It was my first thought too but I guess if it was really an issue it would be rather widely publicized by the NRA.Kmarion wrote:
.. yes it does ideally. I guess I'm having images of corrupt western Sherrifs .. OK corral style.
There is no data to prove that that leakage is significantly more than what would be seen by them obtaining the guns via some other method or via secondary markets. Theft is actually a fairly low percentage.Dilbert_X wrote:
There is always some leakage of legally held guns to criminals via theft.Increasing the legal availability of something legal does not increase the availability of something illegal that is of a similar nature. If anything, the opposite is the case.
Wrong.Vilham wrote:
Ridiculous arguement. The only way you are possibly correct is if all illegal guns are home made. They ARENT, the vast majority of illegal guns come from originally legal sources, such as stealing a legal gun. So wrong, increasing legal guns definately does increase the availability of acquiring them illegally.FEOS wrote:
That argument is what is known as a non sequitur.Dilbert_X wrote:
By increasing the easy availability of legally held firearms the illegal pool naturally increases too.
All we hear from the NRA is reasons to increase the legal pool, without acknowledgment of the above or suggestions on how to deal with it.
Increasing the legal availability of something legal does not increase the availability of something illegal that is of a similar nature. If anything, the opposite is the case.
Yes, the federal laws apply. As I said, form 4473 + NICS check + money = any non-NFA firearm.Kmarion wrote:
They aren't subjected to the federal laws?RAIMIUS wrote:
Colorado: Walk into gun store, fill out a form stating you are not a criminal and are not making a straw purchase, have a background check run to confirm you aren't a criminal, hand over money/credit card, leave with gun.
(Sometimes there is a 3-4 hour wait on the background check)
That goes for any non-NFA firearm (NFA firearm = full-autos, rifles with barrels under 16in, shotguns with barrels under 18in, suppressors, destructive devices, stuff over .50cal [except shotguns])
http://i34.tinypic.com/34q8dxl.jpg
Then I hope the NRA loses... A precedent like that would open up such a huge can of worms in favor of the states rights people... Would make me happyHarmor wrote:
The Supreme Court case will determine if the 10th Amendment will trump federal gun laws. This is a big deal.
No, the exact opposite. My phrasing could've been much better. I am one of those states rights advocates.RAIMIUS wrote:
So, you hope the 10th Amendment is effectively killed?
It would solve a lot of problems and remove abortion as a single issue or deciding platform. As long as interstate commerce laws would be enforced, and women would be free to travel to states with legal abortion without being charged with murder back home, it would work. That last part is the stickler though. There's too many people that want it to be considered murder.Harmor wrote:
I am a state rights advocate too, but I think the 2nd Amendment allows for us to have guns. The 10th Amendment says that whatever isn't already stated in the Constitution is given rights to the states.
That's why I believe Roe vs. Wade should be overturned and given to the states to adjudicate.
I can't say I agree with all of them. I fail to see how being subject to a dishonourable discharge, regardless of offense, should disqualify you from owning weapons. Nor do I see why renouncing your citizenship should make you ineligible in any way.JohnG@lt wrote:
North Carolina has gun laws that make sense imo. That application and the criteria that limits ownership is entirely reasonable (except for needing a sheriff to vouch for your moral character, that's a bit over the top).Kmarion wrote:
Random State App (NC: http://www.brunswicksheriff.com/Home/Gu … fault.aspx)
http://i37.tinypic.com/10o1x5d.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/2z8ue78.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/au8pi9.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2emzbfa.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/309sot5.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/34zf43b.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/23wnr0n.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2sb4goh.jpg
Dishonorable Discharge is a felony. You can't vote or carry a gun. It's quite difficult to get a dishonorable discharge, believe me, it's reserved for the very worst of individuals, people you wouldn't want handling a gun anyway.mikkel wrote:
I can't say I agree with all of them. I fail to see how being subject to a dishonourable discharge, regardless of offense, should disqualify you from owning weapons. Nor do I see why renouncing your citizenship should make you ineligible in any way.JohnG@lt wrote:
North Carolina has gun laws that make sense imo. That application and the criteria that limits ownership is entirely reasonable (except for needing a sheriff to vouch for your moral character, that's a bit over the top).Kmarion wrote:
Random State App (NC: http://www.brunswicksheriff.com/Home/Gu … fault.aspx)
http://i37.tinypic.com/10o1x5d.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/2z8ue78.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/au8pi9.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2emzbfa.jpg
http://i35.tinypic.com/309sot5.jpg
http://i33.tinypic.com/34zf43b.jpg
http://i36.tinypic.com/23wnr0n.jpg
http://i37.tinypic.com/2sb4goh.jpg
Then you should be hoping the pro gun-rights people win, since they are on the same side as the 10th Amendment advocates. Look at the Montana law. It uses firearms laws as the method for challenging the Interstate Commerce Clause's current interpretation on the grounds of the 10th Amendment.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, the exact opposite. My phrasing could've been much better. I am one of those states rights advocates.RAIMIUS wrote:
So, you hope the 10th Amendment is effectively killed?
Right, but at the same time they would be limiting state authority to override federal law. In this case I'm honestly going to have to be on the opposite side of the gun rights people. I understand protecting 2nd amendment rights but that has to be taken up in state supreme courts, not federal. Taking it to the federal level, and a favorable judgement for the NRA would severely undermine the 10th amendment.Harmor wrote:
I see what where you're going. I'm wouldn't classify myself as a constitutional authority, but I can say that SCOTUS doesn't have any previous cases to adjudicate this. The court is slightly conservative right now so I'm thinking that they will go with the 2nd amendment and say that banning or severely curtailing getting guns legally will not be allowed.
The way I've understood it is that the NRA is pushing to make state laws limiting possession of weapons illegal in favor of what is already on the books under federal law. To me, this is taking away from the states ability to govern itself and set it's own laws. I view federal laws as a minimum, states may make tougher laws but they may not make laws that are weaker. Makes sense I hope, I'm having a hard time keeping my eyes open.RAIMIUS wrote:
Not neccessarily. If the court limits its scope, it may only apply to the 2nd (i.e. "selective incorporation"). However, by choosing the MacDonald case over the NRA case, the court may be considering reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. They may revive part of the 14th and rule the entire BoR is applicable against the states.
I don't see how enforcing BoR protections would be a bad thing, from a libertarian view. It would limit the States' ability to infringe on basic liberties. Unless they do something unexpected, I don't see them granting federal power over rights not protected by the BoR.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2009-10-04 22:17:59)
IMO, this is what would really make it a landmark decision: it involves basically conflicting views on two different Amendments in the BoR. The SCOTUS will certainly be earning its pay on this one.JohnG@lt wrote:
If they can make it a strictly 2nd amendment argument without weakening the 10th amendment a single iota I will be fully in favor.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-10-05 12:47:25)
I absolutely, 100% agree with this statement.RAIMIUS wrote:
I see your point, JohnG@lt, but I don't mind taking the ability to infringe fundamental rights out of the hands of the states. IMO, the rights protected in the BoR should be enforceable against all levels of government.
This I can't agree with as much as I would like to. Even the Bill of Rights are fallible and should be left up to repeal with further amendments. The beauty of them is that they are so powerful and all pervasive that they CAN'T be repealed without a revolution Still need to leave the option anyway.RAIMIUS wrote:
(I wish we could take the BoR out of the hands of the Government altogether...maybe when pigs fly.)
I personally don't want to see open or concealed carry available in NYC. It would just put those that choose not to carry at a disadvantage with everyone else. I view people that choose to carry as insecure individuals causing more harm than good. You potentially end up in an arms race out on the streets which is completely silly and ridiculous. Home defense? Absolutely. Carrying a weapon into a restaurant/bar/other place of business? No.RAIMIUS wrote:
The "landmark" 10th Amendment issue will probably be the MT or TN's "Firearm Freedom" acts. They are tailored to be ONLY intrastate commerce, but current precedent would consider them part of interstate commerce. I'm waiting for these to wind their way through the court system.
Ok, you found the flaw in the argument. Good point.JohnG@lt wrote:
This I can't agree with as much as I would like to. Even the Bill of Rights are fallible and should be left up to repeal with further amendments. The beauty of them is that they are so powerful and all pervasive that they CAN'T be repealed without a revolution Still need to leave the option anyway.RAIMIUS wrote:
(I wish we could take the BoR out of the hands of the Government altogether...maybe when pigs fly.)
Why should one's ability to choose to defend themselves with a firearm end at their doorstep?JohnG@lt wrote:
I personally don't want to see open or concealed carry available in NYC. It would just put those that choose not to carry at a disadvantage with everyone else. I view people that choose to carry as insecure individuals causing more harm than good. You potentially end up in an arms race out on the streets which is completely silly and ridiculous. Home defense? Absolutely. Carrying a weapon into a restaurant/bar/other place of business? No.RAIMIUS wrote:
The "landmark" 10th Amendment issue will probably be the MT or TN's "Firearm Freedom" acts. They are tailored to be ONLY intrastate commerce, but current precedent would consider them part of interstate commerce. I'm waiting for these to wind their way through the court system.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2009-10-05 15:53:22)
It's just my own personal opinion and prejudice. It has nothing to do with a fear of increased crime and more to do with increased tension. When I'm walking down the street and bump into a mentally ill person I don't want it escalating to the point of gun violence, ya know?RAIMIUS wrote:
Why should one's ability to choose to defend themselves with a firearm end at their doorstep?
The CCW and open carry debate is an intense one, but crime rates have not increased where the restrictions were pulled back. It seems to me that the rarer and more legally challenging CCW/OC is, the more resistance it meets in the eyes of the public. Perhaps people who carry are insecure, but if they don't case more problems than the average person, why should the law restrict them?
