Law POTWR 2019 Vol 4: Repeal Or Respect The 2nd Amendment?

[Farmer Br0wn]

I think there ought to be a federal law mandating that gun crimes related to the transportation of personal guns and ammo should only be allowed to have a max fine of about $50. Also, national reciprocity for CCWs.

I think the states shouldn't have the power to infringe upon rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Higus]

Do the stats back that up though? Could folks legally buy and then suddenly become criminals if they move into one of these areas?



Folks within one of these areas could still sell privately and skirt the local laws . . .

How would you remedy that? Require every State to have Chicago-like laws? If so, why?

It would also help if straw purchasers were charged and punished.

links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-the-guns-used-in-chicago-actually-came-from/
https://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017-454016983.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/26/13418208/guns-new-york-iron-pipeline

Not that I think it is politically feasible, but if the entire nation had a set of laws like Chicago, then it would at least solve the issue of people in high crime areas purchasing weapons in areas with more lax registration.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I don't like any of the stated options. Seems that there is no room for either:

"Repeal and replace with a modern version"

Or

any viewpoint that believes regulations may be constitutional. Instead, the poll couches all of these options as infringements, sharply coloring any potential debate.

Some debates are simply debating a binary option. That's the nature of "yes or no", or "is or isn't" questions.

In this particular instance it's "To infringe, or not to infringe, that is the question!" (Props to Shakespeare)

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

2nd amendment is protected as it should be but that law was written in 1789 and it’s now 2019. The law should be looked at again and improved if at all possible to get into the 21st century.

Before I’m attacked for even wanting discussion I’m pro 2nd amendment but feel firearms are far too easy to get and it may be time to take a deeper look at how the meaning when written applies to the present day.

So folks are trying to "current year" the 2nd Amendment too?

The "current year" argument tends to fail. I can't think of an instance where it's ever succeeded.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Right needs 2/3. Still should be re-examined and improved upon

Amendments to the Bill of Rights needs a two-thirds approval of both Congress and the states.

Rights are simply the necessary conditions of one's proper existence. The state has no ability to change or alter your rights in any way. However, the state can, and often does infringe upon your rights.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

how about another option "keep it but accurately interpret it to apply to what it was meant to apply

We currently are interpreting it as it was ment to apply.

Note how it says: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "The right of the government" or "The right of the state".

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Very good points. You need several hours of training and the ability to pass an exam to get a drivers license. Why not a gun? That is how we do it here. Anything else is entirely unacceptable and irresponsible.

Because simply exercising a right shouldn't require a government permission slip.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think #1, #5, and #7 all have decent legal and normative arguments.

Doesn't #1 fly in the face of the other two?

Before the anti-2nd folks start pushing for more laws please advocate for better enforcement of what we have now. That's a more useful endeavor and will actually win you some favor with the pro-2nd folks.

Wouldn't it be nice? Violent offenders caught with firearms when they are prohibited from having them should be hammered with the full extent of the law.

encouraging responsible gun ownership with tax incentives;

In the past I've suggested tax credits for safes. What do you have in mind?

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Keep the 2nd amendment and the laws as they currently stand.

I've gone back and forth on this for years. There have been times that I have thought some sort of mandatory training course, much like you need for a drivers license, would be a reasonable way to slow down the sale of guns into the hands of people who have no intentions of learning how to use them, storing them properly, or showing any other trait of being responsible owners.

But the reason that I have stepped away from that idea is that guns, at the most basic level, are a means of self-protection. It is a way to defend your home, your property, and most importantly the lives of yourself and your family. Who is the most in need of protection? Poor people who live in high crime areas. Who is the least likely to be able to afford or make time for a mandatory training course? Poor people who live in high crime areas. This is actually already demonstrated by the fact that ever since they removed Driver's Ed from high school curriculum, and began requiring people to pay the course fees themselves (up to $500), kids in low income neighborhoods are simply not getting their licenses anymore until they are much older. It's pretty hard to get to a job without a car, so this is just another road block for poor kids.

So while I feel like a mandatory course (like drivers ed) would reduce gun sales into the "wrong" hands, I also think it would reduce gun flow into the hands of those who actually need them. I think it would be pretty low of me to enjoy my own guns, which I'd have no problem acquiring because of my adequate free time and disposable income, while forcing others into an even more difficult situation.

I'm glad to see you've given this topic some deep consideration. If you don't mind my asking, what was the Catalyst that caused you to change your mind on this topic?

 

[sickc0d3r]

In the past I've suggested tax credits for safes. What do you have in mind?

Pretty much the same. Credits for any kind of safety device and firearms training.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

To what extent have humans in terms of their power lust and psychosis been updated since 1791 that requires revision of the amendment?

An excellent point that will sadly get ignored in this thread.

Humans haven't fundamentally changed since the 2nd amendments ratification. The only thing that's measurably changed is our technology. Despite that, human nature and The Human Condition have remained largely unchanged.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I think as far as insurance goes it would make individuals far more responsible gun owners. I don’t know the stats on gun accidents or thefts that end up being used in crimes but if a responsible gun owner had to maintain insurance and for a moment they became irresponsible and that irresponsibility lead to a gun death they would no longer be able to be insured and therefore not be able to legally own a firearm.

So under your system, if a person lacked insurance, they would no longer be legally allowed to possess a firearm?

That's a pretty basic infringement.

Regardless of how you try to justify it, or sell it, it's still an infringement.

 

[zebby23]

So under your system, if a person lacked insurance, they would no longer be legally allowed to possess a firearm?

That's a pretty basic infringement.

Regardless of how you try to justify it, or sell it, it's still an infringement.

Incorrect. If you carry it off your property

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

As for punishing victims of a crime (eg. my gun is stolen and then used in a murder so I can't own a gun anymore), that's a non-starter. It's not justice and it's not how we do things in America. The person committing multiple crimes (beginning with the initial theft) is responsible for their actions. Not the victim.

This is one instance where I've noticed that folks on the left have absolutely no problem with victim-blaming.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

- Firearms ownership is not a right that the Canadian government currently recognizes.

Fixed for ya friend!

The Canadian government has no power to add or subtract rights, only infringe upon them, or respect them.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Repeal and ban semiautomatics. All guns that take a detachable magazine too, which I know includes some bolt and pump action guns.

While I wholeheartedly disagree with you, I can at least appreciate your honesty.

It's no surprise that you find yourself as a leftist on the political spectrum. When the citizenry is more less disarmed, it makes individual resistance to the collectives whims nearly impossible.

I assure you the fact that you're a leftist, and you also desire some degree of civilian disarmament, is no coincidence.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

You've killed the thread sabretruth. Hope your happy.

Seriously, the net you'd like to cast is somewhat unrealistic. Not to mention that in the US, banning anything has always inspired contrarian behavior.

Gun owners do tend to take this attitude:

"Oh, they want to ban gun 'X'? Well, I'd better buy at least three of gun 'X'!"

It's a good way to vote with our dollars, and also thumb our noses at the petty tyrants.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

I support banning handguns and stripper clips.

Again, I appreciate your honesty.

I'll do absolutely everything within my power to prevent your desires from becoming reality, but I do appreciate your honesty.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Wondering what people think of this?

Makes the idea of passing gun control without the vast majority of public consent a bit messy, yes?

In Washington State, Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce New Gun-Control Law

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ws...se-to-enforce-new-gun-control-law-11550066400

“a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

-Marbury vs. Madison

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Anyway, I chose to give states the power to deal with gun laws.

I understand this sentiment, but States should have no power to arbitrarily restrict or infringe your Constitutionally protected individual rights.