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

[Fawlty]

I was gonna do a long, drawn-out thing with SC precedent case citations and colonial research showing how the 2nd amendment was pasted together out of a loose conglomeration of shared values and Southern insistence, but I'm going to keep it very brief.


We should repeal and replace the second amendment. And it's not a happy ending for people who don't like the 2nd.


First Principle:

We have an inalienable right to self defense. But what does that mean?

It means that no court should be able to hold that we cannot use firearms in defense of ourselves. The second amendment is a clause too long. We have a military. If a state wants a militia, do it. There is no need for "the security of a free state" anymore. Recent courts have affirmed that it's about self-defense, and they're right today, in the real landscape of 2019 in which we find ourselves.


This means that no state will be able to take away a citizen's right to self defense by the way of a gun. The details on concealed/open carry and whatnot will still have to be worked out, but what America is really asking for is a right to self defense. It's a great principle because it is simple and can be thought of as inalienable, and it's even more concrete than the pursuit of happiness! It's a great principle. Instill it.


There's a sting at the end of the tail. Lots of stings, actually. Gun grabbers will have to suck it for now, true. But the right to self defense is controlled by available technology of defense. This is just another way of saying that old frail people or cowards need guns today, but they may not need guns tomorrow. If that happens, so be it. However, the gun is the only way we have to guarantee a decent chance of self defense in dire emergencies. All gun defense is emergent when practiced by a citizen. You don't see it coming, you need the gun if you are going to put down the threat. That's it. You're old, you need a gun. You're too scared, you need a gun. If you want it. It's fundamental to our personal safety. That may not be true in the future.


To accommodate this, we need to examine a truth, and here's the truth. Every single "illegal" gun was once in the care of a good honest hardworking law abiding citizen. But it found its way into the hands of a criminal. Some by stealing, sure. But gun culturalists, back me up here. It's shady. You need some cash, you sell a gun. Happens all the fucking time. You have no control over it from that point on. We need that gun control. The control that enables us to pin a gun user to a gun, and an audit of ownership. Make a cradle-to-grave registry. There are many millions of guns grandfathered, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. When the tech catches up, install biometrics. I understand there are tech obstacles there, but clearly we're going to get there.


And that's about all for the law. Strike the 2nd, and give us a right to self defense. That's the way. Word it so states cannot stop somebody from defending himself. I don't know how to do that, but it's possible for legal minds to come up with something.


On makes/functionality of weapons, let the debate continue. We're in a good place because we're debating in the same arena, quibbling over this stock or that barrel. It's fine. These are minor issues, and not a serious problem or an infringement on self defense.

That's all, thanks.

 

[Higus]

But a untrained private citizen can't just buy a rocket launcher and a minigun from Walmart and even if they could, the market prices most people out of such things anyways.

Speaking of absurd conclusions and logical consistency, what if we went the other direction? For the sake of argument, let's say semi-autos are banned; then don't half-ass it by having an exemption for police, level the playing field and go retro with double-action revolvers and pump shotguns. "It undermines the 'nobody needs that' argument."

My scenario was meant to be ridiculous. The point isn't that Walmart wouldn't stock them, but rather that if money is the only barrier to ownership, should there still be restrictions?

The other direction is a false dilemma: whats the opposite of needing access to all types of weaponry to fight against tyranny? Not needing any weapons to not fight against tyranny? I think a more logical scenario is that the state has a right to set up a regulated militia with access to weaponry proportional to their scope and the scrutiny they are observed under and that the private citizen has reasonable regulated access to some arms, with "reasonable" being defined by the states elected officials.

 

[Gregolian]

Make a cradle-to-grave registry. There are many millions of guns grandfathered, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. When the tech catches up, install biometrics. I understand there are tech obstacles there, but clearly we're going to get there.

Biometrics for a gun ala Blade's sword from the Blade movies with Wesley Snipes can't happen right now is my understanding. Too finnicky/unreliable.

As to registry, not a fan personally. Granted it's a "what if" but what if what I need to protect myself from is an over-reaching government? They have their goddamn target list. This is the tinfoil hat portion of my brain.

And if you want gun owners to take more of a role in being upfront how about LEA change their attitude some when you report a gun. They never believe you were robbed. Buddy had his shotgun and AR10 stolen. First fucking words out of the cops mouth who was taking the info for the report "be honest, you sold it"

WA has a requirement that to sell a firearm even privately you have to go through an FFL. Which is all fine and dandy but each FFL has a different price point to do a "transfer" as it's called. Some places it's $50 for a pistol and $20 for a rifle with $15 for a shotgun. Others it's a flat $30 across the board.

If you're going to go that route, of requiring an FFL to conduct a private sale or transfer then the state should set the price point and shouldn't set it higher than say for a box of 20 rounds of cheap 30-06 or about $25-$30 at least in WA.


Fast response since I'm not technically on my break.

 

[Fawlty]

Biometrics for a gun ala Blade's sword from the Blade movies with Wesley Snipes can't happen right now is my understanding. Too finnicky/unreliable.

As to registry, not a fan personally. Granted it's a "what if" but what if what I need to protect myself from is an over-reaching government? They have their goddamn target list. This is the tinfoil hat portion of my brain.

And if you want gun owners to take more of a role in being upfront how about LEA change their attitude some when you report a gun. They never believe you were robbed. Buddy had his shotgun and AR10 stolen. First fucking words out of the cops mouth who was taking the info for the report "be honest, you sold it"

WA has a requirement that to sell a firearm even privately you have to go through an FFL. Which is all fine and dandy but each FFL has a different price point to do a "transfer" as it's called. Some places it's $50 for a pistol and $20 for a rifle with $15 for a shotgun. Others it's a flat $30 across the board.

If you're going to go that route, of requiring an FFL to conduct a private sale or transfer then the state should set the price point and shouldn't set it higher than say for a box of 20 rounds of cheap 30-06 or about $25-$30 at least in WA.


Fast response since I'm not technically on my break.

If you protect the inalienable right to self defense, and that right can only be assured by a firearm, then the responsible thing to do is to be responsible for use and ownership of firearms. I think my idea solves every fundamental problem we have with guns (given that we can't rid ourselves of them in any possible reality), aside from the fact that bad actors will do bad things, etc. The details of licenses and stuff, I admit it's a challenge, but losing a gun to theft has to be absolutely serious business. It's too much of a liability to have criminals running around with them, so mandatory reporting of sales/transfers will help us catch the bad guys and exonerate the good guys.

 

[Gregolian]

If you protect the inalienable right to self defense, and that right can only be assured by a firearm, then the responsible thing to do is to be responsible for use and ownership of firearms. I think my idea solves every fundamental problem we have with guns (given that we can't rid ourselves of them in any possible reality), aside from the fact that bad actors will do bad things, etc. The details of licenses and stuff, I admit it's a challenge, but losing a gun to theft has to be absolutely serious business. It's too much of a liability to have criminals running around with them, so mandatory reporting of sales/transfers will help us catch the bad guys and exonerate the good guys.

I'm not a fan of it but am not against a licensing thing if the fees aren't astronomical.

Especially if in your model the whole purpose is self defense it's patently unfair to set the pricing so high that it prices lower income out so to speak.

I just take issue with the first words out of Law Enforcement when you report a stolen firearm is "you sold it didn't you"?

Like, fuck you bozo. It got stolen with a bunch of other shit you twat.

I also take issue with (not in your post) "safe storage laws". The purpose makes sense, but in practice I don't see how it works unless you allow LEOs to search houses without a warrant to make sure you have a gun safe.

 

[Higus]

I was gonna do a long, drawn-out thing with SC precedent case citations and colonial research showing how the 2nd amendment was pasted together out of a loose conglomeration of shared values and Southern insistence, but I'm going to keep it very brief.


We should repeal and replace the second amendment. And it's not a happy ending for people who don't like the 2nd.


First Principle:

We have an inalienable right to self defense. But what does that mean?

It means that no court should be able to hold that we cannot use firearms in defense of ourselves. The second amendment is a clause too long. We have a military. If a state wants a militia, do it. There is no need for "the security of a free state" anymore. Recent courts have affirmed that it's about self-defense, and they're right today, in the real landscape of 2019 in which we find ourselves.


This means that no state will be able to take away a citizen's right to self defense by the way of a gun. The details on concealed/open carry and whatnot will still have to be worked out, but what America is really asking for is a right to self defense. It's a great principle because it is simple and can be thought of as inalienable, and it's even more concrete than the pursuit of happiness! It's a great principle. Instill it.


There's a sting at the end of the tail. Lots of stings, actually. Gun grabbers will have to suck it for now, true. But the right to self defense is controlled by available technology of defense. This is just another way of saying that old frail people or cowards need guns today, but they may not need guns tomorrow. If that happens, so be it. However, the gun is the only way we have to guarantee a decent chance of self defense in dire emergencies. All gun defense is emergent when practiced by a citizen. You don't see it coming, you need the gun if you are going to put down the threat. That's it. You're old, you need a gun. You're too scared, you need a gun. If you want it. It's fundamental to our personal safety. That may not be true in the future.


To accommodate this, we need to examine a truth, and here's the truth. Every single "illegal" gun was once in the care of a good honest hardworking law abiding citizen. But it found its way into the hands of a criminal. Some by stealing, sure. But gun culturalists, back me up here. It's shady. You need some cash, you sell a gun. Happens all the fucking time. You have no control over it from that point on. We need that gun control. The control that enables us to pin a gun user to a gun, and an audit of ownership. Make a cradle-to-grave registry. There are many millions of guns grandfathered, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. When the tech catches up, install biometrics. I understand there are tech obstacles there, but clearly we're going to get there.


And that's about all for the law. Strike the 2nd, and give us a right to self defense. That's the way. Word it so states cannot stop somebody from defending himself. I don't know how to do that, but it's possible for legal minds to come up with something.


On makes/functionality of weapons, let the debate continue. We're in a good place because we're debating in the same arena, quibbling over this stock or that barrel. It's fine. These are minor issues, and not a serious problem or an infringement on self defense.

That's all, thanks.

Interesting argument. I don't think I've seen it like that before.
I think the functionality issue is where some interesting debates can come up. People like to point out that there's not much functionality differences between an AR-15 and a Mini-14, for instance, but some states would classify the former a restricted assault rifle and the latter as not. If the state restricts one model but allows the other, can you argue that it has infringed the right to self defense in any meaningful way? The answer to that opens up a lot of other arguments.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not a fan of it but am not against a licensing thing if the fees aren't astronomical.

Especially if in your model the whole purpose is self defense it's patently unfair to set the pricing so high that it prices lower income out so to speak.

I just take issue with the first words out of Law Enforcement when you report a stolen firearm is "you sold it didn't you"?

Like, fuck you bozo. It got stolen with a bunch of other shit you twat.

I also take issue with (not in your post) "safe storage laws". The purpose makes sense, but in practice I don't see how it works unless you allow LEOs to search houses without a warrant to make sure you have a gun safe.

That's interesting about law enforcement. Does WA have the sort of tracking that incentivizes people reporting guns as stolen? State by state, things can get complicated and I recognize that. It's a tough overhaul for sure but I think it benefits good people and hurts the capabilities of bad people.

 

[Gregolian]

That's interesting about law enforcement. Does WA have the sort of tracking that incentivizes people reporting guns as stolen? State by state, things can get complicated and I recognize that. It's a tough overhaul for sure but I think it benefits good people and hurts the capabilities of bad people.

The only thing they track out here, to my knowledge, is conceal permit holders, as in who has one, how long have they had it, is it expired or not.

I know shops take down the serial numbers on FFL items when they call the ATF after you fill out the forms but I'm not sure if they link that in anyway to any sort of registry. As far as the shops I frequent know, they don't it's the ATF keeping track of what firearms were purchased and in what state but past that it's nothing.

EDIT:
As to the example I reference part of me thinks that the LEO asked the question, especially how he asked it (as it was almost mockingly) is because if there's on critique of my town/county's law enforcement is that they are lazy.

They'll break up a multi person bar fight that sends one person to the hospital and only write tickets as they don't want to deal with felony paperwork.

 

[Fawlty]

Interesting argument. I don't think I've seen it like that before.
I think the functionality issue is where some interesting debates can come up. People like to point out that there's not much functionality differences between an AR-15 and a Mini-14, for instance, but some states would classify the former a restricted assault rifle and the latter as not. If the state restricts one model but allows the other, can you argue that it has infringed the right to self defense in any meaningful way? The answer to that opens up a lot of other arguments.

I admit I'm opening the door to states restricting certain models, but that's okay. If we say it's for self defense (and hunting, but that's another story), we have to subject ourselves to some regulation that we may not like. I think manufacturers and enthusiasts can adapt without losing out on anything that is fundamentally "American" though. Would make for some interesting court cases.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This goes to the root of my issue: if individual civilians should be allowed arms for the purpose to fight tyranny, regardless of state sponsored militia affiliation, regulation, or scrutiny, then there should not be limits to what the individual can own to meet those needs. Reductio Ad Absurdum. An untrained private citizen *should* be able to buy a rocket launcher and a mini-gun from Walmart, no questions asked. This is the absurd conclusion is the only logically consistent one.
So the question seems to boil down to if regulations are necessary or not, and if so, the minutiae of defining the criteria for regulations.

Yes, that's logically consistent. It's just not really desirable anymore on a broad scale. For Constitutional integrity, we should pass an Amendment restricting explosives and WMD's.

Gun grabbers

We're avoiding this term. Thanks.

To accommodate this, we need to examine a truth, and here's the truth. Every single "illegal" gun was once in the care of a good honest hardworking law abiding citizen. But it found its way into the hands of a criminal. Some by stealing, sure. But gun culturalists, back me up here. It's shady. You need some cash, you sell a gun. Happens all the fucking time. You have no control over it from that point on. We need that gun control. The control that enables us to pin a gun user to a gun, and an audit of ownership. Make a cradle-to-grave registry. There are many millions of guns grandfathered, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. When the tech catches up, install biometrics. I understand there are tech obstacles there, but clearly we're going to get there.

I couldn't tell you numbers, but straw purchases would technically not be in the care of the law-abiding citizen. Unless you're counting the commercial enterprises involved. There's also the proliferation of home-builds (using 80% lowers). Prohibited people can buy what they need without any background check. The big unknown in my book is the emergence of 3D-printing. You'll never get anywhere near full control of "pinning a gun to a user", even with a registry. There's 100's of millions of unregistered firearms. By the time those cycle out of existence (100's of years), people will surely be able to print their own components.

As for bio-metrics, nobody whose life depends on a gun wants that stuff. It's something that could go wrong at the crucial moment of need. But hey, let's test the tech out with law enforcement and see how it goes. My guess is this would cause a shitstorm. If it ain't good enough for police it ain't good enough for the rest of us whose lives are equally valuable.

We're in a good place because we're debating in the same arena, quibbling over this stock or that barrel. It's fine. These are minor issues, and not a serious problem or an infringement on self defense.

I don't think those are minor issues at all. They affect performance and not all firearms are intended to do the exact same thing. If you can have a pistol and a rifle then there's no reason to prohibit something in between.

 

[Fawlty]

The only thing they track out here, to my knowledge, is conceal permit holders, as in who has one, how long have they had it, is it expired or not.

I know shops take down the serial numbers on FFL items when they call the ATF after you fill out the forms but I'm not sure if they link that in anyway to any sort of registry. As far as the shops I frequent know, they don't it's the ATF keeping track of what firearms were purchased and in what state but past that it's nothing.

Why do cops ask if your reported-stolen gun was actually sold?

 

[Gregolian]

Why do cops ask if your reported-stolen gun was actually sold?

Added a ninja Edit

 

[Fawlty]

I couldn't tell you numbers, but straw purchases would technically not be in the care of the law-abiding citizen. Unless you're counting the commercial enterprises involved. There's also the proliferation of home-builds (using 80% lowers). Prohibited people can buy what they need without any background check. The big unknown in my book is the emergence of 3D-printing. You'll never get anywhere near full control of "pinning a gun to a user", even with a registry. There's 100's of millions of unregistered firearms. By the time those cycle out of existence (100's of years), people will surely be able to print their own components.

As for bio-metrics, nobody whose life depends on a gun wants that stuff. It's something that could go wrong at the crucial moment of need. But hey, let's test the tech out with law enforcement and see how it goes. My guess is this would cause a shitstorm. If it ain't good enough for police it ain't good enough for the rest of us whose lives are equally valuable.




I don't think those are minor issues at all. They affect performance and not all firearms are intended to do the exact same thing. If you can have a pistol and a rifle then there's no reason to prohibit something in between.

My proposal punishes straw purchases through an audit of the registry, which is in addition to the undercover techniques already available. I improve that aspect, gladly and greatly.

Once people get used to the new constitutionality of self defense, they will adapt to accountability, minus some kooky holdouts. It's not a problem.

The tech currently is not where it needs to be, and in uncommon (though not rare) cases is a liability. I recognize that and my proposal there depends entirely on whether tech can deliver (and it will, I'd wager).

Definitely minor issues in scope. Glad to keep those debates going, because the debates there occur in the same limited scope. Very good.

 

[jlagman]

To accommodate this, we need to examine a truth, and here's the truth. Every single "illegal" gun was once in the care of a good honest hardworking law abiding citizen. But it found its way into the hands of a criminal. Some by stealing, sure. But gun culturalists, back me up here. It's shady. You need some cash, you sell a gun. Happens all the fucking time. You have no control over it from that point on. We need that gun control. The control that enables us to pin a gun user to a gun, and an audit of ownership. Make a cradle-to-grave registry. There are many millions of guns grandfathered, but the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step. When the tech catches up, install biometrics. I understand there are tech obstacles there, but clearly we're going to get there.

You'd have more luck banning certain kinds of firearms than you would a "cradle-to-grave" registry, because it simply places an unfair and unreasonable burden on anyone who was the chain of possession. So let me get this straight, if I sell a gun and the fourth owner down the line misuses it, it's my fault? Where else would perpetual responsibility and shared guilt make any sense?

When your ownership ends, so does your responsibility.

 

[Fawlty]

You'd have more luck banning certain kinds of firearms than you would a "cradle-to-grave" registry, because it simply places an unfair and unreasonable burden on anyone who was the chain of possession. So let me get this straight, if I sell a gun and the fourth owner down the line misuses it, it's my fault? Where else would perpetual responsibility and shared guilt make any sense?

When your ownership ends, so does your responsibility.

You have accountability for notifying potential law enforcement investigations (through the registry) that the killing-mammals-tool you are passing on to another person is accounted for. It's clearly not unfair, and your comparison doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Higus]

Yes, that's logically consistent. It's just not really desirable anymore on a broad scale. For Constitutional integrity, we should pass an Amendment restricting explosives and WMD's.

Ok, but it doesn't address whether or not it's what the FF's intended for the private citizen. Something has to give. Either the FF's intended for anything to be available to the citizen to defend against tyranny, or there are reasonable limits to what a private person should be able to own that are worth debating without invoking the Constitution.

 

[Stoic1]

Registries are really, really bad. History has shown this to be abused.

I see your point - I really do. But the risk vs reward is too great here.

 

[Gregolian]

I think a big issue with the gun debate is the same issue with a lot of debates like this.

It's education. I have known a couple people that are super SUPER anti-gun... like of the "find them and melt them down" variety. I've taken them shooting or been with them when a mutual friend took them shooting and all of them have changed their opinion in some fashion. I think once you remove some of the mystery over how they work, how they feel when you shoot them, and how the way movies/TV portray them is USUALLY far FAR from the reality their opinion changes, at least a little.

As in they go from "prosecute all gun owners and melt them down" to "I would never own one but I no longer see as big a deal in them"

 

[jlagman]

You have accountability for notifying potential law enforcement investigations (through the registry) that the killing-mammals-tool you are passing on to another person is accounted for. It's clearly not unfair, and your comparison doesn't make sense to me.

See the note above, the main difference being that gun control presumes guilt on the owner's part and history has shown us that gun registries have been abused by governments time and again. If there's a way to guarantee against said abuse, I'm all ears.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

If you're going to go that route, of requiring an FFL to conduct a private sale or transfer then the state should set the price point and shouldn't set it higher than say for a box of 20 rounds of cheap 30-06 or about $25-$30 at least in WA.

If the public is demanding it then the public should pay for it. Background checks are a law enforcement mechanism so taxpayers should foot the bill for them.

My proposal punishes straw purchases through an audit of the registry, which is in addition to the undercover techniques already available. I improve that aspect, gladly and greatly.

Once people get used to the new constitutionality of self defense, they will adapt to accountability, minus some kooky holdouts. It's not a problem.

The tech currently is not where it needs to be, and in uncommon (though not rare) cases is a liability. I recognize that and my proposal there depends entirely on whether tech can deliver (and it will, I'd wager).

Definitely minor issues in scope. Glad to keep those debates going, because the debates there occur in the same limited scope. Very good.

It's a fundamental miscarriage of justice to punish someone for being the victim of a crime. Indefensible in my mind. A crime against losing something is about equally egregious. In what other areas do we have these laws? Would you be willing to punish government employees and business owners under these same circumstances? LEO's lose weapons and have them stolen probably more often than we know.

Here's something else to keep in mind with a registry. Everyone dies. Then what? At least two of the firearms I was to inherit from my dad ended up going missing. Of the dozens I currently own, I give zero fucks if I'm dead or dying and the next owner isn't tracked. Why's that, you ask? As was pointed out by @Gregolian, letting the government know where all the weapons are just enables tyranny via confiscation. And before you start pontificating how that's not a concern, here's what's going on in Hawaii. We have a registry. Not long ago all of us law-abiding folks got put on the federal rap-back list (or whatever that informs one state if you were convicted of something in a another state). More recently the Honolulu PD sent out letter to folks on the registry, who were also on the medical marijuana list, saying they must relinquish possession of their firearms. Although public sentiment squelched that shit quick, the specter looms. Now there's a bill in committee looking to essentially ban semi-autos, with no provision for grandfathering. The registry is about confiscation, not crime-fighting. I once asked @A.C. how the registry helped solve crimes. His response (the specifics I forget) did nothing to make me think otherwise. Now add all that up, plus all the talk of disarming people with "mental issues" and there's my problem. The bar to be separated from you firearms will only get lower and lower. So even if the weapons are able to be purchased, the right and ability to engage in effective self-defense will only be available to fewer and fewer people.