in Hawaii I obtained a permit and purchased a handgun in one afternoon.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heres the exact wording of the 2nd A. in the  Constitution:

The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

What do these 27 words mean exactly?  Of course, the Framers had no way of seeing 245 years into the future--and how could they? Thus, the wording of this inalienable right, as written in 1791, may have a very different meaning when applied to the context of the times year 2021--or maybe not?

Back then, militias were viewed as groups of local citizens that would band together ad hoc in order to defend themselves and their property from a myriad of threats; for example, threats including Indian attacks, an invasion force ,etc. but  also, from oppression by the govt itself.  Circa late 1700's, many people had a legitimate fear that the government would oppress the mass through the use of a federalized standing army--and , of course, history supported such sentiments. Considering this, I do believe that the ORIGINAL intent of the Framers when writing the 2nd was to provide a check on government power and authority by the citizenry; but it is this "check" still necessary today? 

Some Liberal Scholars -- notorious for favoring a more loosely defined textual interpretation of the Constitution-- claim that the 2nd A. NEVER guaranteed individual gun ownership by the citizenry, citing the word " Militia" in the document. Their position is that the 2nd A. only applies to the right of individual units  equivalent to the contemporary National Guard to have guns and that it says nothing about individual gun ownership ; nor does it guarantee the right to have and use weapons for hunting purposes!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

8 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

nor does it guarantee the right to have and use weapons for hunting purposes!!

Purpose is not part of the original verbage and should not be included today.

11 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

I do believe that the ORIGINAL intent of the Framers when writing the 2nd was to provide a check on government power and authority by the citizenry; but it is this "check" still necessary today? 

If that was indeed the intent It would still apply today as much as it did then.

 

13 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Their position is that the 2nd A. only applies to the right of individual units  equivalent to the contemporary National Guard to have guns and that it says nothing about individual gun ownership

 

14 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems pretty simple to me. Far to many interpretations for such a simple set of words.

Take the words for what that say instead of everyone adding their own interpretation which ultimately leads to controversy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, this was already ruled on by the SCOTUS in the D.C v. Heller case.  It ruled the right to bear arms is an individual right.  It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.  It is no surprise though the left doesn't respect the decision, because it doesn't respect the rule of law.

There are plenty of documents and info in the Federalist papers written by the founders that extraneously explain exactly what they intended to codify in the 2nd Amendment, an any interpretation not in line with their intent is simply wrong.  Like the late Justice Scalia pronounced, "The Constitution is a legal document. It says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say." 

It is corruption of the document to try and infer it means other than exactly what it says. And if it no longer meets the needs of the 21st century, the founder's genius installed a legal way to go about amending it.  Any other way of altering that document is unconstitutional. 

The left knows the odds of success for them following the legal way are slim, so they strive to convince the gullible another way is needed.  That's criminal.

Edited by Grouse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Steve D said:

 

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

nor does it guarantee the right to have and use weapons for hunting purposes!!

Purpose is not part of the original verbage and should not be included today.

 

I agree — a host of other subsequent issues would arise out of adding language such as that .

 

1 hour ago, Steve D said:
1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems pretty simple to me. Far to many interpretations for such a simple set of words.

Take the words for what that say instead of everyone adding their own interpretation which ultimately leads to controversy.

I understand what you’re saying but if your interpretation is that literal , then I would say that absolutely NO gun control measures would be considered  constitutional then, right ? I mean , who are the people mentioned here ? American citizens , right ? So , the way I would interpret the language — in the strictest literal sense possible— ALL American citizens have the right to bear arms , irregardless of their past , history of violence or criminality , mental state , etc. 
 

Do you believe that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

Do you believe that ?

No.  No right is unlimited.  But on the other hand, no right has been infringed upon as much as the 2nd A has either.

Edited by Grouse
spelling
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

ALL American citizens have the right to bear arms , irregardless of their past , history of violence or criminality , mental state , etc. 

COMMON SENSE which there seems to be lack of these days should dictate who can legally own guns. Right now with the laws we have there are just as many or almost as many illegal guns and people illegally using those guns as there are legal owners.

 Like I said before I support background checks as they are and as as long as they don't get more restrictive I will continue to support them.

 The current form required to complete a purchase or transfer addresses all of the issues you have brought to light. The fact that they do not address gun violence is because they only apply to people buying a gun legally.

Enforce and write laws to address the issues of crime, illegal guns, and random shootings would decline dramatically.

Common sense should tell these politicians and lawmakers where they should be focusing their efforts.  

If one has five kids and one of the five consistently miss behaves do all five get disciplined????

Not in my house:negative:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Steve D said:

COMMON SENSE which there seems to be lack of these days should dictate who can legally own guns. Right now with the laws we have there are just as many or almost as many illegal guns and people illegally using those guns as there are legal owners.

 Like I said before I support background checks as they are and as as long as they don't get more restrictive I will continue to support them.

 The current form required to complete a purchase or transfer addresses all of the issues you have brought to light. The fact that they do not address gun violence is because they only apply to people buying a gun legally.

Enforce and write laws to address the issues of crime, illegal guns, and random shootings would decline dramatically.

Common sense should tell these politicians and lawmakers where they should be focusing their efforts.  

If one has five kids and one of the five consistently miss behaves do all five get disciplined????

Not in my house:negative:

So You’re Interpretation is not that strict and literal — I agree btw , I just asked you cuz in your initial response , you sounded like your POV was more Literalist . 
 

You brought up a great ancillary issue —That of illegal guns. How the hell do illegal  guns get hEre in the first place ,l and that many to boot ? Do they all come through Mexico ?? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Northcountryman said:

So You’re Interpretation is not that strict and literal — I agree btw , I just asked you cuz in your initial response , you sounded like your POV was more Literalist . 
 

You brought up a great ancillary issue —That of illegal guns. How the hell do illegal  guns get hEre in the first place ,l and that many to boot ? Do they all come through Mexico ?? 

Along with drug smuggling; gun smuggling has been going on in the US for decades. How do you think these "gang members" are getting all of their guns? They sure aren't walking into gun shops or pawn shops to buy them.

Ever hear of operation "Gunwalking" put on by none other than our US Government (Obama/Eric Holder) regime . That backfired when US border protection officers got killed by guns that our own government planted in hopes of tracking down smugglers.

ATF gunwalking scandal - Wikipedia

Somebody should have paid for that but it was just swept under the rug.  Mr. Biden was also a part of that regime.

Edited by Steve D
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah , but wasn’t that mostly for interdiction if guns going into and not out of Mexico? I’d like to do some poking around and research where the vast majority of criminals , gang members , etc. —basically anyone who couldn’t pass a normal background check to obtain a gun legally —Acquire their guns to commit crimes . I think that the vast majority are originally obtained legally by someone and end up getting stolen, transferred illegally or privately and ultimately, end up in the hands of criminals . Typically , these guns are not new guns and have been out there i circulation for awhile , 10 yrs or more , probably. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Northcountryman said:

Yeah , but wasn’t that mostly for interdiction if guns going into and not out of Mexico? I’d like to do some poking around and research where the vast majority of criminals , gang members , etc. —basically anyone who couldn’t pass a normal background check to obtain a gun legally —Acquire their guns to commit crimes . I think that the vast majority are originally obtained legally by someone and end up getting stolen, transferred illegally or privately and ultimately, end up in the hands of criminals . Typically , these guns are not new guns and have been out there i circulation for awhile , 10 yrs or more , probably. 

10,800 Assault Weapons Parts Seized by CBP in Louisville

10,800 Assault Weapons Parts Seized by CBP in Louisville | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Disrupt Gun Smuggling into Mexico Would Benefit from Additional Data and Analysis (gao.gov)

HSI firearms, ammunition, and explosives smuggling investigations have resulted in unprecedented bi-lateral interdictions, investigations and information-sharing activities that identify, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal networks operating within the United States, Mexico, Canada, Central America, the Caribbean, and around the World.

Firearms, Ammunition, and Explosives Smuggling Investigations | ICE

Number of imported firearms into the U.S. in 2019, by country

 

 

 

graph.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Steve D said:

10,800 Assault Weapons Parts Seized by CBP in Louisville

10,800 Assault Weapons Parts Seized by CBP in Louisville | U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Disrupt Gun Smuggling into Mexico Would Benefit from Additional Data and Analysis (gao.gov)

HSI firearms, ammunition, and explosives smuggling investigations have resulted in unprecedented bi-lateral interdictions, investigations and information-sharing activities that identify, disrupt, and dismantle transnational criminal networks operating within the United States, Mexico, Canada, Central America, the Caribbean, and around the World.

Firearms, Ammunition, and Explosives Smuggling Investigations | ICE

Number of imported firearms into the U.S. in 2019, by country

 

 

 

graph.jpg

What's made in Canada?

The rest are easy, czech is CZ, turkey are piles of lower priced shotguns , Austria is glock, Brazil are lots of semi auto pistols of various brands, Finland is tikka and sako, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Northcountryman said:

Are those imported firearms stats legal or illegal firearms ? Illegal I guess cuz thats what were discussing?

I would assume since they are "imported" they would be considered legal. I doubt very much they have statics on the quantity of illegal guns simply because a lot of them are not counted until or if they get seized.

Most purchases are more than likely through the black market. (racism not intended).

An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes,"

Here is a interesting read:

frontline: hot guns: "How Criminals Get Guns" | PBS

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, left field said:

Kind polite people.

You must think every where but from Quebec. They do their own brand of rude there. LOL.

 

But at 150k units must be black rifles, I dont know anything about that market. I know Colt has big place in Ct I have driven by, didnt think they'd need to import.

I see Ralf Martini isn't listed on that one link, and frankly that makes that list suspect in my eyes.

Could be one of the top ten rifle makers in the world, but not in volume that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For now, if I was making the rules, I would say leave the laws the way they are, with the exception of loosening restrictions in a few states like NJ or NY that severely regulate handguns & concealed carry permits. Make 30-round mags in rifles legal in all states. And abolish no-gun zones & handgun bans in some of the major cities like NYC, Chicago, & DC. After this went into effect, REALLY start enforcing the current laws so that fewer people who are on watchlists or mentally impaired fall through the cracks.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, left field said:

It's mostly the Quebec city/political people that are rude. Country folk are lovely. 

You go to Quebec for the food, cultural experience and the strippers. 

 

I mostly went to fish, hunt, and watch car races, but have done the others as well. On whole have no complaints, but find other parts of Canada better for the people, ymmv.

 

You an ex pat I'd guess?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...