The American Gun Rights Thread Vol. 3

[Cubo de Sangre]

I searched and couldn't find Vol 2. It was over 1k posts anyway. For fun let's kick this off with a foreign story.

http://news.yahoo.com/finland-seeks-exception-eu-gun-ban-125453188--finance.html

Finland said on Wednesday it would demand some exceptions from planned European Union restrictions on the use of firearms, citing national defense needs.

Following deadly attacks by armed militants in Paris last month, the EU commission proposed tighter rules governing the issue and use of guns, including a ban for private persons to hold certain semi-automatic firearms.

I guess those European gun laws aren't getting the job done and they now need more.

 

[2DUM2TAP]

I searched and couldn't find Vol 2. It was over 1k posts anyway. For fun let's kick this off with a foreign story.

http://news.yahoo.com/finland-seeks-exception-eu-gun-ban-125453188--finance.html





I guess those European gun laws aren't getting the job done and they now need more.

Oh I'm glad they are cracking down on guns that people can own. I'm sure the ones used in Paris were totally legal and these new laws would have prevented the terrorist acts all together.

 

[Byron Carter]

Posting in my baby.




Purchasing a firearm, while being on the completely ridiculous and arbitrary "No fly list", is now a "Loophole" that needs to be closed.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Oh I'm glad they are cracking down on guns that people can own. I'm sure the ones used in Paris were totally legal and these new laws would have prevented the terrorist acts all together.

I'm confused why EU leadership would entertain the idea, based on Finland's reasoning. Only fools think small arms would do any good against military might such as that possessed by the Russians. Or at least that's what I'm told.

 

[Stoic1]

The next time Europe gets into trouble I would hope our government pauses and says something to the effect of, "You have been highly critical of our 2A and gun ownership laws. We can neither supply you with arms/ammunition nor can we assist you with our Soldiers."

 

[feedmelies]

Just saw this great article.

3 Popular (And Unconvincing) Arguments for Gun Control

Following the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, the debate over America’s gun policies has been reignited. Advocates for gun control have been especially vocal in expressing opinions about how the government should handle the problem of gun violence.

However, not unlike some of their intellectual opponents, gun control advocates often approach the issue with an unwarranted amount of confidence in any argument that lends itself to their preferred conclusion. Here are three common arguments for gun control that are less convincing than they first appear.

http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/3-popular-and-unconvincing-arguments-for-gun-control/

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

http://news.yahoo.com/wva-may-weigh-measure-allow-concealed-guns-without-145704837.html

Lawmakers in West Virginia are gearing up for another attempt at making it legal to carry concealed weapons in the state without a permit, and their chances of success are high.


The Republican-led Legislature overwhelmingly passed a measure earlier this year to allow people to carry out-of-sight guns without a permit. Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin vetoed it, citing safety concerns and an outcry from law enforcement. The Legislature ran out of time and wasn't able to hold a vote attempt at overriding the veto.

Sen. Bill Cole, the president of West Virginia's Senate, said legislators are working on a new version of the legislation for to appease law enforcement's concerns, and some possibilities have emerged: increasing penalties for gun-related crimes, requiring 18- to 21-year-olds to undergo the gun training currently required for concealed carry permits, and limiting the new law to West Virginia residents.

 

[jefferz]

http://news.yahoo.com/wva-may-weigh-measure-allow-concealed-guns-without-145704837.html

The age restriction part is ridiculous. When someone turns 22 they're suddenly responsible to conceal but 1 day before that 22nd birthday you're not?

 

[SMEAC]

The next time Europe gets into trouble I would hope our government pauses and says something to the effect of, "You have been highly critical of our 2A and gun ownership laws. We can neither supply you with arms/ammunition nor can we assist you with our Soldiers."

The chances of Americans donating firearms to Europeans again is slim

 

[oldshadow]

The age restriction part is ridiculous. When someone turns 22 they're suddenly responsible to conceal but 1 day before that 22nd birthday you're not?

It's 21 and do you feel that way about all age restrictions?

 

[ironwolf]

Guns are awesome, I have a lot of them.

...And ill more than likely buy more.

 

[ncordless]

What do you think about this case? It upholds Florida's law discouraging doctors from questioning patients about gun ownership, and restricts them from disparaging gun ownership with their patients. The Court upholds the law under strict scrutiny review for content based free speech restrictions by saying there is a compelling government interest in protecting the 2nd amendment, and that private doctors discouraging gun ownership would harm this.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214009.reh2.pdf

Seems problematic to me.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

What do you think about this case? It upholds Florida's law discouraging doctors from questioning patients about gun ownership, and restricts them from disparaging gun ownership with their patients. The Court upholds the law under strict scrutiny review for content based free speech restrictions by saying there is a compelling government interest in protecting the 2nd amendment, and that private doctors discouraging gun ownership would harm this.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214009.reh2.pdf

Seems problematic to me.

Fudge, bro. That bitch is 80 pages.

How about this. The Dr's office is a commercial enterprise, and there's a long history of limiting the behavior of business to further support/social emphasis on particular rights. Since there's two competing interests of equal stature here (1st & 2nd) then one is going to have to take a backseat. How to decide?

My immediate reaction is screw that. Docs can dole out whatever medical advice they see fit. The trumper might be the current 2nd Amendment witchhunt and the need to preempt the collection of data that could be used to harm gun-owners in subtle ways. I'm pretty sure the legitimate argument that allowing a potential enemy to collect stats on your defense capacity isn't that savvy will fall on deaf ears (generally speaking). But those things aren't conjoined. We can prohibit taking and reporting stats without preventing the dissemination of scientifically established health information.

So off the top of my head I'd say preventing the asking is ok but not preventing the stats and dangers as they're currently known.

 

[ironwolf]

What do you think about this case? It upholds Florida's law discouraging doctors from questioning patients about gun ownership, and restricts them from disparaging gun ownership with their patients. The Court upholds the law under strict scrutiny review for content based free speech restrictions by saying there is a compelling government interest in protecting the 2nd amendment, and that private doctors discouraging gun ownership would harm this.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214009.reh2.pdf

Seems problematic to me.

Thats a tough one. On one hand I think doctors should stick to medicine because thats what they are trained for and thats where it should end. On the other hand, mentally ill people probably shouldn't have guns.

My problem with it is that once doctors are allowed to make these decisions, I think lots of people would lose their rights based on an "opinion".

for that matter though, I go shooting with my doctor and have hunted with him my whole life, he allows concealed carry in his office and is a CCer himself so Id be happy to let him make this decision for me because if that guy thinks shoudnt have a gun, then he would probably be right.

 

[ncordless]

The fact that these doctors (in private practice) are acting in the capacity of doctors does not change the review in this case. They apply the law as if this was a normal person whom content-based speech restrictions have been imposed.

The major problem I have with it is that it creates a right of a gun owner not to be dissuaded from exercising their constitutional right by private persons. While it may sound well and good to gun owners, in this instance, it is very problematic because it silences discussion. The doctor can't say anything to make the patient stop exercising his right, he can only persuade the gun owner. There is no right not to be persuaded of something by another private citizen. If the doctor convinces someone to not own a gun, then that is the patient's right to be persuaded. That's what free speech is for. That the speaker is able to say what he wants is nice, but the real value is to the listener who can either agree or disagree.

Plus, they said Florida's interest in keeping private individuals from dissuading others from exercising their constitutional right was a compelling interest sufficient to survive strict scrutiny. If that's so, the precedent it creates is dangerous to all constitutional rights. For instance, Florida could later create a free speech restriction on saying something bigoted because it harms their listener's 14th amendment right to equal protection. I assume the would apply strict scrutiny to 2nd amendment as well. If it is found that a person with a gun makes people not speak as freely, could they create a law banning guns in public places on the grounds that it might chill free speech? If the possibility of your doctor telling you that guns are dangerous convincing you not to own a gun is sufficient to silence the speaker, then it seems like the possibility that a gun in the crowd might dissuade the speaker from speaking would be sufficient to disarm the gun owner.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This seems all for show.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/263932-paul-aims-to-reign-in-obama-on-guns

The Kentucky Republican, who is running for president, has introduced legislation that would decree any executive action on gun control that either infringes upon congressional authority or potentially violates the Second Amendment as "advisory only" until legislation that supported the action is passed by Congress.

Or maybe not?

The legislation would also allow for any state official, member of Congress or person affected by an executive action on gun control to launch a civil lawsuit.

 

[second sight]

http://bearingarms.com/anti-gun-sheriff-negligently-shoots-hand/

 

[SMEAC]

http://bearingarms.com/anti-gun-sheriff-negligently-shoots-hand/

Beat me to the punch

 

[Poatan Power]

What do you think about this case? It upholds Florida's law discouraging doctors from questioning patients about gun ownership, and restricts them from disparaging gun ownership with their patients. The Court upholds the law under strict scrutiny review for content based free speech restrictions by saying there is a compelling government interest in protecting the 2nd amendment, and that private doctors discouraging gun ownership would harm this.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214009.reh2.pdf

Seems problematic to me.

As a medical professional (ICU nurse, currently in administration of a hospital)... I fully support anything that limits physician's talking to patient's about firearms. They are licensed to practice medicine, they have no business advocating for gun ownership or advocating against it. I don't generally support additional laws (less government is better), but if that's what it takes to keep physicians away from firearm ownership so be it. They're not qualified for it.

 

[second sight]

Va. AG Herring revokes recognition of concealed carry handgun permits from 25 states

http://www.live5news.com/story/3080...oncealed-carry-handgun-permits-from-25-states