Gun control, which side wins?

[CharonY]

The Second Amendment is has also not been clear on whether it actually protects the right of citizens to bear arms. While it has been upheld as such, the decisions were split:

Quote

Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.

The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only “the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.” They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas.

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 5–4 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.

Notwithstanding the lengthy opinions in Heller and McDonald, they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes. Heller tentatively suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public.

Quote

The principle that reasonable regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment has been affirmed throughout American history. Ever since the first cases challenging gun controls for violating the Second Amendment or similar provisions in state constitutions, courts have repeatedly held that “reasonable” gun laws—those that don’t completely deny access to guns by law-abiding people—are constitutionally permissible. For 150 years, this was the settled law of the land—until Heller.

Heller, however, rejected the principle of reasonableness only in name, not in practice. The decision insisted that many types of gun control laws are presumptively lawful, including bans on possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on concealed carry, bans on dangerous and unusual weapons, restrictions on guns in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and commercial sale restrictions. Nearly all gun control laws today fit within these exceptions. Importantly, these exceptions for modern-day gun laws unheard of in the Founding era also show that lawmakers are not limited to the types of gun control in place at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification.

In the years since Heller, the federal courts have upheld the overwhelming majority of gun control laws challenged under the Second Amendment. Bans on assault weapons have been consistently upheld, as have restrictions on gun magazines that hold more than a minimum number of rounds of ammunition. Bans on guns in national parks, post offices, bars, and college campuses also survived. These decisions make clear that lawmakers have wide leeway to restrict guns to promote public safety so long as the basic right of law-abiding people to have a gun for self-defense is preserved.

 

[Peterkin]

It's never been adherence to a principle that underpins the right-to-gun faction when they cite the second amendment; they're using it as a slogan: meaningless in itself; powerful on a flag, bumper-sticker, or tractor-hat that unite and interest bloc.

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Giving up.

Honest response. Thanks.

[TheVat]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Well, it is more regulated than a handgun. Certainly not illegal.

I think in these chats "illegal" is often used loosely/broadly.  While it is true that per FOPA 1986, you can (with a great deal of paperwork and being fingerprinted at your nearest FBI office, and then a LOT of waiting) purchase an older machine gun, manufactured before May 1986, you cannot legally own or transfer any machine gun manufactured after that date or be involved in the import or sale of foreign-made weapons.  I think this is why some refer to such weapons as illegal, when they mean that you cannot go out and buy a new one as you might an ordinary rifle or handgun.  I really don't mind if someone uses terms like illegal or banned in that way, when you do have laws that effectively block all but collectors.  I suppose it's just barely conceivable that some incredibly coldblooded and longterm planning mass shooter could go through the enormous trouble to obtain a pre- 1986 machine gun, if they had no prior criminal offenses or other red flags.  (and you would also need to live in one of the 30-some states that do not have outright bans that would override the FOPA 1986 bill)  

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Honest response. Thanks.

You're welcome, but the rest of the message is relevant also. I am not a citizen of the United States and have zero effect on American lawmaking or political practice. So I'm giving up something I never had.

[zapatos]

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I really don't mind if someone uses terms like illegal or banned in that way

I don't either. But for the uninformed, when they see someone use the word "illegal" or "banned", they are now not only going to be uninformed, but also misinformed. Better to not let the sloppy (or misinformed) use of words pass.

[beecee]

On 5/27/2022 at 12:02 AM, Phi for All said:

Not sure if anyone brought this up before, but the Alliance for Gun Responsibility points out that "gun control" is how the right wing have framed this whole issue, and humans hate being controlled. "Control" becomes "confiscation", and even law-abiding citizens object. Reframing this issue as "gun responsibility" will force politicians into a clearer stance. I don't think they'd get elected if they objected to responsible gun use.

Funnily enough, Australian gun laws were actually implemented by a conservative right wing government, lead by a very conservative right wing leader, John Howard, that gained bipartisan support right across the politcal spectrum.

[dimreepr]

[J.C.MacSwell]

No Canada? What the puck!

[Alex_Krycek]

What will never work:

• Banning all guns.  (too many in circulation, too many people would violently resist) 
• Focusing on one type of weapon or controlling ammunition / magazines, etc.

What might work and would have an immediate impact:

• Raising the minimum age to own a firearm
• Significantly cracking down on illegal gun ownership
• Increasing mental health counseling for young people
• "Red flagging" certain convictions as barriers to gun ownership
• Criminalizing gun ownership if a person states intent of harming others

 

[studiot]

A couple of things I don't quite understand here.

Historically the old scandinavian culture is only other culture I know of with a tradition of 'beserkers'.

But that was more than a thousand years ago.

Does anyone know if there were many or even any such incidents from the 1860s to say the 1930s in America, when there was an abundance of guns ?

 

Secondly I understand that whilst it is illegal for Texas to ban abortion directly, they have weazelled around it by making it illegal to "travel to an abortion".

So could some indirect bans be effective with guns ?

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, studiot said:

So could some indirect bans be effective with guns ?

California is following Texas' model on abortion control to control guns.

Quote

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Texas copycat ploy is less about enacting a vigilante law than playing a poker chip.

Either way, it’s a smart move.

Yes, the Texas vigilantism is odorous. But Newsom is justified in countering the Lone Star State’s cynical attack on abortion rights while strengthening California’s enforcement of gun laws.

Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson puts it this way: “Newsom is saying to Texas, ‘I’ll see your abortion restriction and raise you a gun restriction.’”

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-16/skelton-newsom-california-texas-abortion-law-guns

[TheVat]

Almost 400 million guns here in the United States of Insanity.  How can I sum up the problem in one word: CRAIGSLIST.

Maybe this is why so many developed countries simply ban all weapons other than hunting rifles.  And then follow up with buybacks and other legal tools to remove assault weapons (defined as all rapidfire high capacity rifles) from the public arsenal and make private sales a felony.

What might help is for liberal politicians to stop pretending they care about the second amendment.  They don't.  Neither do I.   If more of them were willing to talk about revising (a la John Paul Stevens famously suggested five word alteration) or rescinding it, then the more moderate positions would start to look more MOTR and achievable.  As it is now, almost every moderate position on guns causes the conservatives to emit shrill cries of horror and flood their PACs with donations to annihilate any reasonable compromise.  Why not just be honest and say "the 1790 constitutional law is antiquated bullshit," and then that would make the moderates look good when all they want is banned assault weapons and longer waiting periods with stringent background checks and no Craigslist loopholery.

[studiot]

On 5/29/2022 at 4:01 PM, zapatos said:

California is following Texas' model on abortion control to control guns.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-12-16/skelton-newsom-california-texas-abortion-law-guns

Thanks I didn't know that.  +1

Edited May 30, 2022 by studiot

[Sensei]

 

On 5/27/2022 at 2:35 PM, John Cuthber said:

  

On 5/27/2022 at 9:09 AM, Sensei said:

On 5/27/2022 at 2:35 PM, John Cuthber said:

Pretending that the constitution is Holy writ is one of America's problems here.

You sound like Donald T. and V.P. ...

In what way?

Donald wanted to change the Constitution.

https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+trump+want+to+change+constitution

V.P. changed constitution, to his purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Russian_constitutional_referendum

i.e., if you say "the constitution can be changed", you also mean "the constitution can be changed in ways you don't want and you won't like" (half the population won't like your constitutional changes)...

like in Russia.... or in China....

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-43361276

"The constitution has been altered to allow Xi Jinping to remain as president beyond two terms and they would not have gone to this much trouble if that was not exactly what he intended to do."

 

...so be careful what you ask for, because you might get it....

 

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, Sensei said:

i.e., if you say "the constitution can be changed", you also mean "the constitution can be changed in ways you don't want and you won't like" (half the population won't like your constitutional changes)...

It doesn't matter who says what.

The constitution can be, in fact, be changed.

Edited May 31, 2022 by John Cuthber

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The constitution can be, in fact,  changed.

Like any variable..

 

Only mathematical constants can't be changed..

 

The question is, if you want to change the U.S. constitution change, one way or another..

 

Do you want Elisabeth replacement?

or Boris?

Sorry! Where is the backspace key?

(at least with the invasion he went well.. and got some serious points from me)

 

ps. My point was the Constitution can be changed the way you won't accept it..

Edited May 31, 2022 by Sensei

[Alex_Krycek]

I see Trudeau's busy limiting the rights of gun owners.

Easy to take away someone's rights, no so easy to protect them.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I see Trudeau's busy limiting the rights of gun owners.

Easy to take away someone's rights, no so easy to protect them.

How about if he is actually protecting the rights of the other citizens that don't own a gun, and are not as obsessed with them. They have an over-riding right to expect to walk the streets, go to school, and not be assaulted by some fucking nut, who can walk into a store and buy a gun willy nilly I suggest.

[Alex_Krycek]

"Canada’s government is to legislate for a national freeze on handgun ownership that would prevent people buying and selling them anywhere in the country."

“The day this legislation goes into effect it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns in Canada,” said the prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/31/handgun-freeze-in-canada-and-five-round-limit-on-magazines

--------

To score political points, Trudeau is removing the right to self defense from practically the entire Canadian population.  I guess the logic is if someone is violently attacked and can't defend him/her self it's that person's own responsibility.

“Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives,” Trudeau said.

What an utterly absurd and ignorant statement.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Alex_Krycek

[dimreepr]

19 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

To score political points, Trudeau is removing the right to self defense from practically the entire Canadian population.  I guess the logic is if someone is violently attacked and can't defend him/her self it's that person's own responsibility.

What an utterly absurd and ignorant statement.

 

No logic detected...

[StringJunky]

46 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

"Canada’s government is to legislate for a national freeze on handgun ownership that would prevent people buying and selling them anywhere in the country."

“The day this legislation goes into effect it will no longer be possible to buy, sell, transfer or import handguns in Canada,” said the prime minister, Justin Trudeau.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/31/handgun-freeze-in-canada-and-five-round-limit-on-magazines

--------

To score political points, Trudeau is removing the right to self defense from practically the entire Canadian population.  I guess the logic is if someone is violently attacked and can't defend him/her self it's that person's own responsibility.

“Other than using firearms for sport shooting and hunting, there is no reason anyone in Canada should need guns in their everyday lives,” Trudeau said.

What an utterly absurd and ignorant statement.

It works for many other countries. I would be very upset if we had a Second Amendment  in the UK, as it would indicate to me that UK civil society had collapsed.

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It works for many other countries. I would be very upset if we had a Second Amendment  in the UK, as it would indicate to me that UK civil society had collapsed.

Indeed but we've never had to break through that glass ceiling, sure we had guns; but we've never had that solution written in law.

It's a lot like the drug problem, drugs are bad M'kay except when there's money to be made and doctor's are encouraged to prescribe a legal way to diminish the pain...

[swansont]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It works for many other countries. I would be very upset if we had a Second Amendment  in the UK, as it would indicate to me that UK civil society had collapsed.

The amendment as written isn't about a civil society, it's about having a militia that can be called up for defense of the country, written in a time when militia members often had their own rifles. At least, up until the Heller decision, which made up a right to own guns for personal protection.

[TheVat]

5 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

I see Trudeau's busy limiting the rights of gun owners.

Easy to take away someone's rights, no so easy to protect them.

An alternative view is that he is calling out the myth that guns serve as effective means of self-defense, when in fact guns are mostly used for acts of aggression against oneself (suicide), family (domestic violence), or strangers.  Stats bear out the latter view, ergo banning them protects people's right to live.

Also "scoring political points" is spin, not argument.  Politicians do what their constituents elected them to do, represent their interests.  Unless they are bad, in which case they do what their donor base paid them to do and tell the electorate to GFYs.