A question of guns

wstar

Well, I think it's true we have more pro- than anti- gun posters in this thread. But again, that shouldn't be a deciding factor in anything.

And of course, everyone is biased. The idea of "unbiased opinions" is hogwash. There's such a thing as unbiased evidence, but never unbiased interpretation of that evidence.

Well, California is somewhere I've never fired a gun. I don't even take my guns on trips to California, the laws there are too strict. More than half of the weapons I legally own here in TX are flat-out illegal to possess there. I'm really hoping the recent Heller decision by the supreme court will eventually lead these gun-restricted parts of the country to finally slacken their gun laws back down to something reasonable. There are still lots of follow-on and appeals cases to go through in the wake of Heller before it really starts having big effects though.

Prior to the Heller case, while the historical evidence on the meaning of the second ammendment (such as the other writings of its authors, the federalist papers, etc) was pretty clear, there was a lot of debate in this country about the meaning of the second ammendment. The anti-gun lobby was playing semantics games and trying to say that it only applied to the military due to the phrase "well-regulated militia". In the Heller decision, the US Supreme Court finally (for the first time in history) gave a direct answer to that question, and settled the matter legally. The second ammendment does in fact protect individual gun ownership.

More info here: District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

__________________
7AT Track Car!
Journal thread / Car setup details

dad

http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/%7B79FD08...0Dangerous.pdf

__________________

We can do without any article of luxury we have never had; but once obtained, it is not in human nature to surrender it voluntary.

arcticreaver

ohhh nice find. plus rep for this.

__________________
http://www.facebook.com/arcticreaver - FaceBook

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/sam-yang/a/832/325 - LinkedIn Profile

wstar

Most of the points in that paper are defending common-sense gun legislation, which is a component of the also uncommonly restrictive gun laws that currently exist in DC. The purpose of the ammendment is to force DC's hand in rewriting the law to be fair and in line with the laws of most states. For example: Nobody seriously wants people with criminal records to be able purchase a firearm for instance, on either side of the debate. That just happens to be a component of the bad law, and both sides would want it to continue to be a component of a rewritten law.

The part of the law they're trying to undo by forcing a rewrite is that currently, DC residents can't own handguns at all (well, technically they can, but they have to apply for a permit from the chief of police, who never grants it unless you're someone very very special). DC residents *can* own simple shotguns and long rifles under some very restrictive circumstances, one of which was (before Heller struck it down) that the gun had to be stored disassembled and locked up, preventing any chance of defensive use.

Given that in a rewritten and NRA-approved version of the law, most of the measures being highlighted in that paper would still be part of the law, there's not much to debate. Many other states have most of these basic restrictions in place re: criminal records, registration of guns, importation controls, etc. For that matter most of these matters are also regulated by federal law anyways.

The only point they raise that gun-rights advocates would want to see dropped is the first one, regarding "high capacity ammunition magazines" and "assault weapons". There was a federal assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004. It had no effect on crime and was allowed to sunset. Basically, virtually none of the gun deaths in the US, statistically speaking, are caused by assault rifles. The few that are, are invariably caused by unregistered assault weapons which are owned by criminals who aren't allowed, by federal law, to even buy a simple handgun or bolt-action hunting rifle (and another law or ban does nothing to stop these people).

Assault weapon bans remove rights from the law-abiding citizens while having no effect on crime. Further, assault rifles are effective defense tools. Every deputy in my local sheriff's department carries an AR-15 in their trunk. There's a reason they do that: it's a very effective tool in some situations, even for the good guys. Going back to my point about police response times: if it's effective for them, it's effective for us too.

__________________
7AT Track Car!
Journal thread / Car setup details

dad

I do! As long as they didn't use a gun in a crime! Or beat someone to death, or knifed someone! People like Wesley Snipes, Martha Stewart, they served time. According to law, they can not own, nor posses a firearm. I do not think that is right. They were imprisoned for tax evasion, and miss handling stocks, not robing a bank with a gun! Do you see where I'm going with this?
I do not believe in dis-arming a man/woman! Give a person a chance to protect and defend them selves and their loved ones!

__________________

We can do without any article of luxury we have never had; but once obtained, it is not in human nature to surrender it voluntary.

wstar

Well, the current federal law only draws the distinction at the felony line. Felony record = no guns. They don't care what type of crime it was. However, individual felons can petition to regain their gun rights, and sometimes do. It would be nice if the law were more specific (violent felonies).

__________________
7AT Track Car!
Journal thread / Car setup details

dad

I mean even if the crime is a felony!


Wrong, wrong, wrong! Your not reading my posts are you! I've state more than one -Misdemeanor Domestic Violence=your guns and gun rights are gone!

http://74.6.146.127/search/cache?ei=...icp=1&.intl=us

__________________

We can do without any article of luxury we have never had; but once obtained, it is not in human nature to surrender it voluntary.

wstar

I did read your posts, I really don't consider the Lautenberg thing a major point. Are you really defending the idea that people convicted of domestic violence should be purchasing firearms legally?

I'm (obviously) all for relaxing some of the current gun laws on the book (such as the 1968 and 1986 ammendments to the National Firearms Act), and for getting more of the restrictive states/cities to start allowing handgun ownership and carry, but you have to pick your battles. Getting violent felons and domestic abusers their gun rights back isn't one that could really be won, regardless of whether one thinks it's the right thing to do.

__________________
7AT Track Car!
Journal thread / Car setup details