The disarming of America

[Union Label]

I had the same thought about locking up all the hunters guns in a central armory and I posted here a while back but I was shouted down by the gun mongers.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070425/OPINION04/704250310/0/OPINION
Article published Wednesday, April 25, 2007
The disarming of America


Dan Simpson, a retired diplomat, is a member of the editorial boards of The Blade and Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.




LAST week's tragedy at Virginia Tech in which a mentally disturbed person gunned down 32 of America's finest - intelligent young people with futures ahead of them - once again puts the phenomenon of an armed society into focus for Americans.

The likely underestimate of how many guns are wandering around America runs at 240 million in a population of about 300 million. What was clear last week is that at least two of those guns were in the wrong hands.

When people talk about doing something about guns in America, it often comes down to this: "How could America disarm even if it wanted to? There are so many guns out there."

[Joanne98]

1. Ten years ago I was for gun control but 6 years of Bush changed my mind.

Another thing that changed my mind was the rise of the private prison. The police state is sooo far out of control. Now I think EVERYBODY should have a gun.

[enid602]

3. guns

But guns in citizens' hands aren't bringing the regime down; information and activism are.

[Joanne98]

7. Yeah. But just in cast I&A doesn't work! Keep the gun!

[rsdsharp]

16. It didn't take me six years.

I bought my first handgun largely as a result of John Ashcroft having been made attorney general -- and this was AFTER 9/11 when the chimp was being treated a a minor deity. Little did I know how bad it would become. I knew I didn't want just the wingers to have guns when it hit the fan.

The proposal to disarm everybody but hunters is unworkable. You can't just wave a hand and tell people you've outlawed the guns they bought legally. The second amendment aside, the government would have to BUY them under the fifth amendment, and not for $50 a pop as in voluntary local buy back programs. It would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to buy the guns at fair market value -- and that's without taking into consideration litigation costs when the parties can't agree on what's fair.

Advocating blanket neighborhood sweeps scares the hell out of me, even moreso when advocated by a liberal. No probable cause, no warrant, just search every house in the search area. And you'd better rip the houses apart, because those pesky guns are easy to hide in walls and under floors. I realize this Supreme Court has litle use for the fourth amendment, but it might be a little different if it was gun owners who were the target.

The simple fact is that had Cho's mental history been in the instant check system, he would not have been able to buy his weapons legally, and VT probably wouln't have happened.

[karlrschneider]

20. And it's easy to bury one in a protective bag. Would they dig up every square inch

of land too?
Nutty, frightening and impossible.
:grr:

[Vexatious Ape]

114. I'm with you on that.

Here's a thought: The Right wing has to absolutely love the fact that liberals/leftists/progressives what every we call ourselves, are generally known to be un freaking armed. Aggressively unarmed.

[ComerPerro]

122. Yeah, cause you and five buddies can fight off the US Army

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

2. You want my gun?

Come get it.

[Trajan]

97. What is your address again ?

J/K

[SteppingRazor]

4. Some problems with this.

First, I don't think that hunters should be the only ones allowed to have guns. If guns are banned, then guns are banned. Period.

Second, there's this:
"The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm."

I can't even begin to describe how horribly, awfully un-American that idea is. Suffice to say, it destroys not just the 2nd amendment, but also the 1st, 4th, 5th, and possibly several more.

[Union Label]

8. I'm not on board

With the searching part either. But other than that it looks pretty good and would bring down the frequency of all these shootings.

[JuniperLea]

10. Proper mental health care would do the same

And help a lot of other people to boot.

[SteppingRazor]

15. I gotta agree with this. Restoration of the federally funded mental health care lost under Reagan...

plus proper enforcement of existing laws would do a lot to prevent these tragedies while also preserving the rights of the people and avoiding the nightmarish, police-state scenario called for by the author of this piece.

[JuniperLea]

60. True

I am shocked at seeing so many blind eyes turned toward that nightmare. It's the same old story... pull at the heartstrings of a group and then cram a poison pill down their throats while they are screaming.

[Cha]

99. It only makes sense..they should be

talking about "mental health" instead of only guns.

I don't have one but I wouldn't want guns taken away from everyone except bushits' crazed army.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. No! No! No! If you take their guns, the bogeyman will eat them!

And, the idea of storing them in an armory until needed makes far too much sense.

[SteppingRazor]

14. Kind of a weird sentiment given your screenname, no?

:shrug:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. How so?

Land and Freedom? What has that to do with guns and paranoia?

[Threedifferentones]

129. You're right Tierra_y_Libertad, your name and your position on guns mesh very well

After all the Mexican Revolution was a non-violent one that...oh wait...

[karlrschneider]

18. If you think for one second I'd let the fascists keep MY guns locked up in THEIR

building, you're delusional.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Got a lot of fascist taking guns in neighborhood?

[karlrschneider]

42. Not yet but there's no shortage of those who sure would like to start.

Including some DUers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Rest easy. There isn't the political will to ban guns in this country.

The politicians aren't about to stick their necks out to get the guns out of the hands of lunatics, drunks, kids, and the all-powerful money of the NRA.

[jmg257]

45. I KEEP telling gunnies - all those donations pay off! Thanks for the reinforcement - I get worried.

[baldguy]

6. Register every gun, license every gun owner.

[slackmaster]

33. Follow every rainbow, 'til you find your dream

[spoony]

65. That won't stop a suicidal madman with no criminal record n/t

[MLFerrell]

107. "Register every gun, license every gun owner."

And make it that much easier for the "decider" to disarm his enemies when he declares martial law?

No thank you.

[SteveM]

116. Why? What is your goal? How would it be accomplished?

[JuniperLea]

9. It will never happen

Seems to me too much time is being wasted on things that will never happen. This is far too drastic a measure and it will never fly. Trying to make severe changes only infuriates everyone, not only the gun owners. Anything other than baby steps is pure lunacy, imho.

[gratuitous]

11. Sometimes . . .

Sometimes in order to advance a baby step, someone has to make the giant leap argument.

[slackmaster]

50. I wonder what "baby step" Jonathan Swift was thinking of in A Modest Proposal

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1080

[aikoaiko]

12. Joseph Stalin? Is that you?

Directed at Dan Simpson, the author of the horrific piece.

[karlrschneider]

13. That asshole is batshit fucking nuts.

He thinks people will turn in their guns to the gestapo? Fat fucking chance.
:grr:

[flamin lib]

17. I’m gonna’ try this again.

1.Gun purchasing must be a federal matter. Law applies equally in all states.

2.Step one is mandatory training before buying to include use, security, liability and responsibility of ownership.

3.Issue a license to buy after training and interviewing family and friends/neighbors of the licensee and psycology profile.

4.Maintain national database for background check to include any mental health issues as well as criminal records. Large fines for not updating the database on a timely basis.

5.Register every gun by serial number to the purchaser. Must be transferred to any new owner through a licensed firearms dealer. Purchases updated to the National Database.

6.Should licensee change status for ownership, authorities will confiscate guns with just compensation or take custody of them under temporary circumstances.

7.Gun owners have six months to comply with the law once the database is established. Large fines and jail for non compliance.

8.Any gun used in a crime or recovered without a licensed owner will be destroyed.

[karlrschneider]

19. I'd accept 1, 2, 3 & 8. 4 is more or less in place now but isn't handled well.

As for the others, no way.

[flamin lib]

23. Nope, 4 is not in place. Only a few states require mental status

in the database.

5. is also in place, but the records are stored in the gunstore and not uploaded to the national records unless the store's license is inactavated.

6. so you think that if a licensed owner commits a felony or is diagnosed with schitzoaffective disorder (s)he should just keep their guns?

7. should such a system be implimented, what would by your timeframe and incentive to comply with the law? We all know how law abiding gun owners are . . .

[slackmaster]

30. Item 4 is covered by FEDERAL law

It's there, but reporting from the states is not consistent so the federal database is incomplete.

[flamin lib]

37. I concede the point, however it remains that reporting is not being done.

An unenforced or unenforceable law is not a law.

[Irreverend IX]

78. Why!?

Licensing and registration make confiscation much easier. It's happened in Chicago, New York and other places already. How would you enforce mandatory training before purchase without registration of some kind? Most CCW licenses require training, which is well and good, but doing it for all buyers is too much.

And who will pay for all the psychological profiling? How will the government ensure that the profiling is done in a fair and even-handed manner? Imagine a gay guy in a red area who wants to CCW so he can dissuade would-be bashers. What if the profiler is a fundie who brands him as mentally disturbed for some trumped-up reason, nullifying his RKBA?

I support the full integration of mental health records with NICS, but the other measures that have been proposed are way too ripe for abuse.

[flamin lib]

86. Just in case you're still following

I'd fund the system with use taxes (fees for training, ammunition fee etc).

Why everybody? Because all people are not law abiding, some of them cc without a license and some of them are just nutz.

Why registration? Because otherwise there is no way to close the gun show and newspaper ad loophole.

Why federal? Because what is leagl in Texas affects what happens in Chicago. It would also prevent Chicago from confiscating guns from "law abiding" citizens.

Every time something like VT happens legislation is passed in the heat of the moment, usually bad legislation. This makes for a patchwork of, sometimes, conflicting laws.

[piedmont]

21. What on earth is your reasoning for #8? nt

[flamin lib]

25. Guns used in crimes or not accountable to a licensed owner should

be taken out of circulation to decrease the shear number of guns and therefore the opportunity to avoid legal ownership.

[treelogger]

77. That's senseless

I can legally go to a gun store, and buy a gun. I do that occasionally. I mostly buy used guns.

Say the police confiscate an illegally own gun. I'm all in favor of that. I'm also in favor of very harshly punishing people who possess or use illegally owned guns. They should also go do considerable length to find out how that gun got into the illegal black market. If a person legally owned it, and then deliberately introduced it into the black market (by selling it under the table), that person should also have the book thrown at them. Again, this doesn't happen much today.

But if the gun was not deliberately introduced into the black market, and instead was stolen from its legal owner, the police should try to return it to the owner, where possible.

Now, can you explain what policy purpose would be served by destroying the gun? Instead, law enforcement could sell them legally, and make a tidy profit on them. After all, many new and used guns are available legally today; destroying a few here and there serves no purpose, other than to waste goverment dollars.

Please elaborate on the justification of your proposal. In particular in view of the fact that the second half of the sentence (opportunity to avoid legal ownership?) seems gramatically scrambled.

[flamin lib]

87. In case you're still following . . .

YOU: But if the gun was not deliberately introduced into the black market, and instead was stolen from its legal owner, the police should try to return it to the owner, where possible.

ME: Okay, we're getting into minutia here. How can anyone on DU present a proposal that would cover several hundred pages? Obviously your suggestion would be perfectly reasonable and no doubt be debated and included. How about in the future say, "I can live with yada yada but how about we address blah blah?" instead of getting your shorts in a wad?

YOU: Now, can you explain what policy purpose would be served by destroying the gun?

ME: There are conservatively speaking 240,000,000 guns in the U.S. Probably a lot more. Unless there is some reason to return a gun to circulation (your suggestion re stolen above) removing it would decrease the availability of guns to all markets, legitimate and black. Oh, but that makes guns more expensive! Yeah and a better investment, more valuable and possibly more desirable. I just don't see the need to have more guns in circulation than there are people capable of using them. The larger an inventory is the more difficult it is to control it.

My chief complaint is that control laws are passed in the heat of the moment following an incident like VT. Extreme cases make bad law. We currently have bad law. Scrap the whole thing and design something that works. Tweak it if necessary.

[treelogger]

110. Still following, and enjoying the debate

Don't worry, I'm not getting my shorts in a wad. But I think that it is important to discuss minutiae. Because one man's minutiae might very well be another man's important distinction.

Allow me to take your and my proposal, and rephrase them, somewhat exaggerated to make a point (yes, I know that you didn't actually propose the exaggerated version).

You: Anytime the police gets hold of a gun, let's destroy it. There are too many guns.

Me: If someone loses a gun through no fault of their own, let's return it to them if possible. You can't penalize someone for doing everything legally.

Why is this an important distinction? Because there is a deep underlying distinction in the second sentence of each point. You are against guns in general, and their large number. I disagree. On the other hand, I'm an extremely strong believer in due process, and a legal system that is based on a small number of principles, which could be quickly summarized as "fairness". This might be because I got my (little bit of) legal education in the German legal system.

====================================================
Changing the discussion to another topic: In the 2nd half of the post, you again argue that law enforcement should destroy guns, to reduce the number of guns in circulation. I think this is a fallacy.

Let's get a realistic example. You go to a gun store, wanting to buy a Glock 17 (they are very good pistols, reliable compact and accurate, unfortunately recently associated with a desastrous event). In the display case you find a factory-fresh one for $500, and next to it a used one with signs of wear but mechanically in great shape for $400 (the prices are quite realistic). You might decide to buy the new one, because it has the factory warranty, doesn't look worn, and you can be sure that the previous owner didn't screw it up ,and you don't want to have to deal with fixing wear and tear. You might decide to buy the used one, because $100 is real money, which will pay for a nice dinner with your SO, or will pay for a lot of ammo to practice with, or might make for a nice donation to the charity of your choice. And you know that cosmetic wear is irrelevant, that it is darn-near impossible to significantly damage a Glock, and you have pretty good gunsmithing skills and can replace worn parts quite cheaply. Both decisions might be perfectly reasonable, depending on your budget, skills, tastes, and so on. But it doesn't actually matter one iota whether the previous owner of the used gun was a little old lady in Pasadena who only used it around the house, or whether it spend a decade on the belt of the local deputy, or whether the police took it from a gang-banger in Watts and then sent him to Folsom state prison for a decade. To the buyer, only price and condition of the gun matter (exception emotional attachments, I know people who like to buy used guns from retiring law enforcement, good karma, whatever turns them on). In the end, you will buy one Glock, used or new, and the number of Glocks in circulation will increase by +1. So not selling the one taken off the street or confiscated from a criminal or madman makes no difference, other than the local police department having $400 less in their budget. Note that this argument doesn't involve at all how many guns are in circulation, whether you already have a few guns, and whether you are capable of using it; it only assumes that you walk into the gun store wanting a G17.

Now, one could argue that selling used guns taken from crime etc. increases the supply of used guns, thereby lowers the price, thereby making guns more accessible. There are two things wrong with this argument. The first is: There are so many guns around, and so many of them are bought and sold (hopefully the vast majority legally), that the few guns that are confiscated lawfully by police make nearly no difference.

Second, what you are really saying is that guns should be more expensive, because then fewer people would have guns, which you consider a good thing. I agree that it would be good if fewer people *** who are likely to commit crimes and violence *** had guns, and those aspects are highly correlated with socio-economic status, meaning poor people shouldn't have guns. But this argument is horribly classist, racist, and elitist, and I refuse to make it. We can debate what the prerequisites for gun ownership should be (and I think the two of us mostly agree). But "net worth" should not be one of them. The problem with Mr. Cho was not that he was a poor student; the problem with him was (1) that he was a nutcase, (2) whose nuttiness was not handled appropriately by society as a whole and by the Virginia legal system in particular, that (3) he legally had a gun and knew how to shoot, and finally (4) that he committed his crimes in an environment that is most suited for the crime to turn into a terrible desaster. Our society can't address items (1) and (3) (we can't make mental illness illegal, and we should not make gun ownership and shooting illegal), but we can try to to address (2) and (4).

[-..__...]

22. It's bad enough that the current administration and it's followers...

are tearing apart the Constitution and shitting all over it.

Now some on the left apparently feel left out and want to join in on the fun.

It's gonna be a fun ride the day any of your 8 point plan comes to fruition... trust me on that one.

[flamin lib]

26. Most of it is in place right now, it's just a mismash of state and federal

laws which aren't enforceable for a number of reasons.

Other than that the cold dead fingers approach works for me.

edit to add:

Constitution does not guarantee an individual right--flame on it makes no difference. Wrong is wrong regardless of how fervent the belief.

[aikoaiko]

44. "Constitution does not guarantee an individual right"

Have you read the Parker v. DC ruling yet?

Here's the summary.

[flamin lib]

62. Okay, if rkba is an individual right in the consitution, why can

localities limit it? Washington D.C. can't constitutionally legislate against equal protection under the law and can't prevent Republicans from voting. Why can this one single "right" be regulated by entities as small as cities?

[aikoaiko]

67. now you getting the implication....it might be that DC shouldn''t be banning handguns.

We shall see. SCOTUS has avoided 2nd Amendment cases, but Parker may force them to.

[flamin lib]

75. The NRA has avoided this for a long time. I've got a feeling that

this will be the NRA's worst nightmare should it go to the Supremes. With rare exception and only on narrow terms has the SCOTUS ruled unfavorably to the "well regulated militia" clause.

If it goes before the Supremes I think, and frankly hope, they will look at the term "arms" along with the word "people" when they make the decision.

[aikoaiko]

80. What SCOTUS rulings are you talking about?

And what do you mean "look at the terms 'arms' along with the word 'people'"

Its pretty clear that the founders intended the 2nd to allow average men (i.e., not soldiers) to show up for militia service with functioning arms suitable for war and self-defense (well-regulated). SCOTUS even said so in Miller. Perhaps you disagree.

[flamin lib]

88. In case you're still following

I'm not going down that Yada Yada vs Blah Blah trail. I'm not a constitutional scholar, don't know 'bout you. I do know that the NRA isn't that comfortable making a case for individual rights otherwise they'd challenge the tens of thousands of gun control laws that vary so widely from locality to locality. They have studiously avoided finding and supporting cases to challenge the militia clause. There're some, I grant you, but all in all the NRA is awfully quiet.

I say "arms" because if, as you say, "Its pretty clear that the founders intended the 2nd to allow average men (i.e., not soldiers) to show up for militia service with functioning arms suitable for war and self-defense (well-regulated)," it would indicate "arms" sufficient to challenge an invader or even the government. If that is the intent, "arms" means a lot more than guns. Guns aren't much of a match for tanks, helicopters and such, ask David Koresch. Think it's legal to purchase a fully functioning and armed attack helicoper? That interpretation would certainly support the private ownership of Hellfire missiles.

No point in continuing in this vein--I said/you said gets nothing but heat without light. You've been most civil and I thank you for that on this most emotional topic.

edit grammer

[treelogger]

111. The 2nd amendment is not so easy for the NRA to use

You suggest that "the NRA isn't that comfortable making a case for individual rights otherwise they'd challenge the tens of thousands of gun control laws that vary so widely from locality to locality."

In the context of the recent Parker decision, this has been discussed to death. There are good reasons that the NRA and several other gun rights organizations have waited several decades to push a high-profile 2nd amendment case. The biggie is this one. The vast bulk of gun control law is state law. And the vast bulk of that state gun control law that is found overly restrictive by gun rights advocates is in states (such as CA, IL, MA or NJ) which do not have a RKBA clause in their state constitution. And the 2nd amendment does not automatically apply to state law! It takes the 14th amendment to make one of the other rights from the BoR to actually apply to state and local law. And while it is abudantly clear that the 14th amendment applies to the 1st and 4th one, there has never been a test case in front of the supreme court that says that it applies to the 2nd amendment.

There are conflicting federal appeals court decisions on whether the 2nd amendment is an individual rights or a states' right. If my memory serves me right, the 2nd and 5th circuits have ruled in favor of individual rights, while the 9th circuit has ruled in favor of states' right. But precedent from one circuit doesn't usually apply in other circuits. Given that there is a circuit split, it seems likely that the next good test case (whether it is a pro-gun or anti-gun test case) would force the supremes to tackle the question; and I think most people would agree that clarification from the supreme court would be good, regardless of which way it goes.

So, the task at hand has been to find a good test case, in two respects: First, it can't be a state law. Unfortunately, federal gun law mostly is concerned with technical and regulatory issues like manufacturing, importation, and transfers; these laws are not broken spectacularly with interesting outcomes. And DC is the only place where there is gun law (a de-facto ban) without any state law in sight, with only federal jurisdiction.

Second, it is hard to get good test cases in criminal gun law for gun bans. Most defendants in gun cases tend to be criminals in other aspects, where the gun violation is an add-on to other behaviors. It is very rare to find an upstanding citizen, an example of high moral standards, who happens to break a gun law, and the gun law is of a nature that a vast majority of people would find objectionable. Those cases are either settled amicably (often by the DA dropping charges, in exchange for the defendant agreeing to voluntary confiscation), or are simply scuttled (example: The democratic aide of a Senator who was carrying a gun into the capitol recently had his charges dropped).

It took a long time to find a test-case which involved Washington DC gun law, with defendents that are perfect examples of "good people". The Parker case is just that: a perfect storm.

And note that even if the supreme court rules in favor of Parker, thereby affirming that the right to arms is an individual right, and full-on gun bans are unconstitutional, it will only directly affect the city of DC. If you listen to reasonable people on gun boards (as an example I suggest that you search www.calguns.net for posts by user hoffmang), you will find that the consensus is: After a positive decision on Parker, it will take another decade or two to find a perfect test case to take the 2nd amendment to a state law, and thereby demonstrate that the 14th amendment applies to the 2nd amendment, and state laws are also held to the standards of the bill of rights.

========================

As a side remark, the NRA has been pushing lots of lawsuits at the state and local level too. I'm most familiar with the situation in California here. The NRA helped along the Harrott suit, which made a hole the size of a barn door in the California AWB, and that in conjunction with the spectacular incompetence of the CA DoJ and of AG Lockyer's staff has made it so that AR-15 and AK-47-style rifles are once again freely available in the golden state. The NRA was also the lead in overturning San Francisco's handgun ban (proposition H), and is currently helping greatly in the Hunt lawsuit that is trying to demonstrate that all of the CA AWB is unconstitutionally vague, so complex as to be unenforcable, and therefore null and void.

=========================

Lastly, people always overestimate the importance of the 2nd amendment. Hard-core right wingnuts always beat on their chest and claim that it alone proves that all gun control law is wrong and unconstitutional. Gun rights activists always hope that a supreme court decision in favor of the 2nd amendment will make all gun control law go away. Gun control activists think that it is the most important thorn in their side, and therefore work on "creative" interpretations of it, such that it only applies to 18th century muskets, or only to the national guard. In reality, the 2nd amendment is of marginal importance to most gun control law. Thinking that it matters would be similar to thinking that the 1st amendment directly affects the DMCA, the patriot act, copyright and patent law, and warrantless wiretaps. Unfortunately, freedom of speech does not imply the right to decrypt speech that is encrypted, nor does it allow one to support terrorists through speech, it doesn't imply that anything that is said is also protectable intellectual property, and lastly: the fact that I can "speech" with you over the phone does not prevent the shrub and his minions from listening to our conversation.

[benEzra]

113. No, only arms that can be "kept and BORNE," i.e. small arms. (n/t)

[SteveM]

120. Parker decision was NOT a project of NRA, though they tried to glom on.

[SteveM]

119. According to Parker decision, D.C. in fact cannot.

Regulations on firearms fall under the same kind of rubric of regulations on other rights. Step over the boundary, and you violate an individual's right. What do you think of the argument: Washington D.C., isn't a state, so therefore it cannot enjoy the rights of a state (as in voting member of Congress)?

[SteveM]

117. Inoculating yourself. Read Laurence Tribe lately?

Tribe and most other constitutional scholars now concede (if they didn't recognize it before) that the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a state-regulated communitarian right. You seem to close your mind at very crucial times ("Wrong is wrong regardless of how fervent the belief.") This in turn undercuts the credibility of your other arguments. As to your list: (1), now conceded to be an individual right, is also protected by the 14th Amendment from action by the states to restrict 2A (agree); (4) Under federal law, this is already in place (agree). I would agree that guns used in a crime should be destroyed (I think most are), but if it is stolen from another, it should be returned to that owner. I agree partially with your notion of training, but for hunters, something done in most states now when guns are used for that purpose. However, knowing the experience with literacy tests in the South to "qualify" voters, I would oppose this for someone who is purchasing for other purposes.

[Union Label]

47. The left is NOT shitting on the Constitution

And the second amendment doesn't say you can have guns it says the militia can in defense of the common good.

[RL3AO]

52. That opinion is the minority in this country. n/t

[jmg257]

54. NOT EVEN CLOSE! there is NO "for the common defence" in the 2nd;

in fact, the 1st Congress - the Senate - REJECTED a motion to add that very phrase before they approved the article to be sent for the people for ratification.


A well-armed and well-trained militia is necessary, and THE Right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is protected - period!

[Union Label]

55. I realize that

"for the common defense" is not in there I ad libbed that sorry. But it should be.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

73. And sex on demand should be part of my marital contract, but it ain't.

B/C My wife has rights too.

[flamin lib]

90. The common defense clause is in the preamble.

The Preamble explains what the Constitution is to do, the Constitution itself lays down the rules for how to do it and the Amendments fine tune the powers of government, either limiting or granting. With that in mind, the Preamble is a very important part of the Constitution itself, probably equal to the Bill of Rights, but then I'm not a scholar in Constitutional Law.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution was not intended to limit governmental power, but to increase it. The Articles of Confederation were weak and ineffectual, hence the "more perfect union" language. How the "common defense" verbiage impinges on the 2nd is open to debate but still worthy of consideration don't you think?

edit to fix fat-finger syndrome

[jmg257]

95. No argument here - the militia is definitely part of the "common defence", as was one of their

specifically mandated roles ("repel invasions"). You will see their other mandated roles fit in nicely with the other points in the preamble too (establish justice = execute the laws, domestice tranquilitiy = suppress insurrections). The guarantee in the constitution for a republican form of govt also matches up well with "security of a free State". This is why "military equipment in common use" is supposed to be available to every American, since they ARE the militia referred to in the constitution. This was secured in the militia clauses in Article 1. Beyond their very important role in the militia, the people also have a very important individual right to self defense, including obviously an individual right to arms, as so plainly articulated and protected in the 2nd. Not all unalienable rights are enumerated - but this one certainly was. This meshes well with "and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".

[flamin lib]

98. In case you're still following*

*code to make my followup easier

Of the four "people" rights, the second is the only one with a qualifier.

The second does not mention self defense or sports.

It does mention "arms", not guns.

Point of interest: the founding fathers didn't keep minutes of the many hours of debates over the Bill or Rights. The only insight we have into those deliberation were some editorial writings. I think they did that out of pure frustration and to keep from killing each other (metaphorically speaking). I think the vagueness of some of the verbiage is deliberate to make the Constitution a living document capable of meaning different things at different times but sill keeping to a central theme of adversarial parties striving for what is best for the Union.

It's like the tension between Douglas Adams' philosophers and Deep Thought (the computer to divine the answer to life, the universe and everything). What's the point of all this thought and reasoning with each other if they just handed us a hard copy print out?

They WANTED us to argue about this shit! Kinda' sick on some level . . .

[jmg257]

102. Actually the Congress has very specific records on their debates, the HR anyway...

they are very interesting. The Senate was secret, though some details comes out in the "Journals"; the one guy (William Maclay) who kept a good diary was sick the days the article which became 2nd was debated!

You can see transitions of the proposals from Madison, to the final versions submitted to the people for ratification.

Not for nothing, but all their comments are a primary reason why I am quite sure what their intent was - private, individual rights in the BOR, including the 2nd.

Here are some links...

http://www.constitution.org/ac/001/r01-1/bill_of_rights_hr1789.htm

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch14s52.html

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwmj.html

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwaclink.html#anchor1

The best is the "Annals" and the "Journals", Gales and Seaton's History of Debates In Congress, see Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=51

You can see every page, and once you find the date/subject - read the entire proceedings. Amendments are from June through September of 1789.

Start here pg 795: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=399


Mr Scott objected to the clause in the 6th amendment "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to arms. He observed that if this becomes part if the constituion, such persons can neither be called upon for their service nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a Miltiia can never be depended on. This would lead to violation of another article in the constitution which secures the people the right of keeping arms {A1 S8 C15} and in this recourse must be had to a standing army.

Mr. Gerry: This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms

Mr. Gerry — Objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed: a well-regulated militia being the best security of a free state, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read "a well regulated militia, trained to arms," in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
....

[flamin lib]

105. In case you're still following

Thanks for the reading list, I'll add it to the other stuff I've read over the years.

Strict constructionist interpretation of what the FF meant and what was available at the time still leaves modern guns out of consideration. If "at the time" applies I'm down with that. Buy all the black powder and muzzle loaders ya' want. If you interpret it to mean arms comensurate with repelling a foreigh army, take it up with the DoD and lotsa' luck with that mobile rocket launcher and cluster munitions. Can't have it both ways.

Tell ya' what, I'm bored with this having done it for close to 30 years, so I'll just leave you with argument # 22 and sign off.

Thanks for the civil and considerate discourse, it's not easy to find on this topic.

[jmg257]

104. I think "living document" is because amendments are possible. There was NO DOUBT about the absolute

nature of the rights enumerated. These were the MOST important - to be among the few listed.

"Arms" is obvious, as the Acts preceding the constitution, and the one passed immediately after the BOR was approved (1792) in providing for the organization, arming and disciplining of the militia specifically mandated the people buy guns - muskets and pistols, and swords too. Cannon were privatley owned in many cases too.

[-..__...]

56. No... there's just shitting on the 2nd amendment.

Or what the right already hasn't shit upon.

It's like a "save some for me so I can shit on it too" mentality.

And the second amendment doesn't say you can have guns it says the militia can in defense of the common good.

Try again... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, does not confine the right to militia membership only, nor is it a "collective" right.

That is unless you also believe the "rights of the people" as stated in the 1st, 4th and 9th amendments
are also collective rights.

[piedmont]

58. How does a collective right to privacy work?

"the People" means YOU and ME, individually, in every amendment it's mentioned in.

[pipoman]

71. Really, you think that is what the Founding Fathers intent was? Really?

Amendment II

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.

If that is how you interpret the 2nd riddle me this Batman.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

How do you define "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" in A1?

Must you be assembling for religious reasons only for this right to apply? Is "the press" also tied to its freedom only when publishing religous materials?

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In what context did the founders mean "the people" in this Amendment?

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

What do you suppose the meaning is of these statements? Did the founders want and expect a liberal or conservative interpretation of all of the rights in the bill?

I chose these 4 Amendments because they are the only 4 with the word "people". Is the meaning of the 2nd still unclear?

[flamin lib]

94. Yeah, but the 2nd is the only one of the four with a qualifier. nt

[jmg257]

96. A declarative clause is not a qualifier, but a further recognition of the importance of the right,

and the recognition and necessity of the well-trained militia - being "the militia of the several states" of course - made up of the people, well-armed - with arms supplied by themselves of course - as always.

[flamin lib]

100. You say potato, I say pototo . . . I'm not a constitutional scholar.

Not much point in going farther along this line . . .

[jmg257]

103. No sweat - check above on the founders debates - good stuff! nt

[SteveM]

123. You can't utilize a constitutional argument, then claim ignorance.

Well, I guess you can, since you did. There is a lot of research on this topic that is quite understandable to average folks. Intent is very important here as is the structure of 2A. The militia clause is structured in a manner common for the day; in fact, some state constitutions use similar "qualifiers" for the enumeration of rights within those states. I note in the Miller case that definitions for militia were considered, esp. one which said that citizens were EXPECTED to report to militias (when necessary) bearing their OWN arms. This "BYOG" approach strongly implies that an individual right logically subsumes all other rights, communitarian or otherwise.

For your information, I am not a constitutional scholar either. I also gave, at one time, considerable credence to the "communitarian right" argument. That is, until I read for myself the intent of the framers as well as the grammatical structure of various rights. By the way, the 14th Amendment (1868) was in large measure an attempt to guarantee the rights of black to own arms in the Reconstruction Era South, by barring state actions against 2A; to wit, prohibiting gun ownership by blacks. Blacks were subject to attack by the various state militias, gangs and the Klan.

[pipoman]

106. Why wouldn't the Founders..

..have written the 2nd:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

If that is what they really meant?

[treelogger]

84. And who is the militia?

Look it up sometime.

At the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, the term "militia" was not tightly defined; it was assumed to simply be all the people who could be relied upon for defense (against enemies inside and outside).

Since the early 1900s, the term "militia" is actually defined. There are two types of militias: the organized ones (which are national guards and similar organisations), and the others, which simply consist of all able-bodies persons of reasonable age (the law still says "males", but in our gender-neutral word today that word probably should be interpreted differently).

To further understand that concept of militia, one has to go back to the intent of the 2nd amendment, as documented in the discussions that led up to it. The militia was designed to be able to defend the country, against enemies inside and outside, and in particular against unjust government. Given the recent experience of "King George" at that time (where I'm using that term as a keyword to describe a lot of mis-management of the American colonies by the British), the purpose of the militia was explicitly to guard against overbearing government.

Look at it this way: The 2nd amendment enables the people to defend themselves against the Shrub, the Governator, or Mr. Kucinich becoming all too powerful. Another way to phrase the same thought is in the following old joke: "Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box, use in this order." In this forum, we are still at the soap box stage. You can be sure that many members on this forum will use the ballot box to push their agendas (for example, I'd love to vote for a pro-gun pro-choice pro-privacy anti-authoritarian candidate, but such a candidate doesn't really exist). The jury box is used rarely in politics, but important examples exist (such as the Bush-v-Gore supreme court case on the occasion of the 2000 election). And the ammo box comes in surprisingly handy. Vietnam, Iraq and two rounds of Afghanistan (in the 1980s and today) demonstrate that a "people" armed mostly with small arms (rifles, pistols, small explosives) can engage, hold back, and eventually defeat a superpower. Therein lies the power of the 2nd amendment.

[SteveM]

121. See above. The "communitarian rights" view has little support.

[aikoaiko]

46. You take too much and offer nothing in return.

Why not think about what you could offer gun owners?

How about lifting import ban on all non-sporter firearms?
How about lifting the machine gun moratorium?
How about national CCW permits with few exceptions?

[flamin lib]

63. Thought some of this was covered.

How about lifting import ban on all non-sporter firearms? Hey, we buy lots of stuff from overseas that isn't sports related. The Harrier Jet comes to mind. 2nd says ARMS not guns.

How about lifting the machine gun moratorium? I was under the impression that at some level of FFL these could be owned. If not bad on me.

How about national CCW permits with few exceptions? That one's in there--note #1

[aikoaiko]

72. There's covered and then there's covered.

ME: How about lifting import ban on all non-sporter firearms?
YOU:Hey, we buy lots of stuff from overseas that isn't sports related. The Harrier Jet comes to mind. 2nd says ARMS not guns.
ME: I'm not sure what you mean by your response, but I'm talking about the import ban on rifles that the ATF considers without sporting purpose. If the gun were made in the US it would be perfectly legal for civilians to own. Its a stupid gun law that we should eliminate.


ME: How about lifting the machine gun moratorium?
YOU: I was under the impression that at some level of FFL these could be owned. If not bad on me.
ME: The only machine guns transferable to civlians were made and registered before 1986. There really weren't that many and as demand grew, the price of machine gun skyrocketed because supply was finite. Lifting the moratorium would increase supply and make machine guns more affordable, but civilians would still have to do a significant background check, much paperwork, and have their machinegun registered (as per NFA 1934).

ME: How about national CCW permits with few exceptions?
YOU: That one's in there--note #1
ME: Not really. Your #1 just says all gun laws should be federal. Your #1 could make CCW illegal nationwide. But an explicit support for nationwide CCW would be nice.


Here's another one: Allow all military surplus ammo to be sold to civilians. Right now, surplus ammo is disassembled. :(

[flamin lib]

74. Clarification

YOU: I'm not sure what you mean by your response, but I'm talking about the import ban on rifles that the ATF considers without sporting purpose. If the gun were made in the US it would be perfectly legal for civilians to own. Its a stupid gun law that we should eliminate.

I've said elsewhere that banning something by definition is a waste of time. Define it too broadly and things not intended are lost, too specifically and it's too easy to change it. The whole point im my approach is to get rid of stupid unenforceable laws. 2nd says Arms, not guns. If you wish to apply it to individual rights then the public should have access to fully functional F-14 Tomcats, tactical nukes and all the rest. Don't go to the 2nd, it's a waste of everybody's time.

YOU: The only machine guns transferable to civilians were made and registered before 1986.

Bad on me for not knowing the minutia of machine guns.

YOU: Not really. Your #1 just says all gun laws should be federal. Your #1 could make CC illegal nationwide.

I either wrote #1 badly or you read it badly. Implicit in making all laws federal and all states respecting those laws is CC across state lines. No harm, no foul.

YOU: Here's another one: Allow all military surplus ammo to be sold to civilians. Right now, surplus ammo is disassembled.

Hmmm, interesting. I've seen what looks very like military ammo in the hands of acquaintances. 'Couse we all know how law abiding gun owners are :-D so it couldn't possibly be that there is bootleg ammo out there . . . Still, I don't see the point in not selling surplus to civilians as long as it doesn't cross the line between guns and arms. Minutia again.

[treelogger]

79. Superb idea

You write: "1.Gun purchasing must be a federal matter. Law applies equally in all states."

YES!!! DO IT!!! About 80 pages of totally asinine California gun control laws would be wiped out by just that statement.

I actually agree with your proposal, and I would add something that follows from the commerce clause: Take away the ability of states to prevent importations of guns across state lines. Today, the US is totally balkanized into 50 little gun control fiefdoms. If a resident of Arizona or Wyoming can go to a gun store and buy a gun there, then a resident of California or Massachussets who happens to be at the aforementioned gun store in AZ or WY should also be able to do so (assuming they meet the required legal tests, just like the local residents). Equal rights for everyone.

You propose: "2.Step one is mandatory training before buying to include use, security, liability and responsibility of ownership."

We have that in California for handguns; it is implemented in a combination of the HSC test and the safe handling demonstration.

You propose "3.Issue a license to buy after training and interviewing family and friends/neighbors of the licensee and psycology profile."

In theory, a good idea. This is how weapons are handled in many european countries (usually not with psychological test, but instead based on a "needs" test, for example you have to demonstrate that you are an active hunter or target shooter. Unfortunately, this would be terribly heavyweight in the US, with the much higher fraction of gun ownership. In practice, this would be so horribly expensive, it won't fly.

You write ".Register every gun by serial number to the purchaser. Must be transferred to any new owner through a licensed firearms dealer. Purchases updated to the National Database."

We have that in California for handguns, computerized. Nationally and for rifles, this is done with paper records. Which is not a problem: The only time you need these records is when investigating a crime, and then tracking them down is quite easy (phone call to manufacturer with the serial number identifies the wholeseller; phone call to them gets the dealer, and phone call to them gets the buyer).

I support requiring a licensed dealer for all transactions. But this requires that the transaction be convenient and cheap (best would be free). For example, every police station or county clerk has all the facilities to perform such transfers, and they should do so.

You say "6.Should licensee change status for ownership, ..."

What do you mean by "change status" here? This sentence is completely unclear.

[flamin lib]

92. In case you're still following

Prop 3, profile and interviews: Yeah, expensive. I'd pay for it with user fees and taxes. At transfer fee for a gun to change hands and a modest tax on ammunition and shooting paraphernalia.

Registration records: Why database them? Because if a law abiding citizen becomes a felon or is diagnosed as mentally ill it would be nice to find all the guns they possess. That way they all could be confiscated with compensation unless due to criminal causes.

Status change: See above re felony and mental illness or perhaps a contentious divorce or law suit.

[treelogger]

108. More details

You suggest "Yeah, expensive. I'd pay for it with user fees and taxes."

I have a much simpler thought experiment: Simply institute a significant tax on guns. Something like $5,000 or $10,000. Then do away with nearly all other gun control. Effect? Only rich people would buy guns. Would it have slowed my gun purchases down? Somewhat, but not terribly significantly.

Why is this good? Because rich people hardly ever commit crimes using guns. It does happen, but it is very very rare. It would also create a huge disincentive for people legally buying guns, with the intent of illegally entering them into the black market: I don't think the black market can bear such prices.

Why is this extremely bad? Because it is explicit discrimination. Few blacks and latinos would be able to afford guns. It is classist.

Note that there is supreme-court sanctioned precedent for this: The 1930's NFA was mostly a very very high tax on machineguns.

You also suggest "Why database them? Because if a law abiding citizen becomes a felon or is diagnosed as mentally ill it would be nice to find all the guns they possess. That way they all could be confiscated with compensation unless due to criminal causes."

But note: Guns are confiscated when people are arrested or charged (for criminal), or are court-ordered to start treatment. This is not the time when they actually become felons or are confirmed as mentally ill. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible to first become a felon, and then stop being one again: one can win appeals, be pardoned, have the sentence converted to a misdemeanor by a judge after a long waiting period. Similarly, mental illness can be cured.

There is also another reason. If someone forcible sold one of my rare and old swiss-made target shooting pistols, and gave me $2,500 for them, I would be very very unhappy. Admittedly, for that money, I could buy another one, in theory. In practice, they come up for sale once every year or two in California (they are extremely rare). And once you buy it, it needs a few trips to a gunsmith, and many hours of tuning and tweaking to be set up exactly the way I like it. None of this would be reflected in the average sales price of one of these pistols.

Similarly: If you were arrested for the suspicion of a felony, and the police forcibly sold the rifle that you inherited from your grandfather, which your grandfather brought back from WWI, and which had saved his life several times, you would not be happy. Sure, the compensation might buy you another rifle of the same model. But not the one that was your grandfather's.

Therefore, confiscated guns should not be sold, not with and even less without compensation. They should be stored, until the point that they can be restored to the owner, or until it becomes clear that this will never happen, or until the owner decides that he wishes them to be sold. And furthermore, the owner should not be charged for the storage and confiscation, if he is exonerated; after all, it is not their fault that they were wrongly accused.

I think therein lies an example of a general principle, which is the main reason why I would be against a user fee to pay for expensive testing and selection of potential gun owners: If the government choses to regulate something, the cost of that regulation should not be born by the people regulated. It is not their fault that the government choses to regulate their particular case. The cost of regulation should be handled like any general expense. If you turned this into a general principle (hold the "victim" or regulation harmless), many policies would have to be upended, which I consider to be a good thing.

[NaturalHigh]

81. How will this get guns away from the street criminals?

Are they just going to walk up and hand them to the police? Nope. They will rob and rape even more brazenly, knowing it is unlikely that decent people are able to meet all the bureaucratic nonsense to protect themselves with a gun.

[flamin lib]

93. In case you're still following

Guns will fall into three categories:

Legally registered, owned and carried.

Not legally registered but owned by otherwise "law abiding citizens" and not a threat to anyone.

Neither of the above and when found confiscated taking it off the black market.

For those "law abiding citizens" who keep their guns in the closet or gun-safe there will eventually be an estate resolution and the heirs can either conform without penalty or fall into one of the other two categories.

This modest proposal's goal is to reduce the "bureaucratic nonsense", standardize ownership laws and make some sense out of the pile of fetid dingo's kidneys we call gun control in the US.

[EnviroBat]

124. Okay...

1.Gun purchasing must be a federal matter. Law applies equally in all states.
Ummm, Nope...

2.Step one is mandatory training before buying to include use, security, liability and responsibility of ownership.
I'm with ya on this one, certain guns are dangerous if the user is not properly trained i.e. Semi-Auto

3.Issue a license to buy after training and interviewing family and friends/neighbors of the licensee and psycology profile.
No, I'd like my friends and family left out of federal investigations, but you can gleefully load up the minivan and take your friends and family on a field-trip downtown if it makes you feel better...

4.Maintain national database for background check to include any mental health issues as well as criminal records. Large fines for not updating the database on a timely basis.
No thanks...

5.Register every gun by serial number to the purchaser. Must be transferred to any new owner through a licensed firearms dealer. Purchases updated to the National Database.
Perhaps, but I want my privacy protected.

6.Should licensee change status for ownership, authorities will confiscate guns with just compensation or take custody of them under temporary circumstances.
Sorry, but no fucking way...

7.Gun owners have six months to comply with the law once the database is established. Large fines and jail for non compliance.
Umm, you might really like living in China!

8.Any gun used in a crime or recovered without a licensed owner will be destroyed.
Hmmm, okay, that steel could be recycled to make MORE GUNS!

While we're visiting all of your "great" ideas, lets just go ahead and impose Martial Law so you can sleep better at night... The country would be sooo much better if the feds would just crawl up our asses with a magnifying glass right?
:eyes:

[piedmont]

24. I would NEVER, ever, comply with such a stupid law.

And I would not be alone. Heck, I might even fabricate a couple, for good measure.

[flamin lib]

27. So much for law abiding. nt

[piedmont]

28. The Nazis followed laws too. nt

[dairydog91]

68. Gee...

...Maybe he thinks that Congress has to behave in accordance with the Constitution.

[slackmaster]

29. I propose we start by fixing the known problems with the systems we have now

1. Mandate and enforce uniform and consistent reporting of mental health adjudications and involuntary commitments to the FBI, so the data can be incorporated into the National Instant Check System (NICS) database. If that had been in place, both of Cho's known firearm purchases would have been stopped cold.

2. Require that anyone who is the subject of a restraining order for domestic violence, to either turn in all firearms or show proof that they have been transferred to another person who is not disqualified from receiving them. Actually this is required, but there are no mechanisms in place to enforce except in Connecticut.

3. Make NICS available to non-licensed individuals who wish to sell used guns. Right now only licensed firearm dealers can use it. I have a collector's FFL, and even I can't use it. If I sell a curio or relic firearm to a private individual (which I can do with long guns in California), I have no convenient way to check that person's background (and a background check is not required on the transaction, not that it really needs to be).

4. Make gun safety education available in public schools.

5. Establish uniform national, objective criteria for issuing concealed weapons permits to qualified people. Add to that either a national CCW license, or universal reciprocity among the states.

6. Eliminate pointless, feel-good "gun-free zones" in public places, except where the policy is actively enforced as it is in airports, courthouses, secure industrial facilities, etc.

[flamin lib]

31. I'm down with everything but 4. Make it an elective and have it

paid for with extra curricula fees and I'm okay with that.

The system we have now sucks for everybody, enthusiast and control advocate both. I'm in favor of dumping the whole thing and designing from the beginning instead of trying to make a bunch of patches work.

[slackmaster]

34. Yes, of course it would be elective just like sex education

Driver training, etc.

[EstimatedProphet]

64. These would be ideal I think

[treelogger]

76. With a few safeguards

You propose "1. Mandate and enforce uniform and consistent reporting of mental health adjudications and involuntary commitments to the FBI, so the data can be incorporated into the National Instant Check System (NICS) database."

Yes, but also make sure of the following: Protect this data such that it can not be used for any other purpose. We don't want big brother snooping around everyone's medical files. Make sure this data is regularly purged. If treatment ends, the information in NICS has to be removed. Make sure information in NICS doesn't become permanent, unless someone makes it permanent. The act of permanently entering information about mental health into NICS needs to be done under a law, and with the action of a judge, and in a manner such that the person affected has legal recourse (such as appealing in a court). After all, having such information entered into NICS is exactly the same as a criminal punishment: You have one of your civil rights (namely the right to buy firearms) taken away from you.

You also propose "2. Require that anyone who is the subject of a restraining order for domestic violence, to either turn in all firearms or show proof that they have been transferred to another person who is not disqualified from receiving them."

Yes, but make sure that as soon as the restraining order is lifted, the weapons are returned. Don't force people to sell weapons (often a a high loss). Instead, law enforcement should offer the option of storing the weapons. And some (by no means all) restraining orders are temporary, in effect like temporary injunctions. This is often done when someone is accused of being potentially dangerous, as a protective measure. Many of these temporary restraining orders get lifted again once a judge actually gets to see the situation. In that case, make sure the weapons are returned to their owner post haste, without high fees or long delays. Again, someone is being deprived of their civil rights (use of their lawful property), and that has to be minimized. In particular in the case of restraining orders, which are sometimes unjustified and used as a malicious act, or as a negotiation ploy.

You also propose "3. Make NICS available to non-licensed individuals who wish to sell used guns."

Disagree. This would mean that anyone could inspect your legal record, under the pretense of wanting to sell a gun to you. Instead, I propose that absolutely all weapons transactions have to be performed through a FFL. This is known as "closing the gunshow loophole". Clearly, this requires FFL sales to be convenient and inexpensive. Free would be better; if the government wants to regulate some activity, it should bear the cost of that regulation. For example, it would be good if any police station or county clerk were required to perform the duties of an FFL (it is easy enough).

Your proposals 4 through 6 I agree with.

Note: I'm a gun owner and shooter.

[slackmaster]

82. On item 3, I believe safeguards could be devised to prevent misuse

A) Severe criminal penalty for using the information for other than a prospective gun sale,

B) Part of the process would include sending to the person who gets checked, a written notice saying that a check was performed, and who requested it.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

[Madspirit]

32. a, b, c

a.) The three highest money making criminal endeavors in this country are guns, drugs and selling people. Go look it up. If this boy had not gotten the guns at a gun shop, he would have gotten them illegally. Illegal gun sellers prey on the paranoid and disturbed.

b.) In my opinion, what happened at VT was not a gun issue; it was an untreated mental illness issue. They knew that poor boy needed help since he was TINY. Isn't taking care of your ill children actually part of the job description of being a parent?

c.) This country is swimming in guns. We could float a fleet of ocean liners on all the guns in this country. How exactly are you going to get them from all the people who have them? You would have had to literally KILL my father to get his guns.

I don't have a gun but just saying...only the naive think that JUST getting rid of guns, without healing any of the social issues, will solve anything. ...and only the naive actually think it's even possible to get rid of all the guns in this country.
Lee

[flamin lib]

36. Good points all. However, all guns will fall into one of three

categories.

Licensed to comply.

Unlicensed but hidden away and not a threat by the "law abiding" owner. When your father dies, the estate becomes liable for compliance and the heirs will either comply with the law or do as you father has.

Will be used in a crime and if/when found be confiscated and destroyed.

Yeah, it'll take 40 years to impact the 240 million guns out there, but ya' gotta start somewhere.

[Madspirit]

51. My father

My dad has been dead for 15 years. ...and he sold most of his guns before he died and gave the rest to my brother. He was a collector. He had about 50 guns.
I'm a Texan. We have pretty liberal gun laws here.
Lee

[flamin lib]

61. I'm a Texas too and own guns from black powder replicas to

6mm airsoft for shooting in the living room. Ticks my wife off, but as long as I do the laundry, shopping and cooking I can get away with a lot.

I hope you got the point though: guns owned by people who are not a threat are not part of the problem. If my "dream system" were legislated those guns would eventually migrate into one of the other two categories. Someday, many years from now, the shear number of guns will get to a reasonable level.

Meanwhile, those who want to buy and own guns will be inconvenienced as little as possible.

Writing legislation based on traumatic incidents isn't a good idea and as long as the gun lobby stonewall everything the other side will write the laws.

[RL3AO]

35. Wow.

Second, there's this:
"The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm."


There would be a Coup d'état in this country before that happened...this all assuming the Supreme Court would fail to do their job and overturn something like this.

[piedmont]

40. ^^L@@K^^ When the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean anything, neither do the others.

Thanks for posting that part of the article, RL3AO

[slackmaster]

48. I think we may have a volunteer or two ready to participate in the goon squad

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2817870#2818239

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2817870#2820130

[Madspirit]

53. WOW too

I didn't even read the whole thing. This is absurd. I would even fight this. ...going around, cordoning off, taking guns, etc. What a crock of crap. We would have a violent revolution in this country if this issue was EVER approached like this. I would be TOTALLY on the gun owner's side. TOTALLY and I do not own a gun. This is a preface to fascism.
Lee

[jmg257]

41. Wow - SSpecial police SSquads going around to disarm the population of America,

all in the hopes of enforcing a law the people won't agree to, and in numerous violations of the constitution; hmmm...yep - sure sounds like tryanny to me.

Will the Special Squads have a SSpecial name? SSpecial initials? SSpecial emblems? Will certain people, after they are disarmed of course, be sent off to SSpecial places for some SSpecial solution?

Of course they will have to do battle with the National Guard, since it is federal law that:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
...
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2)...
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;

THAT should be interesting...


Who can we trust to handle the keys to all our arms? The leader of the SSpecial Squads, or more likely the dicta, I mean leader of the country? MAYBE they will be trustworthy with ALL that power, and NO fear of opposition by the people. Reich!!

[jmg257]

49. Gun Bans are very effective - it just depends what your goals are...

The Night of the Broken Glass (Kristallnacht), the infamous Nazi rampage against Germany's Jews, took place in November 1938. It was preceded by the confiscation of firearms from the Jewish victims. On Nov. 8, The New York Times reported from Berlin, "Berlin Police Head Announces 'Disarming' of Jews," explaining:

"The Berlin Police President, Count Wolf Heinrich von Helldorf, announced that as a result of a police activity in the last few weeks the entire Jewish population of Berlin had been 'disarmed' with the confiscation of 2,569 hand weapons, 1,702 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition. Any Jews still found in possession of weapons without valid licenses are threatened with the severest punishment."

Searches of Jewish homes were calculated to seize firearms and assets and to arrest adult males. The American Consulate in Stuttgart was flooded with Jews begging for visas: "Men in whose homes old, rusty revolvers had been found during the last few days cried aloud that they did not dare ever again return to their places of residence or business. In fact, it was a mass of seething, panic-stricken humanity."
...
Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
...

http://www.xmission.com/~ranthon/hitler-and-guns.htm

[Madspirit]

57. Hate to Say it

...but if anything as fascistic as this was every instituted, I would be marching with the gun owners. ....cordoning off and searching, indeed. There would be a revolution so fast...

Don't you have any idea what happened to the Jews in Germany?
Lee

[RL3AO]

59. 3 words...

Second American Revolution

[EnviroBat]

126. I agree, and that's been my point all along...

The Blackwater goons already did this down in New Orleans. That should have been a huge wake-up call for the citizens of this country. I believe they were "testing the waters" so to speak when they started confiscating peoples guns down there.

[conspirator]

66. In the long term gun control is bad: dictators love unarmed peasants

Rich people will still have access to guns and will be able to terrorize who they want.

[Swamp Rat]

69. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[dairydog91]

70. I'm impressed...

Even Obergruppenführer Bush hasn't promoted a bill which simultaneously shitted on the 2nd, 4th, and 8th Amendments.

[windbreeze]

83. I submit....that you can pass all the legislation you want too...

you can harass and intimidate and remove all the guns you want from LEGAL owners...but...when are we going to get it through our heads...the GUN DOES NOT KILL....the HUMAN BEING wielding the gun IS THE KILLER...and you are NEVER going to remove all the guns from this society...I don't care how many legal, illegal searches you do..or how many laws you pass...

Vehicles are killers too...but do they drive themselves? are they guilty of driving drunk and killing others on the highway??? when are we going to outlaw vehicles...??? or pass laws that mentally ill, drunk, druggies can't drive??? When are we going to search houses of known drunks for alcohol, mentally ill people's houses for medications...drug houses for drugs or paraphenalia used to do them??? so that we can prevent any of those substances from killing someone... what's the difference???

A killer is a killer...and IF you remove all the guns from society...(never happen)....then they will find some other method to kill... bow/arrow, knife, baseball bat...drugs...poison...bombs...fire...there is any number of other methods that could be used to achieve their ends, IF that is what they are determined to do...

Isn't there a town in Georgia, that passed a local ordinance saying every home had to have a gun on the premises? Since then, their crime rate has dropped an incredible amount? someone? I can't remember the name of the town...
windbreeze......

(no, I don't currently own a gun...but I am going to...just because all the people out there screaming about more gun control worry me...don't I have a right to protect myself and my family IF the need ever arises...??)

[dairydog91]

85. The town in Georgia is Kennesaw.

It experienced a significant drop in crime after gun possession was made mandatory (Each household must possess at least one gun and some ammunition).

[Sanctified]

89. I believe their Violent Crime Rate

Is 86% below the national average.

[windbreeze]

91. Thank you both for answering...

and a big welcome to DU for both of you...
wb

[CANDO]

101. When will the gun nuts take up arms against this regime?

Am I the only person who sees these people are just plain stupid? Why is it they think only Democrats will take away their freedom? Look what their beloved Repubs have done for dog's sake! Warantless searches, national security letters, illegal surveillance, holding citizens without recourse, suspending habeus corpus, etc, etc. What more reason are they waiting for????? Take up arms for your freedoms already!

[slackmaster]

112. Have you visited a VFW hall lately?

Veterans are FURIOUS at the Bush regime for the ongoing senseless slaughter in Iraq, and the infringements on freedom that you listed.

I assure you that among gun owners only the most dedicated right-wingers still support Bush and his gang.

[Marie26]

118. They only care if Clinton does it.

Notice how all those "militias" mysteriously disappeared once Bush came into power? They DO think that only the libruls will take their guns & freedoms away, so once a Republican takes over, they're perfectly happy.

[SteveM]

125. For once, I'd like to agree with you. I'm afraid they're just laying low.

[SayWhatYo]

128. Oh no, they are still out there....

They often times have worse things to say about Bush than many here on DU. They are not fans of the patriot act and other such things.

Look at it this way, if some how Bush or some other group tries to take 100% absolute control of the US, then you will be side by side with those rightwing fanatics defending this country against them and the really-sheepish morons... I think.

[shance]

109. It's not the hunters or the hunter's guns we are worried about, its the Blackwaters

and the military build up and increased policing in our cities.

That is why the Second Amendment is the Second Amendment.

Our forefathers had been where we are going.

It's not because of the citizens, it's because of those who wish to control and dominate the citizens.

[seabeyond]

115. i dont like guns. i dont own guns. i stand up for right to own. does NOT make me gun monger

when you start a post to argue an issue to immediately go to calling out a whole group with names to dismiss or belittle them is a lazy way to argue an issue.

and it makes you wrong.

[BlackVelvet04]

127. Oh great......

let's give more morons like officer smith (92 year old shot story) the right to knock in doors and grab guns. Yeah, that's it. That will be great.

IS THE OP ED AUTHOR FUCKING NUTS?