NRA

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

none of these would have stopped the Sandy Hook shooter(and they won't stop the next one)..the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count...but that's a "might"...the nut that shot the firemen in NY had someone purchase his firearm for him...where there's a (demented)will there's a way....these measures are a joke, they will not reduce gun crimes....if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban and confiscation instead of bloviating over these meaningless restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by....

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

I don't see it as a "charade". Maybe what I'm proposing can't have a meaningful impact. But it's worth talking about, that's all I'm saying.

"restrictions and penalties that "criminals" might abide by"

OK. So now you are saying that a ban on anything, has no impact whatsoever on the amount of that something that people own.

Scott, I concede that if you ban something (drugs, guns, booze) you cannot eliminate 100% of the ownership. But likewise, you cannot imply that it has zero impact on ownership either. My point was never "if we ban guns, exactly zero people will therefore own guns". You tried to refute my premise by suggesting that bans are not 100% effective. Many people in this thread have also done exactly that. It's not a valid rebuttal to what I am suggesting, because my point was never "we can eliminate 100% of the guns out there". Amazing.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

A total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional? Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional? Is their a spectrum, as Spence might argue, of constitutionality. Are constitutional and unconstitutional merely "one extreme or the other"? Is the Constitution to be "interpreted" by degrees? Should we determine that what is constitutional is what falls mathematically in the center of extreme opinions.? That seems to be a way to keep the Constitiution "living."

Keeping in mind the way the Constitution was originally written--it was not meant to determine actual policies per se, or to be a codex of actual civil laws by which the people would be governed, but it was a structure of government that delegated which TYPE of policy would be the responsibility of which branch of Federal Government, and that if a type of policy was not delegated to the central gvt., such policies were reserved to the states and people--keeping that in mind, would you say that "gun control" policies that restrict individual gun ownership should be responsibilities of states and their people, or of the Federal Government?

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

There are two constitutional problems to consider in regards to the SCOTUS not striking down the 1994 ban. First, the NRA did not challenge the law on Second Amendment grounds. It feared, rightly or wrongly, that the Court would be inimical on those grounds. So the direct constitutional Second Ammendment restriction on the Federal Government to impose such a ban was not tested. Although, one of the provisions, which required state law enforcement to implement the Federal requirement to do the background checks was struck down on the grounds that the Federal Gvt. cannot compel the states to enforce its policies. Second the rest of the act was upheld under the infamous precedent created by the FDR Court that applies the Commerce Clause to INTRAstate commerce rather than being restricted to the power to "regulate" INTERstate commerce.

But that doesn't answer my question. If a total ban is unconstitutional, why is a partial ban not unconstitutional? What part of the ban is Constitutional? If the Commerce Clause can be stretched to include any commerce whatsoever, as it has been construed since FDR, how would a total ban be unconstitutional? Or, for that matter, since just about anything we do is in some way related to commerce, how would a Federal ban on anything else be unconstitutional. So, by interpreting the Commerce Clause in this way, which obviously renders the Constitution moot, we will be allowed to do and buy or sell those things that the Federal Government deems necessary or harmless, and we will be restricted to those rights that the government grants us rather than it being restricted to those rights we have granted to it. And if you think that serious gun control advocates just want to restrict scary looking guns, or only those with the capacity to kill more people quickly, you haven't been paying attention.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

The debate will go along the lines that have been drawn in this thread. So you are already seeing the debate here. The things being said here are as "reasonable" as the debate will get. And, probably, emotional arguments and "numbers" arguments will prevail at least to some degree, and we will get a "reasonable" bill passed. Whether or not it will actually be constitutional will be irrelevant. The common view that we must wait for SCOTUS debate to discover constitutionality absolves us from understanding the Constitution ourselves. It was written for us, not for the government except to give it bounds that it was not to trespass. It was written by people like us--farmers, mechanics, artisans, shopkeepers, as well as scholars and lawyers--for us. It was an improbable gift that might never be offered again. It was originally simply and directly put, but was made incomprehensible by successions of "interpretation" and bad case law so that only a small portion of it now is even given so-called "strict scrutiny," the rest being handed over to the Federal Government branches to say what it means. And that small portion given strict consideration is what's left of the bill of rights. And those are being worked on by politicians and judges--as attested to by increasing attempts at "gun control" as well as speech, property, and religious restrictions, against us rather than reserving them as the people's rights.

When you say that you wouldn't support any ban that wasn't constitutional, that implies you have an understanding of what is constitutional. If so, why must you wait for SCOTUS decisions, which have already muddied the Constitution into a swamp of judicial and congressional and executive whim, to find out?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

When you say that you wouldn't support any ban that wasn't constitutional, that implies you have an understanding of what is constitutional. If so, why must you wait for SCOTUS decisions, which have already muddied the Constitution into a swamp of judicial and congressional and executive whim, to find out?

So the SCOTUS is irrelevant on the Second Amendment? I seem to remember the Heller decision being applauded among many gun rights advocates while it also seems to back Jim's position.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

So the SCOTUS is irrelevant on the Second Amendment? I seem to remember the Heller decision being applauded among many gun rights advocates while it also seems to back Jim's position.

-spence

Heller was a chip in the right direction. It addressed gun ownership in light of the Second Ammendment, not the Commerce Clause. I don't think it addressed Federal regulations in light of the Second Ammendment.

Originally, and as it was adjudicated throughout the 19th Century, the Second Ammendment was strictly a prohibition against the Federal Government. States were allowed restrictive gun laws if they so chose. Heller now, at least affirms, that the states cannot abridge the Second Ammendment in regards to arms in common use. But it still leaves the door open for state restrictions of other types of weapons. Which is why I also asked Jim, and he didn't answer, if he thought the Constitution, as it was written, placed the issue of gun control under state jurisdiction or Federal. Which is why I also asked you why you thought the Constitution made it impossible to implement The Specialist's suggestions on gun regulation.

So, under what Constitutional provision, enumeration, whatever, does the Federal Government have the power to legislate individual gun ownership? And if the answer is the Commerce Clause, or General Welflare Clause, that is mostly the kind of non-sensensical, muddied-up "interpretation" that has pretty much made the Constitution a toy for judges rather than a structure of government, and is the type of "interpretation" that Madison referred to when he said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment should be thrown into the fire at once."

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't think it addressed Federal regulations in light of the Second Ammendment.

Heller settled the "fundamental right" question, at least for self-defense. This determines the level of scrutiny applied to contested law.

Originally Posted by detbuch

Originally, and as it was adjudicated throughout the 19th Century, the Second Ammendment was strictly a prohibition against the Federal Government. States were allowed restrictive gun laws if they so chose. Heller now, at least affirms, that the states cannot abridge the Second Ammendment in regards to arms in common use.

McDonald v Chicago in 2010 finally applied the 2nd Amendment to the states via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment (Incorporation). The primary outcome of Heller was the invalidation of the "militia right" and "state's right" perversions inserted into the federal courts in 1942 by the First and Third Circuits. This ended 70 years of lower federal and state courts being off the rails and forced them into the constitutional holding that SCOTUS has consistently held for the right to arms for 170 years.

Originally Posted by detbuch

But it still leaves the door open for state restrictions of other types of weapons.

"Type" of weapon is of vital importance to answering the question of what restrictions are constitutional. I addressed this a ways back.

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Governments can only claim power to restrict "dangerous or unusual' arms. But . . . government does not get to begin its action presuming the arm is "dangerous and unusual" because it doesn't think the citizens have any good reason to own it, or it isn't used in hunting (i.e., the present idiotic "Assault Weapons" ban hoopla).

The Supreme Court in 1939 established the criteria for courts (and presumably legislatures ) to determine if an arm is afforded 2nd Amendment protection.

If the type of arm meets any one of them then it cannot be deemed 'dangerous and unusual' and the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and any authority claimed by government to restrict its possession and use is repelled.

Those criteria state that to be protected by the 2nd Amendment the arm must be:

• A type in common use at the present time and/or
• A type usually employed in civilized warfare / that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or
• A type that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

Failing ALL those tests, the arm could then and only then be argued to be "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be permitted to argue that a legitimate power to restrict that type of arm should be afforded .

"Dangerous and Unusual" is what's left after the protection criteria are all applied and all fail . . . Think of it as legal Scrapple . . .

Originally Posted by detbuch

Which is why I also asked Jim, and he didn't answer

That seems to be a common theme here among those who are proposing sweeping gun control (at least when one is discussing the Constitution and the law 1, 2, 3, . . . assorted red herrings and tangential diversions into the weeds are engaged with enthusiasm though).

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, under what Constitutional provision, enumeration, whatever, does the Federal Government have the power to legislate individual gun ownership?

There is none.

No power was ever granted to the federal government to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen and in fact, the private citizen and his personal arms are twice removed from any Congressional "militia" authority.

People forget (purposely I think) what the framers considered the nature of our rights to be . . . To them, rights were "exceptions of powers never granted" . . . essentially the "great residuum" of everything not conferred to government. It was asked, why add a "bill of rights" to a specific, clearly defined "bill of powers"?

The Federalists argued emphatically against adding a bill of rights; to them a bill of rights was considered a redundant and dangerous absurdity.

A bill of rights "would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"

Of course the Federalists "lost" the debate over adding a bill of rights but the 9th and 10th Amendments stand as testament to the universally accepted status of their arguments.

Originally Posted by detbuch

And if the answer is the Commerce Clause, or General Welflare Clause, that is mostly the kind of non-sensensical, muddied-up "interpretation" that has pretty much made the Constitution a toy for judges rather than a structure of government, and is the type of "interpretation" that Madison referred to when he said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment should be thrown into the fire at once."

But it is precisely that kind of invented powers that the left needs and rests its arguments on.

Now it is being threatened that gun control measures will be "enacted" through Executive Order.

Are these Constitutional idiots really that stupid?

Can any supporter of this administration explain how gun control can be "enacted" by EO?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Heller was a chip in the right direction. It addressed gun ownership in light of the Second Ammendment, not the Commerce Clause. I don't think it addressed Federal regulations in light of the Second Ammendment.

Originally, and as it was adjudicated throughout the 19th Century, the Second Ammendment was strictly a prohibition against the Federal Government. States were allowed restrictive gun laws if they so chose. Heller now, at least affirms, that the states cannot abridge the Second Ammendment in regards to arms in common use. But it still leaves the door open for state restrictions of other types of weapons. Which is why I also asked Jim, and he didn't answer, if he thought the Constitution, as it was written, placed the issue of gun control under state jurisdiction or Federal. Which is why I also asked you why you thought the Constitution made it impossible to implement The Specialist's suggestions on gun regulation.

So, under what Constitutional provision, enumeration, whatever, does the Federal Government have the power to legislate individual gun ownership? And if the answer is the Commerce Clause, or General Welflare Clause, that is mostly the kind of non-sensensical, muddied-up "interpretation" that has pretty much made the Constitution a toy for judges rather than a structure of government, and is the type of "interpretation" that Madison referred to when he said "If not only the means but the objects are unlimited, the parchment should be thrown into the fire at once."

It's interesting that in demanding an answer you refuse, in advance, to accept the proper one.

That the Commerce Clause has been subject to liberal interpretation isn't really the issue...it is what it is...and there's a massive body of legislative interpretation that is now part of our society. Even in Heller the most conservative members of the SCOTUS appear by my reckoning to affirm the Federal Government's power to regulate firearms with some limits.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"the best that you(Jim) can do is argue the merits that you might reduce body count."

I agree. All I can do is say we "might" reduce the body count, and certainly not by much, because most gun deaths are typical street crime with handguns. I never intended to suggest otherwise.

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim,
The difference is, you are one of the few on this board that I assume have seen first hand what these weapons do to a human. I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have....

Lets start simple. Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?[/QUOTE]"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?

"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.[/QUOTE]

Here in ma they do background checks .
Seems to be working out swell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;978783

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

[/QUOTE]

follow your own logic Jim..if banning certain rifles and magazine capacities might have reduced the number of deaths(provided he didn't opt for more handguns and perhaps the shotgun that was in the trunk or decided to be less thorough on his targets)...and you seem to support that notion...then.....banning all weapons similar to what he used and magazines might have prevented all of the deaths...no???...surely you aren't going to argue for one and reject the other