Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumAll gun owners aren't created equal, nor should they be treated equally
Good. It is a non-winnable war.
Perhaps that makes us all safer in the long run. Our guns – lots of them -- are what protect us from our neighbors and our government, right? It's what the founders envisioned -- a "well-regulated militia," loosely translated as a well-armed citizenry. And in these times of economic and political stress, I'm hard-pressed to criticize the American tradition of clinging to guns or religion.
But we're having the wrong debate. The debate should not be about keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans. It should be about keeping them out of the hands of criminals and mentally disabled people. It should be partly about whether military-style assault weapons are covered by what the framers of the Constitution had in mind for their well-armed militia.
http://www.cleveland.com/morris/index.ssf/2012/10/all_gun_owners_arent_created_e.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)"It remains a continuing source of frustration for me to witness the weakness and the impotence of the gun control lobby and those who sympathize with them. Gun enthusiasts and Second Amendment purists have taken complete ownership of the domestic arms race, leaving us without a much-needed genuine debate and resulting compromise."
And that debate, despite protestations to the contrary, is about yet more gun-control. The writer continues to push for bans on the dreaded "assault weapon," despite evidence that this weapon type is used in less than 3% of all gun homicides. And he continues to frame the debate as "stopping gun violence."
The debate, one would hope, should be about crime rates and the best ways to lessen further violent crime. The debate does NOT pro forma begin with some sort of gun control. He sees a "domestic arms race owned by purists." No, Second Amendment defenders own the terms of the DEBATE, terms set by the gun-controllers to begin with.
He wants to change the debate terms, but he doesn't want to change the debate terms.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)"But we're having the wrong debate. The debate should not be about keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding Americans. It should be about keeping them out of the hands of criminals and mentally disabled people. It should be partly about whether military-style assault weapons are covered by what the framers of the Constitution had in mind for their well-armed militia. "
I think the most important part of the article though is:
"The problem with the gun control debate, of course, remains its poor framing as a public policy issue. It never should have been about controlling the majority of firearms. That's not going to happen.
The debate is really about controlling criminals and the violent mentally ill. That's where common ground must be found in this nation's losing war on guns. "
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Did you read it? Do you understand his point?
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)BTW, his "point" is to return to a rather standard-issue gun-control debate, though he seems more interested in keep crud bags from getting guns, somewhat re-freshing.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)There is only one way to cut off the sale of firearms to insane people and criminals:
You have to regulate private sales.
This is extremely difficult to do at the federal level because the federal government cannot interfere with intra-state commerce. What that means is that while they can regulate the sale of firearms between people across state lines, they cannot regulate the sale of firearms between people in the same state.
One way this could be tackled is through a Constitutional Amendment. Another way could be to offer federal incentive money to get the states to do it themselves.
Politically, the problem with regulating private sales, in addition to commercial sales which are already regulated, is that it has the potential to eliminate firearm ownership anonymity. Right now whenever you buy a firearm through a dealer your information is submitted to the federal government for a background check. Supposedly this information is not kept, but in this era of pervasive domestic surveillance not many people believe that. Which means that if you buy a firearm through a commercial dealer, you are now known to the federal government as a probable firearm owner.
Private sales are what give us an out. Because private sales are untracked in most states, if the federal government ever came looking for your guns you could always claim that you sold them privately, and there would be nothing anyone could say differently.
If we force all private sales to go through a government inspection, then this ability will be lost, and the government will have a list of all firearm owners. This is not acceptable.
One way to avoid this problem is to issue Firearm Owner ID licenses like Illinois does. Except instead of being opt-in, which creates a list of firearm owners (only firearm owners would bother getting one), make it opt-out. Any time anyone applies for a driver's license or state-issued ID, run them through NICS and give them a FOID, unless they opt out.
Because not everyone with an FOID actually owns firearms, this preserves anonymous firearm ownership.
Why should firearm owners support this? There is a very significant "carrot" to get them to do so. Right now it is basically not worth shopping on the internet for firearms, because even if you find a better deal on a firearm in another state, you will have to have it shipped through an FFL to receive it, so that they can run the background check. This "transfer fee" as it is called, usually runs between $25 and $50, which negates any savings you might find on deals on firearms.
But if you have an FOID, then the whole idea of having to have a background check to receive a firearm is rendered moot - you already have had a background check to get the FOID. As a result, people would be able to buy firearms over the internet and have them delivered to their homes, which now opens up a national marketplace for competition for firearm sales.
If we don't regulate private sales, it's pretty much a waste of time to regulate commercial ones. Anyone who wants to buy a gun need only open their local classified ad newspaper, make a phone call, and pay cash on the barrel for a firearm.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)with having universal NICS testing were getting the states to enact "model" legislation (it is the states' individual purvue), record keeping and disposal, cost, and the obvious desire for controllers/prohibitionists to get hold of these records and make them into an ipso facto gun registry.
The Illinois plan seems to meet many of these objections and it may be a good one. How has it worked out there? Is there opposition? Criticism?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The Illinois plan seems to meet many of these objections and it may be a good one. How has it worked out there? Is there opposition? Criticism?
Getting the states to go along is the biggest hurdle. Without a Constitutional amendment, the federal government cannot regulate the sale of private property within a state.
This could be handled with federal grant money whereby if states don't enact the legislation they will miss out on the money.
There will be a cost associated with creating FOIDs and keeping track of and revoking them from people convicted of disqualifying crimes or mental conditions.
There should be no records to get ahold of because even if you have a list of all FOID holders if the system is opt-out then there is no guarantee that someone with an FOID actually owns firearms.
I think the Illinois plan is fine, except it is opt-in, instead of opt-out. By being opt-in, it creates a registry of firearm owners.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Berserker
(3,419 posts)the brown holster oh dear Christ.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Everyone knows ... your belt, holster, and shoes should be the same colour.
And no -- I repeat, NO -- white holsters after Labour Day.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You wouldn't want gun oil all over your dress shirt.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)Last edited Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:39 AM - Edit history (1)
Seriously.
Keeping guns our of the hands of the prohibited and not the law abiding is the common theme in NRA and other RKBA supporters.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)The NRA lobbies to pass legislation which weakens gun laws and lowers the threshold for citizens to obtain weapons.
If the NRA were lobbying to require background checks for all gun sales and regulate multiple gun sales that feed the black market, your claim might be credible.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)...for obtaining a firearm.
I have not heard any NRA effort to reduce or remove form 4473 criteria?
From your next sentence "If the NRA were lobbying to require background checks for all gun sales and regulate multiple gun sales that feed the black market, your claim might be credible." it appears your beef is that the NRA doesn't lobby to increase the threshold.
Of course there are examples of the NRA working to improve the existing screening methods (as your OP article supports).
That's what took place Wednesday when the House, by voice vote, passed a gun control bill that Rep. Dingell, D-Mich., helped broker between the NRA and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y.
With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.
"We'll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn't have guns," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Atkisson.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-2923101.html
Again, thank you for supporting an NRA talking point.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Richmond, Virginia— The National Rifle Association (NRA) is calling on its membership to help repeal a 1989 law that created the Virginia Firearms Transaction Program (VFTP). A state-of-the-art database that is second to none in the nation, the VFTP works in conjunction with the FBI’s National Instant Background Checks System (NICS) to check the background of those purchasing firearms in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Under federal law, a background check is required on any individual who purchases a firearm(s) from a federally-licensed firearms dealer. This system allows authorities to deny the sale of firearms to persons who are prohibited under federal law from buying them (i.e., convicted felons, those adjudicated mentally ill by a court, individuals who are the subject of an active restraining order, etc.).
In an August 18 alert to its members, the NRA described the VFTP as “obsolete and unnecessary.” The truth, however, is that the VFTP is indispensable. Not only does it provide a more thorough check than NICS would alone, but it also saves time for law-abiding Virginia residents who purchase firearms.
http://vacps.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=77:nra-seeks-to-weaken-background-check-system-in-virginia&catid=36:posts
I can't find any evidence that the bill in the example you provided was ever passed. There is no Bill # mentioned.
House Bill Provisions Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2009 - Amends the federal criminal code to make it unlawful for any person to operate a gun show unless such person:[6]
(1) has attained 21 years of age;
(2) is not prohibited from transporting, shipping, or receiving firearms and has not violated any federal firearms requirements;
(3) has registered with the Attorney General as a gun show operator and has provided a photograph and fingerprints;
(4) has not concealed material information nor made false statements in connection with a gun show operator registration; and
(5) notifies the Attorney General of the date, time, and duration of a gun show not later than 30 days before the commencement of such show and verifies the identity of each vendor at the gun show. Imposes recordkeeping requirements on gun show operators and criminal penalties for failure to register as a gun show operator and maintain required records. Grants the Attorney General authority to enter the business premises of any gun show operator, without a showing of reasonable cause or a warrant, to examine records and inventory to determine compliance with this Act. Increases criminal penalties for serious recordkeeping violations and violations of criminal background check requirements. Authorizes the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to hire additional investigators to carry out inspections of gun shows.
Senate Bill Provisions Gun Show Background Check Act of 2009 - Amends the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act to require registration of gun show promoters and to set forth the responsibilities of promoters, licensees, and other transferors. Provides that if any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a gun show, each licensed importer, manufacturer, and dealer who transfers one or more firearms to a person who is not licensed shall, within 10 days after the transfer, submit a report of the transfer to the Attorney General. Sets forth penalties for violations. Grants the Attorney General authority to enter the place of business of any gun show promoter and any place where a gun show is held, during business hours and without a showing of reasonable cause or a warrant, for purposes of examining records and the inventory of licensees conducting business to determine compliance with this Act. Increases penalties for:
(1) serious record-keeping violations by licensees; and
(2) violations of criminal background check requirements.[7]
This legislation is strongly opposed by gun owner's rights groups, such as the National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Show_Loophole_Closing_Act_of_2009#Provisions
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)The NRA's stance is that is obsolete and unnecessary. Perhaps that was smoke for actually reducing thresholds.
And the second example resistance against increasing the threshold.
rDigital
(2,239 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)"You will receive Medicare after you receive disability benefits for 24 months. When you become eligible for disability benefits, we will automatically enroll you in Medicare. We start counting the 24 months from the month you were entitled to receive disability, not the month when you received your first check. "
It's not about controlling guns, it's about controlling the criminals and mentally ill.
Good job.
