Wyoming Senator proposes ban on Federal Gun Control

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

thaluikhain:

Not G. Ivingname:
1. Most crimes are not committed using military style weapons. Most crimes, where a weapon was used, are done with handguns, by a WIDE margin. ALL other guns types, which includes shotguns and any kind of Rifle, are used less often than KNIVES. "Military style" weapons kill less people a year than blunt objects.

Well, if by "military style" you mean "things that press calls assault rifles because they don't know any better".

Most militaries around the world issue some kind of handgun. Likewise, little difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle, and hunting rifles are generally the type of weapon people don't object to, very much not the case with sniper rifles.

Yes, I mant the "assault rifle" styled weapons. Wasn't sure what else to call them.

I knew calling them "Assault Rifles" would be wrong, since they do not meet most definitions of assault rifles (since they don't have selective fire). "Assault Weapons" also would of been even more wrong, since the original ban covered shotguns as well, and the newly proposed version would cover every single magazine fed rifle ever created by man (since there is nothing in the law to preclude the magazine from being considered a "forward grip," and no gun could be made with even a SINGLE of the "Assault Weapon" features).

thaluikhain:

Not G. Ivingname:
1. Most crimes are not committed using military style weapons. Most crimes, where a weapon was used, are done with handguns, by a WIDE margin. ALL other guns types, which includes shotguns and any kind of Rifle, are used less often than KNIVES. "Military style" weapons kill less people a year than blunt objects.

Well, if by "military style" you mean "things that press calls assault rifles because they don't know any better".

Most militaries around the world issue some kind of handgun. Likewise, little difference between a hunting rifle and a sniper rifle, and hunting rifles are generally the type of weapon people don't object to, very much not the case with sniper rifles.

They issue handguns, but it's a sidearm for a reason. A rifle is better in every way except for weight and size, but that's not a problem since a soldier generally isn't concerned about concealing it.

By 'military-style', he probably meant longguns (Shotguns, Rifles, etc).

A hunting rifle will kill just as well as a sniper rifle, considering that they're the same exact thing. The term 'Sniper' came from hunters who hunted the Snipe, which is a small bird with an erratic flight pattern, which means that you had to be a really good shot in order to hit one.

In military terms, any rifle with a telescopic scope is considered a 'sniper rifle'. It has nothing to do with the gun, it's all about the scope. I know that was your point, I was just clarifying.

Kopikatsu:
They issue handguns, but it's a sidearm for a reason. A rifle is better in every way except for weight and size, but that's not a problem since a soldier generally isn't concerned about concealing it.

By 'military-style', he probably meant longguns (Shotguns, Rifles, etc).

A hunting rifle will kill just as well as a sniper rifle, considering that they're the same exact thing. The term 'Sniper' came from hunters who hunted the Snipe, which is a small bird with an erratic flight pattern, which means that you had to be a really good shot in order to hit one.

In military terms, any rifle with a telescopic scope is considered a 'sniper rifle'. It has nothing to do with the gun, it's all about the scope. I know that was your point, I was just clarifying.

Oh, sure, I agree that clarity is important on this issue, there is far too much misinformation about firearms floating around.

Magenera:
So this is the same as the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington right? I think even the gay marriage laws?

There's no federal law which enforces Christian gender discrimination in marriage, so there's no law to go over and invalidate a state-level marriage equality law.

The other way around however, there's constitutional articles against inequality before the law and against discrimination, so states that ban gay marriage could see those laws overturned. Although American courts are notoriously unpredictable and inconsistent when it comes to rights being extended into realms they weren't written for at the time.

KingsGambit:
A double-barrel shotgun can do a lot of damage, but holds only two shots and takes time to reload. A bolt action rifle is slow to reload, and not easily concealed. An MP5 holds multiple rounds of ammunition which it can fire all of without the need to remove ones finger from the trigger. A pistol can be hidden beneath one's jacket or smuggled into a cinema beneath combat fatigues. I cannot see how it could be disputed that an assault rifle is overkill for the purposes of hunting or defending ones home. What separates it from a bolt-action rifle is the number of children whose lives it can take in the same space of time.

The gun lobby would even argue the sky is green and the grass is blue, and that there's no Americans in Baghdad, if it means they can keep sleeping with a gun under their pillow and keep killing people. I think that's been demonstrated the past few weeks on this board.

Blablahb:

Magenera:
So this is the same as the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington right? I think even the gay marriage laws?

There's no federal law which enforces Christian gender discrimination in marriage, so there's no law to go over and invalidate a state-level marriage equality law.

The other way around however, there's constitutional articles against inequality before the law and against discrimination, so states that ban gay marriage could see those laws overturned. Although American courts are notoriously unpredictable and inconsistent when it comes to rights being extended into realms they weren't written for at the time.

KingsGambit:
A double-barrel shotgun can do a lot of damage, but holds only two shots and takes time to reload. A bolt action rifle is slow to reload, and not easily concealed. An MP5 holds multiple rounds of ammunition which it can fire all of without the need to remove ones finger from the trigger. A pistol can be hidden beneath one's jacket or smuggled into a cinema beneath combat fatigues. I cannot see how it could be disputed that an assault rifle is overkill for the purposes of hunting or defending ones home. What separates it from a bolt-action rifle is the number of children whose lives it can take in the same space of time.

The gun lobby would even argue the sky is green and the grass is blue, and that there's no Americans in Baghdad, if it means they can keep sleeping with a gun under their pillow and keep killing people. I think that's been demonstrated the past few weeks on this board.

Gun lobby represents a third of the populations, hailing from both major parties. The dems don't do shit, because unless you are from a liberal area where you'll face no reprisal, you are not safe from your opposition from the other party, or being cannibalize from within your own party being the democrats, as they take your seat. Of course if the truth was set out that the reason why the Dems don't fight the Gun Lobby was to keep power, because most or a large part of the country is pro-gun to the point of losing seats, it'll make the dems look bad as they care more about their power than anything else, so you have the big bully that is the gun lobby going about.

Also last I check DOMA hasn't been repealed, so in gay marriage is not recognized by federal level, which is where I was bringing my point.

Not G. Ivingname:

MopBox:
Yeah, it'll be ruled unconstitutional in a federal circuit.

That might be the point, actually.

The Feds would HAVE to take it to court, so the Assault Weapon Ban itself could be brought under judicial scrutiny. Many times, when a judge want's to avoid presiding over a politically dicy issue, the judge or judges try to find any reason that one party does not have "standing" to file the lawsuit. That almost happened in DC vs. Heller, but five of the six defendants were found not to have "standing" on the issue. No loophole could be found that barred Heller, who was a police officer who wanted to be able to own a handgun that he could keep in his home.

By making this a law, no judge would not be able to prevent the case from being appealed on the grounds that the Assault Weapons Ban is unconstitutional.

Either the federal government brings the state up to the Supreme Court, with the same nine judges that sided with Heller, or allow the law to stand, encouraging other states to do the same.

Actually, if they follow Heller, they'll probably uphold the ban, especially considering Scalia authored the majority opinion for the majority of Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito (sometimes considered the conservative wing of the court). Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer (sometimes referred to as the liberal wing of the court) all supported a "collective right to bear arms," a much more restrictive view of the Second Amendment.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER: Page 2 of the Syllabus; page 54 of the Majority Opinion:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

SCotUS Blog Link to the Opinion (PDF)

So the red states have to figure out another way to go to war with the federal government since attacking unions and Obama care aren't getting as much attention as they used to. But I doubt the bill will go into effect, I have a sincere belief that this legislation is too far to be accepted by state government. Remember most politicians are lawyers and they know it won't pan out in court so why the fuck would they bother with something that will obviously fail.

dmase:
So the red states have to figure out another way to go to war with the federal government since attacking unions and Obama care aren't getting as much attention as they used to. But I doubt the bill will go into effect, I have a sincere belief that this legislation is too far to be accepted by state government. Remember most politicians are lawyers and they know it won't pan out in court so why the fuck would they bother with something that will obviously fail.

Don't be too sure. The Wyoming state legislature is overwhelmingly republican. And even the democrats are pretty far right by what we'd consider national standards. That's one of the reasons I'm considering moving there

CM156:

dmase:
So the red states have to figure out another way to go to war with the federal government since attacking unions and Obama care aren't getting as much attention as they used to. But I doubt the bill will go into effect, I have a sincere belief that this legislation is too far to be accepted by state government. Remember most politicians are lawyers and they know it won't pan out in court so why the fuck would they bother with something that will obviously fail.

Don't be too sure. The Wyoming state legislature is overwhelmingly republican. And even the democrats are pretty far right by what we'd consider national standards. That's one of the reasons I'm considering moving there

But I have to keep asking myself why, what purpose would making this law have? I'm not of the mind that it could actually be implemented even once and gun dealers alone wouldn't dare go for it. Lets say Wyoming has this ban on bans for 1 month after the federal ban goes into affect that means that gun store owners will have to get guns from gun producers within that extra month and get rid of them also within that month or be stuck with them basically.

So first off would gun manufactures still make these weapons? Would Wyoming have enough customers(even from other states) to warrant the gun industry from making the guns and shipping them there? Would gun store owners trust this legislation to work long enough for them to make back their investment? I think the answer to all these questions is no.

The Gentleman:

[quote=DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER: Page 2 of the Syllabus; page 54 of the Majority Opinion]Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Nothing in that says "uphold the ban of features, the ban on certain classes of rifles, or the look of the arms." You also forgot to mention the next part of it.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

Like it or not, the vast majority of people that buy "military style rifles," buy them for lawful purposes such as self defense, target shooting, and hunting. We can all argue all day if these rifles are "to much" for any of those roles, but the people who use the rifles in lawful reasons outweighs the people who use them for unlawful reasons outweighs it buy orders o magnitude.

Also, the new Assault weapon ban proposed by Senator Feinstein would basically ban every single semi-automatic, or even magazine fed gun, ever created by man, barring the few she put in as "exceptions." In the new bill, she redefines "forward handgrip," as just about anything in front of the trigger that sticks down and can be grabbed by your hand. Nothing in the language precludes magazines, which almost always are in front of the trigger, and stick down from the gun.

So yes, it would most likely be struck down on the grounds of "to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms'", part of their ruling.

I'm actually not quite sure if this would be legal or not. It reminds me of states legalizing marijuana and allowing it's use even though its still illegal as far as the Federal Government is concerned. If there is new gun legislation we might have quite the interesting court case that would definitely put more definition on the 10th Amendment and could change a whole lot of things.

Not G. Ivingname:

The Gentleman:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER: Page 2 of the Syllabus; page 54 of the Majority Opinion:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Nothing in that says "uphold the ban of features, the ban on certain classes of rifles, or the look of the arms." You also forgot to mention the next part of it.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District's total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of "arms" that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition - in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute - would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56-64.

By that logic, it would be illegal to ban fully-automatic weapons as they would be a class of arms. It's more reasonable to view their statement as the locking requirement and extreme restrictions on possession of pistols, rifles, and shotguns to be a de facto ban on firearms as a class of arms.

Like it or not, the vast majority of people that buy "military style rifles," buy them for lawful purposes such as self defense, target shooting, and hunting. We can all argue all day if these rifles are "to much" for any of those roles, but the people who use the rifles in lawful reasons outweighs the people who use them for unlawful reasons outweighs it buy orders o magnitude.

And one spree of Tylenol poisonings resulted in new laws requiring tamper-proof bottles for OTC medications. It's never abuse by the majority which spark new legislation, but when a small minority exploit the circumstances with horrific consequences.

Sidenote: It's not like there's a lot of controversy on other reforms as well, many of which would likely be more effective than an assault rifle ban at reducing gun violence. The "Gun Show Loophole" (an exemption on the background check requirement for private purchasers that may not necessarily be at a gun show) should be a non-controversial gap to plug, and the opinion would be fully supportive of such a measure. Banning sales of high-capacity magazines would also not be a hard restriction to pass. Neither of these are particularly controversial. Banning sales by non-licensed individuals and increasing the rate of audits and inspections of sales records would also be fully within the law (think along the lines of health inspectors at restaurants). All of those policies would be completely constitutional under the Heller decision.

Also, the new Assault weapon ban proposed by Senator Feinstein would basically ban every single semi-automatic, or even magazine fed gun, ever created by man, barring the few she put in as "exceptions." In the new bill, she redefines "forward handgrip," as just about anything in front of the trigger that sticks down and can be grabbed by your hand. Nothing in the language precludes magazines, which almost always are in front of the trigger, and stick down from the gun.

That's more of an argument to refine the law and add exceptions, not oppose it entirely, or to alternatively propose legislation that would deal with the issues better.

And here's where lockstep opposition to something can actually hurt a cause more than help it. It's clear that there's going to be a very large fight over gun control within the next few months. As a interest group (gun owners opposed to the law, although pretty much every interest group usually has to make this choice when they have an interest in legislation), you have two options: (1) work with the drafters to refine the language, clarify the restrictions, and add reasonable exemptions or (2) total opposition, where you gamble that the measure will fail, but loose completely if it passes. In the first case, your side looses (at least publicly), but it is done on your terms in a way that generally will least harm your interests. In the second case, you might win, but, if you loose, you loose everything.

So yes, it would most likely be struck down on the grounds of "to a prohibition on an entire class of 'arms'", part of their ruling.

See first response.

Magenera:
So this is the same as the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington right? I think even the gay marriage laws? Not really new when states tell the Feds to fuck off, by telling them to enforce the laws themselves when the state doesn't agree with them, though the Feds might run into a problem if other states started adopting Wyoming laws.

I think the sale of marijuana would fall under the commerce clause. The federal government can only regulate the trade of items between states, not WITHIN state. If the law says it is legal in Colorado to grow pot, roll it up, and sell it to another person within Colorado, the Federal laws do not apply. If you try to sell it across the state borders, your in all kinds of trouble.

Going by this law, some states (including Wyoming) actually make it legal to own certain firearms and firearm features banned by federal law if they are made in the state and sold to residents of the state, such as silencers.

Not G. Ivingname:

Magenera:
So this is the same as the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington right? I think even the gay marriage laws? Not really new when states tell the Feds to fuck off, by telling them to enforce the laws themselves when the state doesn't agree with them, though the Feds might run into a problem if other states started adopting Wyoming laws.

I think the sale of marijuana would fall under the commerce clause. The federal government can only regulate the trade of items between states, not WITHIN state. If the law says it is legal in Colorado to grow pot, roll it up, and sell it to another person within Colorado, the Federal laws do not apply. If you try to sell it across the state borders, your in all kinds of trouble.

Actually, standing law in the US since the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn case extended the commerce clause jurisdiction to any activity in the aggregate which could have an effect on interstate commerce (in that case, they literally had jurisdiction over product that wasn't even put onto the market and was only to be used for private consumption), and was only limited under the U.S. v. Lopez to economic activity in 1995.

The Gentleman:

Not G. Ivingname:

Magenera:
So this is the same as the marijuana laws in Colorado and Washington right? I think even the gay marriage laws? Not really new when states tell the Feds to fuck off, by telling them to enforce the laws themselves when the state doesn't agree with them, though the Feds might run into a problem if other states started adopting Wyoming laws.

I think the sale of marijuana would fall under the commerce clause. The federal government can only regulate the trade of items between states, not WITHIN state. If the law says it is legal in Colorado to grow pot, roll it up, and sell it to another person within Colorado, the Federal laws do not apply. If you try to sell it across the state borders, your in all kinds of trouble.

Actually, standing law in the US since the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn case extended the commerce clause jurisdiction to any activity in the aggregate which could have an effect on interstate commerce (in that case, they literally had jurisdiction over product that wasn't even put onto the market and was only to be used for private consumption), and was only limited under the U.S. v. Lopez to economic activity in 1995.

Well, Marijuana legalization and making certain gun federal gun laws not count in states has yet to be challenged by the Feds. It will be legal until until they sue the state and the Supreme Court says otherwise.

Diablo1099:

$10 says he got into power thanks to the Tea-baggers.

It's Wyoming. Jesus, come visit some time and get to know us.

So the federal government passes a law that states interfering with federal investigations is a felony with a minimum sentence of 2 years in a federal jail, don't think there would be many cops willing to get in the way then. That's all that will happen, if states start trying to arrest federal agents then the feds will just arrest them for trying to pervert the course of justice. Final result, states lose, things go on as planned and a few (ex)cops spend a while in federal jail.

Yeah... this is the wrong way to do things. However, I like how it's a northern state fighting for States rights. Again. The south wouldn't know how to rise even if it were filled with yeast.

Anyway, Kendell Kroeker doesn't know a thing about how our system works, apparently. How it works is that State/Federal congress passes any silly, unconstitutional law they want... because it's a congress. To fix any idiocy that will inevitably oozes out of the legislative branch, you need the judicial branch.

Step One: A law gets passed.
Step Two: Someone makes a point to break the law.
Step Three: That person goes to court to determine if they broke the law (NOT IF IT SHOULD BE A LAW).

So far so standard, happens all the time, but in the case of an unconstitutional law, you move on to the next steps.

Step Four: Get to work on the real court case with the Appeals Court.
Step Five: If you've done your work correctly, the case will be carried to the State/Federal Supreme Court.
Step Six: A panel of well-educated people decide if the law should be overturned.

That's what would happen if this automatic gun control bill ever passes. That's also what will happen with the "Arrest Federal Agents" law. This Mr. Kroeker is unfit for the duty that those in Wyoming elected him for. And yes, those steps mean you'd have to be arrested and punished by the law you're trying to overturn. But that is America's system; to be a truly patriotic American, you need to believe in our system.

Not G. Ivingname:
Well, Marijuana legalization and making certain gun federal gun laws not count in states has yet to be challenged by the Feds. It will be legal until until they sue the state and the Supreme Court says otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Where there is a conflict of laws, the more restrictive of the laws takes precedent under the Supremacy Clause (it's actually in reverse for protections such as free-speech, privacy, and due process where Federal Law provides the baseline and states can offer greater protections). The idea is that a when a state law is not as restrictive as federal law, federal law controls due to supremacy, where as when a state law is more restrictive, it would simply eclipse federal law, complying with both.

And the constitutionality of a law is not often tested by direct suit of state to federal (or visa verca). In criminal cases, for example, the criminal is prosecuted and convicted under the law. S/He files an appeal with the law as one of the grounds. The appellate court most likely sides with the trial court decision, although they can reverse that is their interpretation of the law. After that they file a petition to be heard by either the state supreme court (if the trial was initiated in state court) or the US Supreme Court (trial was in Federal court), who may hear it on the grounds of that law but are not required to hear the case at all (there is an exception for capital case review to insure due process). In the case of the state supreme court, the loosing party may file a petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court with the constitutionality of the law at issue, which had to be preserved throughout the entire appellate process.

The Gentleman:

Not G. Ivingname:
Well, Marijuana legalization and making certain gun federal gun laws not count in states has yet to be challenged by the Feds. It will be legal until until they sue the state and the Supreme Court says otherwise.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here. Where there is a conflict of laws, the more restrictive of the laws takes precedent under the Supremacy Clause (it's actually in reverse for protections such as free-speech, privacy, and due process where Federal Law provides the baseline and states can offer greater protections). The idea is that a when a state law is not as restrictive as federal law, federal law controls due to supremacy, where as when a state law is more restrictive, it would simply eclipse federal law, complying with both.

And the constitutionality of a law is not often tested by direct suit of state to federal (or visa verca). In criminal cases, for example, the criminal is prosecuted and convicted under the law. S/He files an appeal with the law as one of the grounds. The appellate court most likely sides with the trial court decision, although they can reverse that is their interpretation of the law. After that they file a petition to be heard by either the state supreme court (if the trial was initiated in state court) or the US Supreme Court (trial was in Federal court), who may hear it on the grounds of that law but are not required to hear the case at all (there is an exception for capital case review to insure due process). In the case of the state supreme court, the loosing party may file a petition for writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court with the constitutionality of the law at issue, which had to be preserved throughout the entire appellate process.

The problem with this proposed state law is that it would make it a state crime to enforce a federal law. So the federal gun ban would still take precedence over the state laws but enforcing the law would be a crime. At the same time interfering with federal law enforcement agents while they are enforcing a law is also a crime. So the federal and state law enforcement agencies would have the choice of failing to enforce the law or committing a crime by enforcing it.

I believe that the Supreme Court can hear a case without it having to go through the appellate process if it is of significant national interest and requires urgency in being decided. If a state really passed such a law, I would think the federal government would ask the Court to hear the case directly rather than risk state and federal police opening fire on each other.

MopBox:
Yeah, it'll be ruled unconstitutional in a federal circuit.

But of course that isn't the point of introducing this legislation. The point is him getting re-elected for "standing up to that commie muslin facist Obama and protecting the Sacred Right to bare arms given straight to George Washington by Jesus hisself". He knows this law is bunk. Everyone who votes for this law is going to be fully aware that it's a crock of unconstitutional bullshit. That isn't the point. Of course it'll be overturned and of course it's a waste of the taxpayer's time and money. He knows that. But as long as the public hate what they percieve as anti gun laws he'll be able to say "Well I made a good, decent state law and those Facists in Washington said no! But boy did I try, for you the people!" This kind of thing makes me angry. Angry that politicains have the sheer gall to do it and more importantly angry that so few seem to either care enough or be smart enough to call them on their bullshit. The issue in this thread shouldn't be one of gun control, there are other threads for that. It should be that this jackass is wasting the time and money of the taxpayer to give himself a campaign line. It should be that he's helping to further divide the country by throwing gasoline on an already raging fires of partisanship and the state/fed divide. And most importantly, it should be that politicians no longer care about the process, the people they represent or the well being of their constituencies, states or countries so long as they can stay in power. It disgusts me.

The Gentleman:

By that logic, it would be illegal to ban fully-automatic weapons as they would be a class of arms. It's more reasonable to view their statement as the locking requirement and extreme restrictions on possession of pistols, rifles, and shotguns to be a de facto ban on firearms as a class of arms.

Fully automatic firearms are not technically illegal, they are only effectively illegal, due to how expensive buying a legally transferable pre-1985 fully automatic firearm is.

And one spree of Tylenol poisonings resulted in new laws requiring tamper-proof bottles for OTC medications. It's never abuse by the majority which spark new legislation, but when a small minority exploit the circumstances with horrific consequences.

Sidenote: It's not like there's a lot of controversy on other reforms as well, many of which would likely be more effective than an assault rifle ban at reducing gun violence. The "Gun Show Loophole" (an exemption on the background check requirement for private purchasers that may not necessarily be at a gun show) should be a non-controversial gap to plug, and the opinion would be fully supportive of such a measure. Banning sales of high-capacity magazines would also not be a hard restriction to pass. Neither of these are particularly controversial. Banning sales by non-licensed individuals and increasing the rate of audits and inspections of sales records would also be fully within the law (think along the lines of health inspectors at restaurants). All of those policies would be completely constitutional under the Heller decision.

That's more of an argument to refine the law and add exceptions, not oppose it entirely, or to alternatively propose legislation that would deal with the issues better.

Fine. How about this? There is little to no evidence that the original bill did ANYTHING to curb crime rates at all. The one figure Feinstein quotes to say the Assault Weapon ban actually did something was a "selective" quoting of a study by the Department of Justice. The actually conclusion was thus:

"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995. . . . However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously."

And here's where lockstep opposition to something can actually hurt a cause more than help it. It's clear that there's going to be a very large fight over gun control within the next few months. As a interest group (gun owners opposed to the law, although pretty much every interest group usually has to make this choice when they have an interest in legislation), you have two options: (1) work with the drafters to refine the language, clarify the restrictions, and add reasonable exemptions or (2) total opposition, where you gamble that the measure will fail, but loose completely if it passes. In the first case, your side looses (at least publicly), but it is done on your terms in a way that generally will least harm your interests. In the second case, you might win, but, if you loose, you loose everything.

The American gun laws have been a constant case of regulations adding up over time, eroding the rights down to nothing. It has only been recently that the trend has been revered (which has not, may I remind you, had an effect on the rate that the national crime rate been dropping). Now, it looks like the biggest gun control debate is about to happen. This is not time to stand down and "try to make our loss less." It could have the compermise be terrible anyway (with how extreme the current bill is, the "middle ground" is just where the , or just weaken the position so the next gun control bills are easier to pass. Either way, my "side" would lose the momentum it has gained.

This is like the fight to SOPA. The internet could of compromised, gone quietly into the night as right and/or privileges we have had grown use to are limited or destroyed. What did the internet do? Stand it's ground, take the gamble of losing everything. They grabbed phones, screamed at their senators, and would not give up an inch. And they won. They made a badly written and badly worded bill, which looked to be a sure pass, completely untouchable. Your calculations on "our" defeat also don't include one thing, the GOP controls the house. How many of those people do you think would lose every single voter they have if they even put their pen against the paper on such a bill? Quite a bit.

I am not going to surrender to a fight that has just started. I could "lose everything," sure, but even a conditional loss still has me lose a lot, and the less I we fight, the more power the "others" will have on the dealing table.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked