Law Gun Control: A Global Overview

[BFoe]

Yet in 1892 a law was passed allowing open carry and concealed carry with a permit.

Statutes of the United States of America Passed at the ... Session of the ... Congress

www.google.com

Sure, a state could pass a law allowing it if they wanted.
And a state could pass a law prohibiting it if they wanted. That’s the point: that laws prohibiting public carry are perfectly constitutional and always have been.

 

[Scerpi]

The other day I was driving on a highway in a rural area when I suddenly noticed a truck riding my ass. I was going about 85 in a 75 zone so I figured the guy must have been in a hurry. I pulled close the the shoulder multiple times to let him pass, but he stayed right on my ass.

Got to the next town about 10 minutes later and turned on a side street to go to my destination. Truck followed me there too. I stopped on the side of the road because I didn't want to take this guy to where I was going. I got my holstered pistol out of the lockbox in my vehicle and sat it in my lap. Guy stops behind me and sits there for about 30 seconds. Then he pulled directly next to me and sat there. Neither of us rolled down our windows and I couldn't see him through tinted glass. After a few seconds he goes down the street turns around and stops next to me again before finally driving away.

Never unholstered my gun, but I was happy to have it ready. Even if that town had more than one cop on duty there's no way they could have made it there if shit would have went down. Really strange situation since I can't imagine how I pissed the guy off.

It's amazing to me how some of the nicest people become unhinged and filled with rage driving on highways. Over stupid shit...

This Louis CK bit always reminds me of how people become rage induced lunatics on highways.

 

[spamking]

Sure, a state could pass a law allowing it if they wanted.
And a state could pass a law prohibiting it if they wanted. That’s the point: that laws prohibiting public carry are perfectly constitutional and always have been.

#AllHailBruen and the 2nd and 14th . . .

 

[BFoe]

#AllHailBruen and the 2nd and 14th . . .

Well that’s strange.

I just demonstrated a deeply rooted historical tradition that should satisfy Bruen. In fact, since there is a deeply rooted historical tradition of prohibiting public carry, the law Bruen struck down clearly should not have been.

In fact, the SCOTUS received an amicus brief from 17 preeminent professors of English and American history and law, which demonstrated very clearly that there was no broad right to public carry on English common law or early American law.
I wonder why the SCOTUS disregarded that?
Curiouser and curiouser.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193309/20210921191001002_20-843%20bsacProfessorsOfHistoryAndLaw.pdf

You yourself cited a law to allow public carry passed in 1892. Why would they need to do that, if the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868?
I’ll bet it’s because no one actually thought the 14th Amendment did that, and in fact, the SCOTUS twice ruled that it did not, in 1876 and 1886.

It almost seems like the Roberts Court is disregarding any history they don’t like in order to achieve a political objective…

 

[spamking]

Well that’s strange.

I just demonstrated a deeply rooted historical tradition that should satisfy Bruen. In fact, since there is a deeply rooted historical tradition of prohibiting public carry, the law Bruen struck down clearly should not have been.

Almost as strange as your selective memory regarding common use.

In fact, the SCOTUS received an amicus brief from 17 preeminent professors of English and American history and law, which demonstrated very clearly that there was no broad right to public carry on English common law or early American law.
I wonder why the SCOTUS disregarded that?
Curiouser and curiouser.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-843/193309/20210921191001002_20-843%20bsacProfessorsOfHistoryAndLaw.pdf

Duh. Obviously, the SCOTUS realized the error of some previous ignorant hot takes regarding individual rights and the 2a.

You yourself cited a law to allow public carry passed in 1892. Why would they need to do that, if the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868?

As a direct response to your previous comment.

I’ll bet it’s because no one actually thought the 14th Amendment did that, and in fact, the SCOTUS twice ruled that it did not, in 1876 and 1886.

It almost seems like the Roberts Court is disregarding any history they don’t like in order to achieve a political objective…

Well sure . . . upholding our rights does have political implications.

 

[BFoe]

Almost as strange as your selective memory regarding common use.

Duh. Obviously, the SCOTUS realized the error of some previous ignorant hot takes regarding individual rights and the 2a.


As a direct response to your previous comment.

Well sure . . . upholding our rights does have political implications.

Wow, what a sad bunch of non-answers that was.
Not a single thing you just posted actually dealt with anything I said.

I’ll stop giving you a hard time in this thread bud, you’re clearly completely defeated.

 

[oldshadow]

Sure, a state could pass a law allowing it if they wanted.
And a state could pass a law prohibiting it if they wanted. That’s the point: that laws prohibiting public carry are perfectly constitutional and always have been.

No it hasn't always been many time the Supreme Court interpret what is infringement of different rights and what is not.

However it's nice to see someone on the left be all for states rights. It that across the board or just when states do what you want.

I've got no problem with states making more gun control or cities doing it as long as it passes constitution muster.

 

[Poon Goon]

On the road again today and came across the opportunity to exercise this particular right. Big box store had one Bodyguard 2.0 left in stock and I haven't been able to find it elsewhere. Carry license meant that I was in and out in about 20 minutes. It would really piss me off if I lived in a state with a waiting period.

Haven't shot it yet, but it feels much nicer than the LCP Max I recently got rid of. Like a pocket pistol for dog walking in basketball shorts.

 

[SoSo]

Choke on your thoughts and prayers. While you’re at it, choke on your inaction too.
If anyone is embodying the “my way or the highway” view, it’s you.
Your rights are not being impacted.
I support the right to own a gun, to defend yourself, family, and property, to hunt, and to shoot for sport.

—You do not need a massive gun collection to do that.
—You don’t need semi-automatic weapons to do that.
—You sure as fuck don’t need the types of things we talked about the other day when you were cheerleading against the NFA, like fully automatic weapons, short barreled rifles, suppressors, or Glock switches, to do that. The fact that you put your selfish wants and desires over other people’s lives and safety is frankly reprehensible.


Correct, there’s is not. I find it interesting that you really couldn’t even muster up a response to my assertion that we all have *some responsibility to one another in a community. It’s a foreign concept to conservatives these days, it seems.


You need to take a deep breath and look objectively at what you’re saying here. “B-b-but it’s not even the leading cause of death!”
That’s your argument??
In 2020 and 2021, firearms contributed to the deaths of more children ages 1-17 years in the U.S. than any other type of injury or illness.
Among high-income countries with populations over 10 million, the US ranks first for rates of firearm homicides.
Voter ID is not an issue that’s wounding and killing Americans.

And I did not say that some types of school reinforcement couldn’t be done, I am saying it is not a viable solution in and of itself.
Red flag laws, universal background checks, prohibitions on certain types of firearms, safe storage laws, and other things are all perfectly constitutional regulations that don’t infringe shit.

Twice now, here

And here

You have hinted at some “mystery group” who’s really responsible, without naming them—and you’re accusing me of dancing around it? By all means, put down the top hat and cane, Fred Astaire, tell us exactly who you mean?
When I read those two posts out loud, every dog in my neighborhood went crazy.

If you’re referring to the group I think you are, I am more than happy to have that discussion. It’s going to center around drivers of crime like poverty, and the systemic inequalities that exist in income, employment, housing, education, health care, and the judicial system that cause it—but we both know you don’t want to admit those things exist either.

Protecting you and your family inside your home: a SBR with a suppressor is the best choice of weapon. I can explain why if you'd like, because the fact that you don't know this plainly shows that you don't know much about firearms.

 

[nonoob]

If you want your guns so bad that you don't want any regulations, you should also be honest and admit that " I don't care if mine or any other kids get murdered in school, or how many for that matter.

Smdh at the ignorance of this Chappi moron's made up quotation. Regulations are and have been very strong in America. Never once heard of a single American that "don't want any regulations".

Keeping guns is so important that many Americans would rather have dead kids then reasonable rules about guns.

We have much more than "reasonable rules about guns". We have laws.

All of the legal gun owners, if needed, will protect their loved ones using them.

 

[spamking]

Wow, what a sad bunch of non-answers that was.
Not a single thing you just posted actually dealt with anything I said.

Dude. You really are full of yourself.

And yes . . . that comment dealt with what you said. You just don't agree or like it . . . You just can't stand that we have a different opinion on whether the SCOTUS got things right or not.

I’ll stop giving you a hard time in this thread bud, you’re clearly completely defeated.

Whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

[Koro_11]

 

[SammyPops]

It's amazing to me how some of the nicest people become unhinged and filled with rage driving on highways. Over stupid shit...

This Louis CK bit always reminds me of how people become rage induced lunatics on highways.

or the Costco

 

[BFoe]

No it hasn't always been many time the Supreme Court interpret what is infringement of different rights and what is not.

I was speaking of public carry laws specifically. SCOTUS had never struck down any state’s public carry laws until Bruen in 2022 (my memory serves correctly).

However it's nice to see someone on the left be all for states rights. It that across the board or just when states do what you want.

It depends on what right we are talking about, what the text of the amendment states, how it aplies, and how the amendment operates. Almost always when I assert some state’s right regarding the 2A, someone will pipe up and say, “Now do abortion!”

But abortion (for example) is something derived from the 14th Amendment and the concepts of constitutional personhood and substantive due process. The 14th Amendment states totally different things than the 2nd (obviously), protects totally different rights, and therefore operates in a wholly different way.

I've got no problem with states making more gun control or cities doing it as long as it passes constitution muster.

What exactly “passes constitutional muster” is precisely the issue.

 

[BFoe]

Protecting you and your family inside your home: a SBR with a suppressor is the best choice of weapon. I can explain why if you'd like, because the fact that you don't know this plainly shows that you don't know much about firearms.

No explanation is needed, but thank you—although I’d add that the “best choice of weapon” really depends on where you are living.

Things like SBRs and suppressors are generally regulated under the National Firearms Act.
My point is simply that such things are not an infringement.

You might prefer an SBR with suppressor to protect your property or whatever, but your right to protect your property is not infringed in any way by the absence of those things. Period.

 

[Gutter Chris]

the reason I don't conceal carry is because it excludes me from many situations I might intervene in where a gun adds an element of danger and responsibility that I don't want to have. I just think the likelihood that I would need a gun is way less than the likelihood where I could do some good without one.

I often carry pepper mace or a cane sword though.

I have athsma and would really hate to get pepper spray on me at all. I do wish it was legal to carry a reflex baton. I think sometimes a good whack with a stick might be a better option but it's either all or nothing where I live.

You should take weapons retention at your fave local range if it's an option. You do it with an airsoft or rubber training gun and it's kind of fun. It's a weird thing where you realize that sometimes people

 

[Deorum]

Weirdos you meet out on the road is probably the number one reason I always carry my glock. Doesn't matter if you drive perfect . The rage beast is just looming for a reason to rage and he will perceive that you cut him off regardless if you did or didn't.

I'd expand that to simply being out in public, with a much higher threat potential out there than on my property in a neighborhood and area virtually devoid of violent crime. For as much as we talk up our AR platform carbines and rifles as infinitely superior for home defense, potential shootouts, all STHF scenarios; and vastly superior as they are to pistols in virtually every meaningful way from accuracy, capacity, and effective range to energy, velocity, and wound trauma, the sheer convenience that a concealable form of personal protection the Glock provides is unparalleled. I also imagine the likelihood of having to use it in a life-threatening self-defense situation to be orders of magnitude higher. It is within arm's reach at virtually all times, and can also be used as effective home defense even if it's not first choice.

 

[SoSo]

No explanation is needed, but thank you—although I’d add that the “best choice of weapon” really depends on where you are living.

Things like SBRs and suppressors are generally regulated under the National Firearms Act.
My point is simply that such things are not an infringement.

You might prefer an SBR with suppressor to protect your property or whatever, but your right to protect your property is not infringed in any way by the absence of those things. Period.

If I'm inside my home and have to perforate an intruder who is also inside my home, I'd say you would be infringing on my rights by taking away said SBR and suppressor option.

I have the right to protect my family and I the best I possibly can. And I believe the weapons system above is the best option. Again, do I need to educate you why? How many suppressors and SBRs are used in crimes anyway? (rhetorical question, I know there's fuck all).

I feel like the next thing you'll be telling me is that it's adequate enough to have a hand sized rock beside my bed for protection.

It's garbage to outlaw SBRs and the like because of what could be. Otherwise we should just go straight to psych evals for everyone and lock up the potential bad actors immediately.

 

[spamking]

I'm sure many here will bend over and say this is fine . . .

How Harris and Walz plan to attack Second Amendment | Buckeye Firearms Association

If you’re planning tyranny, at least don’t put it in writing. That seems to be the guiding principle behind the Harris-Walz administration’s 2024 Democratic Party Platform.

www.buckeyefirearms.org

 

[djacobox372]

If I'm inside my home and have to perforate an intruder who is also inside my home, I'd say you would be infringing on my rights by taking away said SBR and suppressor option.

I have the right to protect my family and I the best I possibly can. And I believe the weapons system above is the best option. Again, do I need to educate you why? How many suppressors and SBRs are used in crimes anyway? (rhetorical question, I know there's fuck all).

I feel like the next thing you'll be telling me is that it's adequate enough to have a hand sized rock beside my bed for protection.

It's garbage to outlaw SBRs and the like because of what could be. Otherwise we should just go straight to psych evals for everyone and lock up the potential bad actors immediately.

You don't have a 2A right to protect your house or family. The 2A explicitly says that arms are for militia purposes, it doesn't mention personal defense.