Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act

[gc70]

by ConstitutionCowboy:
This new law can be blocked just as easily by the likes of Chuck Schumer as the old relief law.

Woody, the post immediately preceding your statement provided the answer to your concern:

by scout26:
This bill requires each state and government agency that can put you on the list have a process to for you to get off the list.

Schumer will be totally unable to stop state legislatures from funding state relief programs.

 

[gc70]

After the VT shootings, it was inevitable that Congress was going to pass a law tightening NICS for mental illness.

Yes, it was inevitable. At the end of the discussion, no member of Congress was going to stand up and say "I want dangerous psychos to have guns." The only question was how to keep the antis from gaining more ground.

The antis were desperate to get a new gun control law quickly, and the NRA and our friends in Congress used that desperation to bargain for a net victory for our side.

We won a net victory. We gave up providing funding for more complete state reporting. But we got: (1) a tighter definition of disabilities; (2) a definition of disabilities beyond ATF's control; and (3) a state-based relief system beyond Congress' control.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Quote:
by ConstitutionCowboy:
This new law can be blocked just as easily by the likes of Chuck Schumer as the old relief law.

Woody, the post immediately preceding your statement provided the answer to your concern:


Quote:
by scout26:
This bill requires each state and government agency that can put you on the list have a process to for you to get off the list.

Schumer will be totally unable to stop state legislatures from funding state relief programs.

Sure he can. All it will take is for Congress to pass law that says the NICS can't expend any funds to receive the info from the states. Once on the list, you're screwed if Congress so desires.

Woody
You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[gc70]

Woody, loosen the tinfoil.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bart, all we need is the Second Amendment.

Clearly if that was actually the case, we would all be drinking free bubble-up and eating rainbow stew as we discussed our new machineguns. You seem to be confusing what you want with the way things actually work.

and place more people on the NICS list that can be permanently blocked at any one of these new "openings" by a simple lack of funding by Congress

No; because if Congress does not fund this it creates a cause of action in the court system so that a person may seek relief there. The Senate amendment added that to the House bill. You might want to flip through the link above and read the new version.

 

[Jayb]

I wonder.........

All of the uproar regarding the NICS bill may benefit all gun owners more than we think. Historically, only about 10%-20% of gun owners ever took the time to contact their elected officials in response to any proposed legislation. Why should they? "Hell, the NRA will handle it." Now, many are bashing the NRA, and many are still bashing their elected officials.

Perhaps this is the stimulus needed to get the apathetic 80%-90% of gun owners off their collective a$$e$, and become ACTIVELY (not just lip service) involved in preserving the Second Amendment. Lifetime, or any other membership in any organization doesn't count as involvement, it just means you had the money to spend, or the range required membership.

I believe that the ability of a very few gun owners to support and defend the Second Amendment rights of the vast majority of gun owners, is coming to an end.

My comments were not intended to attack or defend the recent NICS bill. There's enough "flailing" about that as it is.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Bart and gc70:

All this bill has done is create more opportunities to infringe upon our RKBA, and place more people on the NICS list that can be permanently blocked at any one of these new "openings" by a simple lack of funding by Congress, or a command from Congress limiting any agency or other branch of government to spend funds on this program. One look at Congress's track record should be enough to expose what Congress really wants to do and the lengths Congress will go to in order to do it, and make it look like they've done you a favor.

Congress passed this bill. Congress will pass whatever other bill it wishes in order to modify this bill to block any "loopholes" it "inadvertently" created regardless of any protections in this bill. What makes you think Congress will treat this bill as sacrosanct when it can't abide the very Constitution that gave, and limited, those very powers to Congress?

Boy, some times I wonder. Someone points out the truth of a situation and suddenly he is wearing a tinfoil hat. Is that all you got gc70? To accuse someone of wearing a tinfoil hat? how about an example where Congress has enacted such a law(thrown us a bone) and then later didn't pulverized it. I gave the example of the unfunding of the process to have your rights "restored". Who's side are you on? Who's rights and freedoms are you supporting? Ask yourself those questions, OK?

Congress could just as easily pass legislation requiring prison sentences long enough or permanent enough to keep violent criminals off the streets until they are dead or no longer a threat. Then, Congress wouldn't need to violate the Constitution. Similar and appropriate requirements can be enacted to care for the dangerously insane and so shield the rest of us from them without the rest of us having to prove we aren't one of them. How about discussing legislation of that nature, shall we?

Woody

"Charge the Court, Congress, and the several state legislatures with what to do with all the violent criminals who cannot be trusted with arms. We law abiding citizens shouldn't be burdened with having to prove we are not one of the untrustworthy just because those in government don't want to stop crime by keeping violent criminals locked up." B.E. Wood

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Clearly if that was actually the case, we would all be drinking free bubble-up and eating rainbow stew as we discussed our new machineguns. You seem to be confusing what you want with the way things actually work.

When did "the way things actually work" exclude the Constitution and the Second Amendment thereto? I'm just asking. You might have the answer and I'd surely like to know it too.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise - the best compromise - ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. B.E.Wood

 

[Geo.Az]

Henry Bowman is RIGHT

It's " Rights " the Law Should be " REPEALED " !

so many of you still do not get the Point. these People are systematically Stealing your Rights one at a time. ( small baby steps until you have NONE ) It is all Smoke & Mirrors. so Sheeple do not see.

What Part of there Oath they took are they Violating? Think about It.

What Part was our forefathers trying to Protect ( US - We the PEOPLE - our RIGHTS ) I feel if We do not get our Original RIGHTS back we will leave all our Children a Legacy of Slavery. I will not Live to see It but I hope some of you will.

What they are All Doing Is Waffeling Bussness as usual and the Sheeple still get shearred

DISCLAIMER: I do not advocate or condone violence against another human being except in the defense of self, or a third party, or lawfully owned property. I do not advocate or condone any unlawful act against any duly authorized or sitting government within the U.S., or its elected officials, or its agencies, or its personnel. I do advocate replacing bad government with better government through both the ballot box and the jury box. Any misconstruction of my comments are the sole responsibility of the person(s) misinterpreting their meaning and/or intent.

 

[gc70]

by ConstitutionCowboy:
Is that all you got gc70? To accuse someone of wearing a tinfoil hat?

What response can be made to never-ending "what if" scenarios? What is the benefit of trading competing improbable scenarios? If the discussion if not about current situations and probable events, why bother?

 

[Art Eatman]

Too much personal snark, folks. Any more of it and this thread is burnt toast.

 

[JohnL2]

What in the world has this thread devolved into?
What is wrong with identifying persons who are adjudicated to be mentally unstable and restricting the purchase of firearms to those persons?
There will be purists out there that will rail against this, but I think it is a reasonable measure.

 

[Risasi]

gc70,

It's not really a "tinfoil hat" issue when one can look and see unconstitutional laws being passed all the time.

----

Geo.Az,


"They" cannot steal your rights. They don't have that ability. The Bill of Rights do not guarantee you said rights, they merely acknowledge them.

----

Constitutional Cowboy,

You might as well hang up the soapbox. The vast majority no longer care so much about the principle behind the laws any more. Just the laws themselves. There is no hope of rehabilitating the system, historically no empire has ever recovered once decadence has set in.


----

JohnL2,

Who gets to decide who is "mentally unstable"?

----

Art,

You might as well close it, seems like the horse has been dead awhile....

 

[alan]

ConstitutionCowboy in Post # 91 writes:



alan

The trial I'm talking about is the one that you may pursue after the default denial - after the "mandatory" one year wait for the bureaucracy to do nothing. Rights delayed are rights denied? No, you never lose the rights, but rights delayed are rights infringed. Ms. Boxer - or whomever coined the phrase - is supposing government has the power to deny a right. 'Tis not so under our Constitution.

Woody

--------------------

Woody:

Re the supposition your reference, that being that "government has the power to deny a right". As government does it all the time, it presumably has or somehow has obtained the power to so do, that is to deny rights. "Tis not so under our constitution" notwithstanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[gc70]

by Risasi:
It's not really a "tinfoil hat" issue when one can look and see unconstitutional laws being passed all the time.

We can (and do) theorize about what we individually believe are constitutional or unconstitutional laws. What counts in the real world is not what you or I think, but what the courts determine.

NICS has not been declared unconstitutional by the courts, so it is the law of the land. The NICS Improvement Act should not be too difficult to compare to the immediately preceding law to determine whether it represents positive or negative change. Unfortunately, that discussion gets hijacked by the theoretical absolutists who drown out a discussion of the merits by simply declaring everything short of total "shall not be infringed" to be bad.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Re the supposition your reference, that being that "government has the power to deny a right". As government does it all the time, it presumably has or somehow has obtained the power to so do, that is to deny rights. "Tis not so under our constitution" notwithstanding. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's called usurpation. The power is stolen.

We can (and do) theorize about what we individually believe are constitutional or unconstitutional laws. What counts in the real world is not what you or I think, but what the courts determine.

What counts over and above what the courts "determine" is who we place in the courts as a result of our vote.

NICS has not been declared unconstitutional by the courts, so it is the law of the land. The NICS Improvement Act should not be too difficult to compare to the immediately preceding law to determine whether it represents positive or negative change. Unfortunately, that discussion gets hijacked by the theoretical absolutists who drown out a discussion of the merits by simply declaring everything short of total "shall not be infringed" to be bad.

Is it a fault that the truth drowns out the fallacy? This NICS shouldn't even exist. This sows ear will never be a silk purse. Especially when there isn't even supposed to be a purse in the first place. Everything short of "Shall not be infringed" IS bad.

What response can be made to never-ending "what if" scenarios? What is the benefit of trading competing improbable scenarios? If the discussion if not about current situations and probable events, why bother?

The discussion IS about current and probable events. Law already exists to restore a persons ability to keep and bear arms, and Congress refuses to fund it. That's a track record. It isn't much of a theoretical leap to conclude Congress will likely do the same again.

Woody

[size=+1]MERRY Christmas![/size]

 

[Robert Hairless]

Is it a fault that the truth drowns out the fallacy? This NICS shouldn't even exist. This sows ear will never be a silk purse. Especially when there isn't even supposed to be a purse in the first place. Everything short of "Shall not be infringed" IS bad.

Woody, there's evidently a schism between those who believe that it's useful to discuss legal issues related to gun ownership and those who believe that it's pointless or harmful to discuss such issues because the act of discussion undermines the Second Amendment.

I think you--and several others--are trying to convince everyone else that the Second Amendment is weakened when anyone discusses any bill, law, or event that gives any level of government any control whatsoever over anything related to firearms.

If I understand you good folks, you believe that the very act of talking about such things explodes the Second Amendment by granting them some kind of validity. Since the Second Amendment is declarative and proscriptive--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"--the amendment is destroyed completely by even well meaning gun owners who are willing to consider the possibility of any limitation. I think that's your point.

Perhaps it might surprise you but I think that's a valid position. If I've correctly understood you and the others, your point is clear, basic, simple, uncomplicated, and easily understood.

I also think, though, that you good folks are asserting your beliefs in an ongoing attempt to enforce them on everyone else by disrupting their discussions. It's not that I think you mean bad--because I don't think that--but that you mean good but are creating roadblocks with the best of intentions.

It's one thing to argue in the context of this thread that even people who are a danger to themselves or others have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms anyway, and to focus on that argument with reasons. That argument would be directly related to this thread and might be interesting. I'm not talking about how to determine--the mechanics and apparatus--who represents such a danger. I'm talking about a hypothetical person about whom we all would agree is a danger: Colin Ferguson, perhaps, or Cho the Virginia Tech shooter, or even the neighborhood loose cannon who chases passing cars with an AR-15 and screams obscenities at them.

It's a far different thing to assert, time after time, that any and all laws respecting firearms are violations of the Second Amendment and the product of government that is inevitably evil and ill-intentioned. That kind of blanket assertion is not argument relevant to any particular topic: it is proclamation that inhales just about any subject that might be raised in a gun related forum and produces a vacuum in which no one can talk about anything without your consent. You withhold your consent by flourishing the Second Amendment.

For example, it is common for county governments to require that outdoor shooting ranges post signs warning people of its existence and of noise from it. In your view that might be--and I think would be--violation of the Second Amendment and any discussion of a specific ordinance to that effect is destructive. You, Geo.AZ, and others might then appear to declare "That's not in the Second Amendment!" and of course you would be right. It isn't.

For another example, those who attempt to discuss deer hunting in states that disallow rifles but permit shotguns, or bag limits on ducks, or prohibitions against shooting fish in a barrel, or any other limitation of any kind whatsoever on firearms, their ownership, and their use are in violation of your principle. They are.

And for some final examples, just to illustrate what I am trying to say, I see nothing in the Second Amendment that references age or residence or physical condition or occupation, so your principles could deny discussions of how to prevent six-year-olds from using loaded six-shooter as toys, whether prison cells should be searched for hidden guns, if there should be some control over the use of machine guns as self defense weapons by the blind, and whether it's wise to prohibit bailiffs from carrying loaded sidearms into courtrooms. None of that is in the Second Amendment: they are all people and all have the right to keep and bear arms, and any government at any level might be considered to infringe that right with such interference.

I don't know how to accommodate the evident desire of other people to discuss issues that you believe are not open for discussion because they are already settled by your understanding of the Second Amendment. I'd thought of suggesting that the forum add a message section headed something like "That's not in the Second Amendment" and moving such messages to it, but I doubt that's in the spirit of The High Road and (as you've seen on at least one past occasion) I don't want you insulted, hurt, or silenced. I also don't think that my opinions or wishes are any more important than those of anyone else. You're valuable. And I guess that part of my motive in saying these things is to enhance your value so it isn't submerged by waves of resentment such as you're seeing in objections to what you do.

Do you have any suggestions? Is there a way to reconcile the apparently irreconciliable? Or have I misunderstood your position? It seems to be what you're saying in the quotation at the beginning of this message.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Woody, there's evidently a schism between those who believe that it's useful to discuss legal issues related to gun ownership and those who believe that it's pointless or harmful to discuss such issues because the act of discussion undermines the Second Amendment.

The schism is the difference between espousing adherence to the Constitution, and the advocacy and defense of ignoring the Constitution and usurping power beyond its bounds. Whether such discussion sans the overarching Constitution is either useful, pointless, or harmful, is purely academic. In the real world, the Constitution cannot be ignored. The Constitution gave those in Congress the power to create law, and I cannot see any valid reason to hold such discussions without the Constitution.

Without the Constitution, a person could make any rules or laws they see fit. With the Constitution, those rules or laws must operate within the bounds of the Constitution. We live in a Constitutional democratic republic. We are not governed by a politburo, though most of the time it certainly seems so.

That said, you may, of course, discuss any such matters as you see fit - as do I.

I think you--and several others--are trying to convince everyone else that the Second Amendment is weakened when anyone discusses any bill, law, or event that gives any level of government any control whatsoever over anything related to firearms.

In reality, these discussions strengthen the Second Amendment. Any discussion contrary to the Second Amendment creates opportunity to espouse the value and necessity of the people's right to keep and bear arms, and expose the fallacies of limiting that right. For that, I thank you.

If I understand you good folks, you believe that the very act of talking about such things explodes the Second Amendment by granting them some kind of validity. Since the Second Amendment is declarative and proscriptive--"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"--the amendment is destroyed completely by even well meaning gun owners who are willing to consider the possibility of any limitation. I think that's your point.

Explained above.

Perhaps it might surprise you but I think that's a valid position. If I've correctly understood you and the others, your point is clear, basic, simple, uncomplicated, and easily understood.

That it is, and again, thank you.

I also think, though, that you good folks are asserting your beliefs in an ongoing attempt to enforce them on everyone else by disrupting their discussions. It's not that I think you mean bad--because I don't think that--but that you mean good but are creating roadblocks with the best of intentions.

Limiting the discussion is stacking the deck. This is an open forum, I do believe. The balance of the weight of the discussed issues and the points made will tip the scales one way or another. That's life. There are no road blocks here. I can no more shut you up than you can shut me up. There is no protected speech here.

It's one thing to argue in the context of this thread that even people who are a danger to themselves or others have a Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms anyway, and to focus on that argument with reasons. That argument would be directly related to this thread and might be interesting. I'm not talking about how to determine--the mechanics and apparatus--who represents such a danger. I'm talking about a hypothetical person about whom we all would agree is a danger: Colin Ferguson, perhaps, or Cho the Virginia Tech shooter, or even the neighborhood loose cannon who chases passing cars with an AR-15 and screams obscenities at them.

It's a far different thing to assert, time after time, that any and all laws respecting firearms are violations of the Second Amendment and the product of government that is inevitably evil and ill-intentioned. That kind of blanket assertion is not argument relevant to any particular topic: it is proclamation that inhales just about any subject that might be raised in a gun related forum and produces a vacuum in which no one can talk about anything without your consent. You withhold your consent by flourishing the Second Amendment.

No one, or at least not me, is espousing that any firearms related law is unconstitutional. Only those laws relating to the keeping and bearing of arms would be(and are) unconstitutional. And, as I said, you don't need my consent any more than I need yours to speak out, but that doesn't mean that what ever you or I say is immune to criticism and rebuttal.

For example, it is common for county governments to require that outdoor shooting ranges post signs warning people of its existence and of noise from it. In your view that might be--and I think would be--violation of the Second Amendment and any discussion of a specific ordinance to that effect is destructive. You, Geo.AZ, and others might then appear to declare "That's not in the Second Amendment!" and of course you would be right. It isn't.

For another example, those who attempt to discuss deer hunting in states that disallow rifles but permit shotguns, or bag limits on ducks, or prohibitions against shooting fish in a barrel, or any other limitation of any kind whatsoever on firearms, their ownership, and their use are in violation of your principle. They are.

None of these activity restrictions would be contrary to the Second Amendment. These things you listed concern the use of arms, not the keeping and bearing thereof.

And for some final examples, just to illustrate what I am trying to say, I see nothing in the Second Amendment that references age or residence or physical condition or occupation, so your principles could deny discussions of how to prevent six-year-olds from using loaded six-shooter as toys, whether prison cells should be searched for hidden guns, if there should be some control over the use of machine guns as self defense weapons by the blind, and whether it's wise to prohibit bailiffs from carrying loaded sidearms into courtrooms. None of that is in the Second Amendment: they are all people and all have the right to keep and bear arms, and any government at any level might be considered to infringe that right with such interference.

Get this straight. No one is trying to tie your tung(or typing, as the case may be). I offer rebuttal to your points(or concurrence, depending on what you point out)and espousal of the Constitution, and occasionally my own opinion.

As I've pointed out many times in discussions where you have taken part, due process of law can keep violent people from their arms either in prison or in an institution, and parental guardianship and responsibility will assure children learn the proper and appropriate use of arms. All this can be done within the bounds of the Constitution.

I don't know how to accommodate the evident desire of other people to discuss issues that you believe are not open for discussion because they are already settled by your understanding of the Second Amendment. I'd thought of suggesting that the forum add a message section headed something like "That's not in the Second Amendment" and moving such messages to it, but I doubt that's in the spirit of The High Road and (as you've seen on at least one past occasion) I don't want you insulted, hurt, or silenced. I also don't think that my opinions or wishes are any more important than those of anyone else. You're valuable. And I guess that part of my motive in saying these things is to enhance your value so it isn't submerged by waves of resentment such as you're seeing in objections to what you do.

As I've said, I have no objection to the issues discussed. In this open forum, however, I'm free to interject as is anyone else. I'm not insulted nor hurt by what ever you or anyone else thinks of, or has said, about me, nor can I be bought with flattery.

Do you have any suggestions? Is there a way to reconcile the apparently irreconciliable? Or have I misunderstood your position? It seems to be what you're saying in the quotation at the beginning of this message.

I have no suggestions other than to remember the importance of the Constitution and its relevance to our daily lives and the ever so important rights protected by it. If by "reconcile the irreconcilable" you mean some form of compromise, the answer is: There is no compromise beyond the Constitution. That said, there is an avenue you can pursue to achieve your goals and that is to amend the Constitution to allow(actually grant power to the Congress instead of its current usurped power) the implementation of whatever you might consider reasonable restrictions. My position is as stated. When it comes to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, everything short of "...shall not be infringed," is bad.

In a world without the Constitution and the rights protected by it, a system such as the NICS might have some merit. Alas, we live under the Constitution and the Constitution provides other methods to protect us from criminal, insane, and juvenile miscreant behavior that don't involve the infringement of our rights. That's what the Supreme Law is in this land. For some, it's sad but true. For me, it's freedom. Without freedom, neither this country nor any other country will long endure. History is replete with such examples. Knowing a little about history, I'll not surrender any arms and march less prepared into the future.

Woody

A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[Robert Hairless]

As I've said, I have no objection to the issues discussed. In this open forum, however, I'm free to interject as is anyone else. I'm not insulted nor hurt by what ever you or anyone else thinks of, or has said, about me, nor can I be bought with flattery.

Woody, it's just so hard for me to overcome my inclination to flatter people. It comes so naturally to me that I suppose my reputation for flattering people in forum discussions is one I'll never be able to shake and there's no point in trying.

Of course I have no business trying to flatter you out of what you're doing. I appreciate your lengthy analyis and rebuttal of that message I posted. I understand that you're impervious to what anyone else says. You have principles and are never swayed by others. It's my fault for misjudging the extent of your firmness.

I'll try not to speak this way to you again.

 

[gc70]

by ConstitutionCowboy:
The schism is the difference between espousing adherence to the Constitution, and the advocacy and defense of ignoring the Constitution and usurping power beyond its bounds.

Woody, there is a third option.

I have no desire to reside in the graybar hotel, so I try to comply with existing gun control laws. I need to understand existing gun control laws well enough to avoid violating them and going to jail. Discussing the details of specific gun control laws helps in that understanding.

 

[scout26]

It's " Rights " the Law Should be " REPEALED " !

so many of you still do not get the Point. these People are systematically Stealing your Rights one at a time. ( small baby steps until you have NONE ) It is all Smoke & Mirrors. so Sheeple do not see.

George I get the point, but here's what the "sheeple" will see:

"Today the NRA came out supporting a bill to give convicted felons and criminally mentally ill greater access to guns. Wayne LaPierre was quoted as saying '...it's a right and it shall not be infringed'. Even mental health advocacy groups opposed this bill and issued a statement saying 'we need to focus on getting these people treatment and here's the NRA saying let's put weapons in their hands so that they can kill not only themselves but potentially other innocent bystanders." That's what you're arguing for. Mr and Mrs Regular America is NOT going to support you. Yes, they believe that nice, normal people can have guns, but not many are going to support giving guns to nutjobs and child rapists, and that's the way it'll be played. All you have to do is turn on the TV now and see how gunowners are portrayed the news, movies and TV shows. You don'ee see Doctors, Lawyers, Business Owners or other "normal people" recreational shooting or hunting. You get the Billy-Bob Redneck with this third grade dropout education and his three teeffus blasting everything in sight or Homey the Gangbanger doing drive-bys, shooting up 5 year olds.

Here's another PSA you'll see: "The NRA thinks that if Charles Manson is paroled he should be able to walk into any gun shop and walk out with any gun he wants, no questions asked !!!
Call your congressperson and tell them to stop the NRA's 'Guns for the Criminally Insane' bill, before the NRA declares the mentally ill can have an open season on your family."

Yep, I can guarandamteeyou Suzie Suburban-Soccermom will be burning up the phone lines to Congress, and any support we might have had from her just evaporated, not only with Suzie, but she'll also be hounding her husband to get rid of his hunting shotgun and the pistol he keeps for HD.

For you absolutists, the rest of us live in the real world and work to win not only in the Legislature and the Courts, but also the court of public opinion. If this country can pass an amendment outlawing alcohol and another later repealing that amendment, don't think that they can't pass an amendment repealing the 2nd. That movement is already afoot.

Would I like to see all 20,000+ gun laws go away, youbetcha. But I don't think it will happen. Contrary to popular belief, there are also Slander and Libel laws (along with many others) that place limits on the 1st amendment right of free speech. So there will always be laws (reasonable restricitons) on all rights. Our job is to use logic and reason to teach and educate the electorate so that the reasonable restrictions are minimized to best extent possible. Coming off as raving-absolutists doesn't sway the disinterested middle to our side. If anything it pushes them into the arms of the VPC/Bradys/MMM's.

And I really doubt that George, Ben, James, John, and the rest of Founding Fathers would agree that criminals, crazies, heck, everybody (even if you're only 3/5 of a everybody ) can have a gun.

 

[gc70]

by ConstitutionCowboy:
In the real world, the Constitution cannot be ignored.

In the real world, we have NICS.

 

[scout26]

Riddle me this Batman.

If the Constitution is all we need, then why did the Founding Fathers create Congress to make laws and the Courts to intepert (Thanks RH ) laws ???

Seems to me that all we would need in just one guy with a copy of the Constitution and he'd peak at it every now and then and give a Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down.

 

[Robert Hairless]

scout26:

If the Constitution is all we need, then why did the Founding Fathers create Congress to make laws and the Courts to interupt laws ???

That point you've just made is often overlooked. Change "interupt" to "interpret" (although I do like "interrupt") and complete the triad: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.

It's a system of checks and balances developed by people familiar with human fallibility and who employed compromises to structure a system based on general principles on which they could finally agree. They were practical men who understood that blind absolutism on every point would prevent disparate peoples from ever uniting. Our absolutists do not agree. They abhor compromise and insist upon strict adherence to their one true reading of the Constitution, which is convenient because their view does away with the need for the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the government. The only essential for resolving differences is the telephone number of the Absolutist of the Day for his decision.

That's not to say that the principles embodied in the Constitution should be twisted out of all recognition. The Second Amendment does give the people the right to keep and bear arms. They are the same people meant throughout the Constitution, not the states or their militias here but elsewhere everyone. The arms here are as general in nature as the speech and the religion and the assembly elsewhere, not only whatever speech or religion or the press or gatherings approved by the government or Carolyn McCarthy and Hillary Clinton and Michael Bloomberg.

But like the rights to speech, religion, the press, and assemblies, they are principles and not applications. By now there should be no need for reminders that those rights are perverted when argued as licenses to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater, to perform human sacrifice, to publish libels, or to riot.

I was not being facetious in my suggestion that it might be interesting to see an argument for the right of lunatics to buy and carry guns legally, but that argument should be reasoned and not dogged assertion that lunatics have absolute Second Amendment rights.

Has anyone else noticed that discussion has turned from "Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act" and is now riding the Constitution Cowboy's hobby horse? Woody, speaking for the Constitution, denies that the Congress has a right to legislate any issue that touches upon any of its principles:

There is no compromise beyond the Constitution. That said, there is an avenue you can pursue to achieve your goals and that is to amend the Constitution to allow(actually grant power to the Congress instead of its current usurped power) the implementation of whatever you might consider reasonable restrictions. My position is as stated. When it comes to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, everything short of "...shall not be infringed," is bad.

Woody knows that because the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" there must be no attempt to legislate the amount or nature of that "just compensation" because "just compensation" is absolute. So if the Congress were to pass a law with some formula for calculating what compensation is just in any such situation, that law would be unconstitutional and the Congress would have committed a usurpation. So a government that takes private property for public use must do no more or less than to issue a check with "Just Compensation" as the amount. Anyone whose property was taken and wants money for it should work to amend the Constitution to specify that amount.

Anyone who does not want someone shouting "fire!" or sharing the stage with actors for the purpose of reading his poetry or denouncing the war can simply amend the Constitution to prohibit it. If you find yourself under the knife of a satanic cult leader about to cut your throat, ask for a timeout so you can get the Constitution amended. Should a television news program broadcast the report of your infidelity with a chicken, amend the Constitution so that television either is not part of "the press" or a new amendment prohibits its libel. If you find an angry mob raging around your home, shouting threats against your family, and distributing leaflets discrediting your wife's morals you have a bit of a problem because you'll need to call a timeout while you have the Constitution amended in several places. Tough, as they say, luck.

We have stopped discussing "Senate Passes NICS Improvement Act." It's not in the Second Amendment.

 

[Dallas239]

Maybe this isn't the right thread, but I have one and only one question for anyone who supports this bill. To me, it is a key issue.

Background: There is an existing process for relief of disabilities. As we all know it is completely defeated by a provision in an appropriations bill, and has been every single year for more than a decade. This provision has been included in every appropriations bills and passed and signed by Republican and Democrat controlled Congresses and Republican and Democrat Presidents. Any law passed by Congress can be amended by Congress, even by an appropriations bill.

Question: Why do you believe that this relief of disabilities program will not be completely defeated in the same manner as the existing one?

Example: "No funds appropriated under this bill shall be used by any federal agency to implement or administer a reflief of disabilities program, and failure of any agency to act on any relief request shall not be construed as a denial, and notwithstanding any provision of federal law to the contrary, failure to act because of lack of funding shall not entitle the requestor to pursue any action in federal court." There'd be some more blah, blah, blah, but you get the idea.

Preemptive follow-up question: If your answer to the above question is the same as the NRA's (to wit, "Because if they tried that the NRA would fight it.") then why do you think the NRA hasn't already successfully fought it?

NB I do not intend to be "snarky". I am serious, and I think this is basically the crux of this whole issue.