OK, I said this was off the top of my head, and my thinking is that this compromise is at the federal level and only pertained to personal firearms as defined. There is no prohibition of any weapon.This is worse than the current NFA. Crew-served weapons, including machine guns and destructive devices, are allowed if permitted by state law, if a transfer tax is paid, and if certain procedures, such as a background check, fingerprints, photographs, and a CLEO signature, are followed. (Some of these procedures don't apply if ownership is through a trust.) Even new destructive devices are allowed.
The way I read the 2nd Amendment, it is precisely these kinds of weapons that are most protected, since they provide the means to resist a tyrannical domestic government or foreign invader. Strictly from the point of view of the 2nd Amendment, even the current NFA is too much of an infringement.
Anyway, if you're going to outlaw machine guns and destructive devices, at least cite some cases where such weapons, registered and highly regulated, have been a problem. There have been, what?, two or three cases in the 80 years that the NFA has been law.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!saturno_v said:If we keep it this way we are going to lose..and lose badly...this is exactly what a veteran and NRA certified instructors told meWe should fight any and all universal background checks and try to have existing ones repealed.
... Any gun owner worth his or her salt should fight any attempts for Universal Background Checks as they are a step away from Registration.
Yep.90 Replies.
Have we sufficiently pointed out the gaping flaws to everyone's satisfaction?
But I for one would consider a nuclear civil war to be intolerable.
Because thisWhy is it acceptable for a government to have nuclear weapons it could fire on its citizenry but not for a citizens to have access to the same weapons to defend itself?
A nuclear civil war would be terrible, but a one-sided nuclear civil war would be just as bad.
Sam1911 said:The idea in my concept is that those who feel they must take up arms to defend their cause must have the ability to effectively do their oppressors significant harm. So their best weapons must not be mere heated words, pointed sticks, and other low-effect tools. A portion of society that feels all hope of peaceful redress of grievances through the legislative process is lost, must have the ability to act effectively in violent concert.
On the other hand, the goal of insurrection as promoted by the Founders in the Declaration of Independence and other documents is not that ONE person could have the power to force his will on others, and/or destroy towns, and kill mass numbers of people. So there is a practical reason for why ordnance (and the sorts of mass-effect weapons that have been developed, from nerve gasses to nuclear weapons) are not in the hands of the individual.
There is a balance here. We don't want one man to have the ability to wipe out a city because he's not happy. The individual with his rifle, or with his machine gun, grenades, and other anti-personnel weapons doesn't present a credible threat to society at large, and is not a compelling force for governmental change and/or resistance. But a large number of individuals all dedicated to one goal and armed with conventional arms may be so.
It doesn't matter. Thats a tired defense. As I argued earlier in this thread, it is well understood and has been proven true with 200 years of case law, judicial decisions, and legislative actions that agreed upon restrictions can be put on amendments. Thats not a new revelation. There are restrictions or modifications of some kind on many amendments that are well established and within the original intent.Where does it say in the 2A that guns can be granted to non-violent offenders but cannot be granted to violent offenders? Just wondering... (and my comment is not directed to you per se but my logic is obvious I assume).
B
With all due respect this is a distortion. The founding fathers accepted the fact that clarification and at times restrictions can and should be put on certain rights. They had safeguards but also a system in place to do just that in the legislative and judicial branches. There is nothing about the felon restriction that is against the inherent beliefs of the founding fathers and the bill of rights.Where does the Constitution grant government the power to deny any right to anyone who isn't in prison?
The Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant citizens anything. Citizens have all rights imaginable at the time of their birth. Every single right you can think of as long as you don't harm anyone else. The Bill of Rights does not grant you the right to have a goldfish, yet you have that right. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant you the right to order a pizza on Friday night, but you have that right. You have every right possible... as long as you don't harm others or infringe on their rights. Just because there isn't specific wording granting a right, that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
We've fallen into the trap that some of the Founders feared - We've accepted that government has the power to grant or alter a right simply because a right was mentioned in the "list." But the last time I read it, I didn't see anything in the Constitution that distinguished the rights of those who've served prison sentences and been released from those who haven't. All should have equal rights under the law. Equal.
I'd argue that if the felon in question is so dangerous, he should not be let out of prison. After all, no law is going to prevent him from obtaining a gun. So if the guy is really too dangerous to have a gun, he shouldn't be out of prison. Restricting the rights of someone who has served his sentence doesn't really accomplish anything except for making someone feel like they've done something.
And this must be iron clad with no possibility whatsoever to tinker with it ever again...
Yep.Originally Posted by Sam1911 View Post
90 Replies.
Have we sufficiently pointed out the gaping flaws to everyone's satisfaction?
Close'r down please.
With all due respect this is a distortion. The founding fathers accepted the fact that clarification and at times restrictions can and should be put on certain rights. They had safeguards but also a system in place to do just that in the legislative and judicial branches. There is nothing about the felon restriction that is against the inherent beliefs of the founding fathers and the bill of rights.
There is no such law about a flintlock. The point is the felon law is not by itself a constitutional violation just because there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says a felon can't have a gun. The founding fathers understood and put in place a process that would allow for laws just like that. Just like, for example, exceptions to reasonable search and seizure or inciting a riot thru speech.I haven't read anything about people being released from prison not being able to own a flintlock. I could be wrong. If you've got a citation on that, please share.
Still, I'd argue such laws don't stop any ex-con from getting a gun. There are tens of thousands of of them in Chicago who have guns right now. If you can't trust them with a gun - and they can get a gun if they want one - then you should address that by not letting them out of prison rather than by tacking another sentence on after the sentence they just served. FWIW, I want to see voting rights restored as well. I'd be fine with restoring ALL rights to ex-cons after they've been out and trouble free for one year. Admittedly, "one year" is an arbitrary number - but I don't expect it to ever be that way anyhow. What I think is fair and what actually takes place is rarely the same thing.
Getting back to the compromise on gun rights thing, I'm not aware of the pro-gun community ever coming out with anything we wanted from a "compromise." Historically, any compromise leaves us with less and nothing in return. Suppressors could help make hunters and shooters better neighbors and protect our hearing. A 12" barreled lever action .44 Magnum or Remington 870 could make a great defensive weapon against large predators. Short barreled 9mm carbines could make a great HD weapon. Our compromises never get us things like this back. What do we ever gain?
As someone else in this thread said, we don't think compromise means what they think it means.
The anti's have already defined where that limit is, and for them, it's somewhere around a slingshot and a pocket full of marbles. Except not one of those powerful slingshots with the wrist brace... one of the ones you made from bike inner tube as a kid. They'd probably be happy with that as long as you were required to keep it secured at the local slingshot club.
But if you look at the actual discussion, we "gun people" are the only ones talking about where the line is drawn with warships or Apache helicopters. The real discussion is centered on things like magazine capacity for semi-automatic rifles and handguns and on banning semi-automatic firearms with military heritage. Our opponents want us to relinquish these items as part of their "compromise."
If you don't accept the right enumerated by the Second Amendment as open-ended, fair enough. Does your definition include an AR-15 and a 30 round magazine? How about a Glock or a SIG with a 15 round magazine? Because if it does, you and I can argue about the academic issues surrounding how and where you'd practice with your own 16" guns at a later date, after we've protected all the Glocks, Browning Hi-Powers, and AR-15's.
Where does the Constitution grant government the power to deny any right to anyone who isn't in prison?
The Second Amendment, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not grant citizens anything. Citizens have all rights imaginable at the time of their birth. Every single right you can think of as long as you don't harm anyone else. The Bill of Rights does not grant you the right to have a goldfish, yet you have that right. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant you the right to order a pizza on Friday night, but you have that right. You have every right possible... as long as you don't harm others or infringe on their rights. Just because there isn't specific wording granting a right, that doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.
We've fallen into the trap that some of the Founders feared - We've accepted that government has the power to grant or alter a right simply because a right was mentioned in the "list." But the last time I read it, I didn't see anything in the Constitution that distinguished the rights of those who've served prison sentences and been released from those who haven't. All should have equal rights under the law. Equal.
I'd argue that if the felon in question is so dangerous, he should not be let out of prison. After all, no law is going to prevent him from obtaining a gun. So if the guy is really too dangerous to have a gun, he shouldn't be out of prison. Restricting the rights of someone who has served his sentence doesn't really accomplish anything except for making someone feel like they've done something.
I don't believe that people who pushed paper the wrong way (white collar criminals) should lose their firearms rights forever. People like Martha Stewart and G. Gordon Liddy didn't commit any violent crimes. They paid their debt to society and should have their rights, (all of them) fully restored. Violent criminals should remain in prison.
.
You may not be suggesting it, but that hardly matters. The link between mental health and gun ownership has already been made by the antis and by many gun owners who are naively unaware of just how fuzzy the operative definitions are and how much they are exposing themselves to the loss of their rights.
And it is equally naive to believe that the goals of the anti gun movement has anything to do with crime. That is another linkage of convenience. The "intelligent parties of the anti-gun movement" will not stand down until they have achieved their goal of total civilian disarmament.
Crime and mental health are just means to an end. The more actions that can be criminalized, the more individuals that can be made into criminals who are prohibited from owning guns. The more individuals that can be diagnosed with mental illness, the more that can be prohibited from owning guns.
And the more people that can be prohibited from owning guns, the fewer there will be with standing to oppose further restrictions.
With all due respect this is a distortion. The founding fathers accepted the fact that clarification and at times restrictions can and should be put on certain rights.
It's called 'due process'. The legislature can pass the constitutional laws and the Judiciary adjudicates in accord with the Constitution and constitutional law.They had safeguards but also a system in place to do just that in the legislative and judicial branches.
There is nothing about the felon restriction that is against the inherent beliefs of the founding fathers and the bill of rights.
If a person is not incarcerated they ought to have their Rights, including the keeping and bearing of arms. If a person has proved through prior action that they are not to be trusted in society they need to be incarcerated.