The Second Amendment

Everything that doesn't fit anywhere else!

Postby Marinepits » October 24th, 2008, 1:28 pm

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Feel free to discuss all aspects about the Second Amendment and gun control here. Just keep it civil. :wink:
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby Marinepits » October 24th, 2008, 1:48 pm

I tried to find Obama's stance on gun control from his own website, but I can't find anything about just the issue of gun control. So, here's the best I could find instead:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_ ... ontrol.htm

Barack Obama on Gun Control
Democratic nomine for President; Junior Senator (IL)




Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.

Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?

A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.

Source: 2008 Philadelphia primary debate, on eve of PA primary Apr 16, 2008

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."

Source: FactCheck.org analysis of 2008 Philadelphia primary debate Apr 16, 2008

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.

Source: 2008 Politico pre-Potomac Primary interview Feb 11, 2008

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas Jan 15, 2008

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."

It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.

Source: From Promise to Power, by David Mendell, p.250-251 Aug 14, 2007

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.

Source: 2007 NAACP Presidential Primary Forum Jul 12, 2007

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.

Source: Illinois Senate Debate #3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes Oct 21, 2004

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby Marinepits » October 24th, 2008, 1:49 pm

http://www.reason.com/news/show/125180.html

Isn't Self-Defense Common Sense?
Barack Obama's Second Amendment is all about hunting and target shooting.

Jacob Sullum | February 27, 2008

Under the Second Amendment, Barack Obama says, "There is an individual right to bear arms, but it is subject to common-sense regulation, just like most of our rights are subject to common-sense regulation." The leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination thus seems to be on the same wavelength as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which in a decision last March said "the protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment."

But there is a crucial difference between these superficially similar formulations: The appeals court meant what it said, and Obama doesn't. Although the Illinois senator has learned to pay lip service to the Second Amendment, the details of his past and present positions on gun control suggest he neither understands nor respects the right to keep and bear arms.

In last year's ruling, which the U.S. Supreme Court will soon review, the D.C. Circuit overturned a Washington, D.C., gun law that bans possession of handguns in the home and requires that rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The law thereby effectively bars city residents from using firearms for self-defense in their own homes.

Obama evidently considers that de facto prohibition a "common-sense regulation," since he recently cited Washington's law as an example of constitutionally permissible gun control. "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gangbangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution," he said.

The D.C. gun law, passed in 1975, isn't really about gangbangers, which it has not exactly disarmed, or random shootings on the street, which it has not noticeably curbed. In effect if not intent, it is about disarming law-abiding residents who might want to protect themselves from gangbangers and other violent criminals.

It's not surprising that Obama sees nothing unconstitutional about this situation, since he does not acknowledge that the Second Amendment has anything to do with self-defense. "As a former constitutional law professor, Barack Obama understands and believes in the constitutional right of Americans to bear arms," his website claims. "He will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting" (emphasis added).

This is the only substantive discussion of the Second Amendment on Obama's website. It's part of a document that lists "Protecting Gun Rights" as a subcategory of "Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Sportsmen," which is like listing "Protecting Freedom of Speech" as a subcategory of "Supporting the Rights and Traditions of Auctioneers."

It's true that hunting—at the time an important source of sustenance, as opposed to the hobby it has become for most Americans—was one of the gun uses the Framers had in mind when they guaranteed the right to arms. But as the D.C. Circuit emphasized when it found Washington's gun law unconstitutional, "the people's right to arms was auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation," which was "understood as the right to defend oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government."

Because Obama ignores these aspects of the Second Amendment, he sees no constitutional barrier to a complete ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns, which he supported when he ran for the Illinois Senate in 1996. Two years later he said he favored a ban on the sale or transfer of all semiautomatic firearms, which would cover not only most handguns but many hunting rifles and shotguns as well.

Responding to criticism that Obama has since changed his position on gun control, his campaign declares that "Obama has been consistent." If so, consistent civil libertarians—the ones who do not mentally skip from the First Amendment to the Fourth—should be worried.

© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.




Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby Marinepits » October 24th, 2008, 1:54 pm

And here's McCain's stance:

http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm

I know how to use guns; but I don't own one. (Nov 2007)

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership. (Sep 2007)

Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes. (Sep 2007)

Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types. (Sep 2007)

Calls for GOP "tolerance" of closing gun show loopholes. (May 2002)

Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks. (Aug 1999)

Supports ban on certain assault weapons. (Aug 1999)

Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban. (Aug 1999)

Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos. (Aug 1999)

Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights. (May 1999)

Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids. (May 1999)

Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use. (Jul 1998)

Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)

Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (Jul 1998)

Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC. (Mar 2007)

Allow firearms in National Parks. (Feb 2008)


http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_Mc ... ontrol.htm

John McCain on Gun Control
Republican nominee for President; Senior Senator (AZ)




I know how to use guns; but I don't own one
Q: Tell us about your gun collection, roughly how many you own, what your favorite make, model and caliber is, if any of them require a tax stamp?
A: For a long time I used a lot of guns, including carrying a .45 as a pilot flying in combat over Vietnam. I know how to use guns. I don't own one now.

Source: 2007 GOP YouTube debate in St. Petersburg, Florida Nov 28, 2007

Prosecute criminals, not citizens for gun ownership
John McCain believes that the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, individual Constitutional right. We have a responsibility to ensure that criminals who violate the law are prosecuted to the fullest, rather than restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. Gun control is a proven failure in fighting crime. Law abiding citizens should not be asked to give up their rights because of criminals--criminals who ignore gun control laws anyway.
Source: Campaign website, http://www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Don't hold gun manufacturers liable for crimes
John McCain opposes backdoor attempts to restrict Second Amendment rights by holding gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties using a firearm, and has voted to protect gun manufacturers from such inappropriate liability aimed at bankrupting the entire gun industry. McCain says, "Neither justice nor domestic peace are served by holding the innocent responsible for the acts of the criminal."
Source: Campaign website, http://www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Opposes restrictions on assault weapons and ammunition types
McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and voted consistently against such bans.
McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.
McCain believes that banning ammunition is just another way to undermine Second Amendment rights. He voted against an amendment that would have banned many of the most commonly used hunting cartridges on the spurious grounds that they were "armor-piercing."
Source: Campaign website, http://www.johnmccain.com, "Issues" Sep 1, 2007

Calls for GOP "tolerance" of closing gun show loopholes
A recall petition drive was started in June 2001 by the Arizona far right. The petition complained that McCain was disloyal to the President, especially in voting against his tax bill, and it also complained about his proposal to close the gun show loophole. One form of the petition accused him of backing "dishonest and treasonist" legislation. Several of the petitions were posted at gun shops.
The NRA was particularly angry with him for its being included in his campaign finance reform bill, and for trying to tighten a loophole in the gun control laws. McCain himself was sufficiently concerned that he sent a 4-page, single-spaced letter to every GOP precinct leader in Arizona. He called for "greater tolerance" for Republicans "who occasionally dissent" from one or another majority position held by a party. He explained his vote against Bush's tax cut and talked about the need to build up national defense, about his work on the patients' bill of rights, and the gun show loophole.

Source: Citizen McCain, by Elizabeth Drew, p. 78-79 May 7, 2002

Ban cheap guns; require safety locks; for gun show checks
McCain favors outlawing cheaply made handguns called Saturday night specials, and favors mandating safety locks on certain guns. He said he is intrigued by new technology that electronically identifies a person handling a gun, allowing only the owner to fire it. McCain rallied Senate Republicans behind a Democratic measure requiring background checks at gun shows.
Source: Scott Lindlaw, Associated Press Aug 17, 1999

Supports ban on certain assault weapons
McCain said he was open to voting for an assault weapon ban, depending on the details.
Source: Los Angeles Times, “McCain Calls for Hearings” Aug 17, 1999

Voted against Brady Bill & assault weapon ban
McCain spoke generally of the need for some tighter gun controls on hardened criminals and children. In Congress, he pressured his colleagues to require background checks for buyers at guns shows, and he supported a requirement that trigger locks be sold with handguns. But the Senator opposed the two major gun-control measures of recent years, the 1994 ban on several types of assault weapons and the Brady Bill, which required a 5-day waiting period for handgun purchases.
Source: Todd S. Purdum, New York Times, p. A14 Aug 17, 1999

Guns are a problem, but so are violent web sites & videos
If you want to take every gun in and dump it in the ocean, I’ll still take you to a Web site where it teaches children how to build a pipe bomb. And I’ll take you to a Web site where the worst kind of hate language that is terribly offensive to all of us exists. I can take you to a video game being sold to our children where the object of the game is to kill police. I understand the importance of weapons, but to define that as being the major cause [of youth violence], there’s a whole lot of causes.
Source: Todd S. Purdum, New York Times, p. A14 Aug 17, 1999

Punish criminals who abuse 2nd Amendment rights
We need to focus on halting the spread of violent crime and punishing violent criminals who abuse their Second Amendment rights, while preserving those same rights for law-abiding Americans.
Source: http://www.mccain2000.com/ “Press Releases” May 10, 1999

Youth Violence Prevention Act restricts guns for kids
McCain has introduced the “Youth Violence Prevention Act.”
The legislation would:
prevent juveniles from illegal access to weapons and punish those who would assist them in doing so
prohibit juveniles who commit acts of gun violence from purchasing guns in the future
sentence juveniles convicted of violent crimes under adult guidelines
and punish juveniles who illegally carry or use handguns in schools.
Source: http://www.mccain2000.com/ “Press Releases” May 10, 1999

Repeal existing gun restrictions; penalize criminal use
McCain supports the following principles regarding gun issues:
Repeal federal restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
Favor allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms.
McCain says, “There are penalties for criminals who use firearms.”
Source: Project Vote Smart, 1998, http://www.vote-smart.org Jul 2, 1998

Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005

Voted YES on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 2004

Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999

Voted YES on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999

Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.
Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999

Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.
Vote to table [kill] an amendment to make it unlawful for gun dealers to sell handguns without providing trigger locks. Violation of the law would result in civil penalties, such as suspension or revocation of the dealer's license, or a fine.
Reference: Bill S 2260 ; vote number 1998-216 on Jul 21, 1998

Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC.
McCain co-sponsored banning gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC

Nothing in any provision of law shall authorize the Mayor, or any governmental authority of the District of Columbia, to prohibit possessing firearms by a person who is allowed to possess firearms under federal law.
Denies the District any authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.
Repeals the ban on semiautomatic weapons.
Repeals the District's registration requirement for possession of firearms.
Repeals the trigger lock law.
Maintains the current ban on the possession and control of a sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, or short-barreled rifle.
Eliminates criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm.
Specifies exceptions to the prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in the District.
Source: D.C. Personal Protection Act (H.R.1399/S.1001) 2007-S1001 on Mar 27, 2007

Allow firearms in National Parks.
McCain co-sponsored allowing firearms in National Parks
Bars the promulgation or enforcement of any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled or functional firearm, in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if:

the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of state in which the unit is located.
Source: Protecting Americans from Violent Crime Act (S.2619&HR.5434) 2008-S2619 on Feb 8, 2008
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby muse » October 24th, 2008, 2:30 pm

Thanks!!!!
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
User avatar
muse
Confident Young Bully
 
Posts: 544
Location: Maryland

Postby pitbullmamaliz » October 24th, 2008, 2:31 pm

I liken gun control to BSL - it only affects those who already obey the law.
"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

http://www.pitbullzen.com
http://inaradog.wordpress.com
User avatar
pitbullmamaliz
Working out in the buff causes chafing
 
Posts: 15437
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Marinepits » October 24th, 2008, 2:37 pm

Exactly.
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby Marinepits » October 24th, 2008, 2:59 pm

I know, I know, it's Wiki, but it's a good summary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... _v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use. It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to directly address whether the right to keep and bear arms is a right of individuals or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.


DC v Heller discussion: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24508

And more: viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24376
Never make someone a priority in your life when that someone treats you like an option.
User avatar
Marinepits
Proud Infidel
 
Posts: 15621
Location: New England

Postby cheekymunkee » October 24th, 2008, 8:25 pm

I have lost 2 of my nephews due to gun fire ( one was murdered, one accidentally shot himself) and I am STILL in 100% favor of the right to bear arms.
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Postby DemoDick » October 26th, 2008, 1:11 am

Here is the problem with every gun control law on the books. EVERY one.

The burden of proof in any issue of Constitutional rights is where it should be: on the Government. You don't have to file paperwork and wait for permission to deny an unreasonable search or seizure (4th Amendment). If one happens, you are protected because the burden of proof as to why the search was conducted is on the Government. Any evidence obtained though an illegal search is thrown out. You don't have to request permission to not be forced to incriminate yourself (5th Amendment). You don't have to petition to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment (8th Amendment). Etc., etc.

So why is there a completely DIFFERENT standard when it comes to Amendment #2? YOU must "prove" your case as to why you should be able to exercise a Constitutionally secured right, but only in this case. Yes, the "bear" part of "keep and bear" means to carry a firearm on one's person. It means the same thing today that it did when the Constitution was ratified.

I think the reason for this double standard is that deep down, most politicians are painfully aware of what the Second Amendment is REALLY about. It has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with target shooting. It has nothing to do with defending oneself from a criminal. It IS about protecting every OTHER Constitutionally secured right from being infringed upon by our own Government, by force if necessary. That scares the hell out of legislators, and THAT'S THE POINT.

For the record, gun control HAS worked very well...at disarming the only people who DO obey the law. Why do mass shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech occur in "gun-free zones"? Because criminals don't obey the law. Why do the regions in this country with the strictest gun control laws also have correspondingly high rates of gun violence? Because criminals don't obey the law. Why do most state allow concealed carry of a firearm by law-abiding citizens? Because criminals don't obey the law.

Gun control means more gun violence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjg ... re=related

And for anyone who doubts that guns could or would ever be seized from law-abiding citizens, this will shock you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26 ... re=related

On the subject of Concealed Carry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgNUqtkX ... re=related

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby LMM » October 26th, 2008, 9:00 am

I know we have a thread for this but I would just like to point out that while some of the facts pointed out on the website you have posted are well known record, a few of those "facts" are referenced by a site that is not a well established, credible source. No fewer than 5 of those "facts" are continually referenced by this site: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml I'm not sure how much I would trust a website that had conspiracy in the title, no matter what side it fell on.

For gun proponents, there is enough ammo ( ;) ) located on http://www.ontheissues.org to make their point about his record without resorting to a site that has questionable sources or may be exaggerating his stance even if slightly. One of those "facts" isn't even supported by a source.

I'll probably catch heat for this but the gun control thing is a non-issue for me. And while it's a hot button issue for some, it just isn't for me :|

There, I said it :neutral:



Posting this here by request.
User avatar
LMM
I'll Kick Your Ass
 
Posts: 1834
Location: Bitch please....

Postby LMM » October 26th, 2008, 9:07 am

For discussion sake.

Obviously what has been done so far hasn't worked very well. Demo, in your professional opinion, what would work to keep guns out of criminal hands? Do you agree with mandatory waiting periods and registration requirements? Do those help at all?
User avatar
LMM
I'll Kick Your Ass
 
Posts: 1834
Location: Bitch please....

Postby DemoDick » October 26th, 2008, 10:17 am

I know we have a thread for this but I would just like to point out that while some of the facts pointed out on the website you have posted are well known record, a few of those "facts" are referenced by a site that is not a well established, credible source. No fewer than 5 of those "facts" are continually referenced by this site: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml I'm not sure how much I would trust a website that had conspiracy in the title, no matter what side it fell on.


The Volokh Conspiracy website is a VERY well established, credible source. I understand where you're coming from, but the use of the word "conspiracy" is firmly tongue-in-cheek. The "Volokh" in the title is actually Eugene Volokh, the guy who founded the site. He's taking a shot at himself by calling it his "conspiracy". Here are a list of contributors to that website:

Eugene Volokh, UCLA School of Law professor, one of its eponymous founders.
Alexander "Sasha" Volokh, currently a visiting professor at the University of Houston Law Center, the weblog's other eponymous founder.
Dale Carpenter, professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, and Adjunct Professor of Law at William Mitchell College of Law.
David Kopel of the Independence Institute.
David Bernstein, professor at the George Mason University School of Law.
David Post, I. Herman Stern Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law, Adjunct Scholar at the Cato Institute, and the Co-Director of ICANNWatch.org, Disputes.org, and the Cyberspace Law Institute.
Erik Jaffe, who runs a law office.
Ilya Somin, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
Jim Lindgren, who is a Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and director of their Demography of Diversity Project.
Jonathan H. Adler, Professor of Law at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law, who contributed under the pseudonym "Juan Non-Volokh" until May 1, 2006.
Kevan Choset ("Puzzleblogger"), a New York attorney.
Orin Kerr, Associate Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Randy Barnett, Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center.
Russell Korobkin, Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law.
Stuart Benjamin, Professor of Law at Duke Law.
Todd Zywicki, Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
Tyler Cowen, professor of economics at George Mason University and at the Center for the Study of Public Choice and Director of the James Buchanan Center and the Mercatus Center.


Not exactly a recipe for a fun dinner party, but not a bunch of wackos either.

For discussion sake.

Obviously what has been done so far hasn't worked very well. Demo, in your professional opinion, what would work to keep guns out of criminal hands?


Keeping them in jail after we arrest them. That's the only thing that works. We had someone shoot at one of our Sergeants last year. I was there. What infuriated me about the whole thing was that not only did our wonderfully strict NY State gun control laws NOT prevent this criminal from arming himself...he already had 2 prior gun convictions. No amount of gun control legislation would have prevented him from getting a pistol. But if he were in jail, where he belongs, he never would have had the chance to try to kill a cop in the first place.

Do you agree with mandatory waiting periods and registration requirements? Do those help at all?


No, no, and no.

Mandatory waiting periods do nothing. The real question is what's the point? Is it a "cooling off period"? If someone is so angry that they are willing to go buy a gun to shoot someone then that person is mentally unstable and will get a gun illegally if turned away at a legit shop. Or find another way to carry out their crime. In the meantime, those of us who do obey the law are the only ones that waiting periods affect. There is no need for me to wait to pick up a product that I have alread paid for.

Registration requirements have the same problem. Both of these types of laws simply push people who would commit crimes with guns with their newly purchased piece into the black market. Here's a test...try to buy a handgun in NY state without a pistol permit from a gun shop. Now try to buy one from the local drug dealer. Guess who WILL sell you one.

If you buy a gun (pistol or long gun) from any gun shop in America a pre-requisite for the purchase is filling out a BATFE Firearm Transaction Record (or form 4473). Here is a link to that form:

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473 ... m-4473.htm

When you fill out the form the person behind the counter will perform a NICS (National Instant Check System) check which plugs you into a national database to make sure you are not already prohibited from buying a firearm (and there are a LOT of things that disqualify you). By the way, the National Rifle Association has long supported instant checks because they actually DO work, as opposed to waiting periods. Once I pass the NICS check, what possible reason is there for telling me "great, now come back in 15 days"?

Form 4473 records are not registration, per se. They are confidential and cannot be revealed without a warrant. Registration, on the other hand, is a transparent record-keeping system of who has what guns. If you're a law abiding citizen, that's no one's business but your own. Another problem a lot of us have is that registration opens the door to the very real threat of confiscation, as has already happened in England, Australia, and Canada. A lot of people will say "that can never happen here." It already has, as shown in the link I posted about Hurricane Katrina.

If there's anything else, please don't hesitate to ask. I'll even take you shooting. :)

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby LMM » October 26th, 2008, 10:40 am

Thank you for the explanation about that site. I don't mean to be dismissive (or ignorant in the true sense of the word) but the bulk of those names mean nothing to me. I'd still rather look up a voting record and call it a day. Like I said, all the ammunition one needs is in his voting record, yes?

As for taking me shooting, ack. I can't hit the broad side of a barn. I tried to qualify with the 9mm shortly after I got out of boot camp and I anticipated the shot every single time. My first set was the best, it went severely downhill from there :oops:

I do like the idea of the instant check system and I see your points about mandatory waitng periods and registration. I have to admit, I am not entirely comfortable with the mix of my daughter and a gun in my home. That doesn't mean I think other people shouldn't have that right though. When my ex and I lived together, he owned one. We actually both went to the gun shop and for a fleeting moment (pre-daughter days) I thought about buying one and filled out all the paperwork. He should have never been allowed, what a freaking loose cannon he was. Among other things, any time some shyt went down in our complex he went running outside flailing his gun around like he was King Shyt :rolleyes2: And in his worst moments he took his gun out to "clean it" during a particularly nasty fight of ours.

I like your solution to keep them in jail but that's never going to happen is it? Time and time again we hear about stories where someone murders someone and you look back at their criminal history and wonder how in the H E L L they got out.
User avatar
LMM
I'll Kick Your Ass
 
Posts: 1834
Location: Bitch please....

Postby DemoDick » October 26th, 2008, 12:13 pm

I like your solution to keep them in jail but that's never going to happen is it? Time and time again we hear about stories where someone murders someone and you look back at their criminal history and wonder how in the H E L L they got out.


Mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who are convicted of gun crimes would be a BIG step in the right direction.

BTW, your ex sounds like the type of person that shouldn't own a car, let alone a gun. And there are many ways to keep a loaded (yes, LOADED) firearm in the home safely with children and yet keep it accessible to adults who might need it in an emergency.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby DemoDick » October 26th, 2008, 12:35 pm

I'd still rather look up a voting record and call it a day. Like I said, all the ammunition one needs is in his voting record, yes?


No. The problem is that the voting record doesn't examine what the laws would have actually done if enacted, only whether a candidate voted yes or no.

For example, if a piece of legislation is drafted that would outlaw "armor piercing ammunition", and that was defined as any cartridge that, when fired, could penetrate a bullet resistant vest, most people would call that reasonable. Obama supported just such a piece of legislation. Here's the problem, nearly every commonly available big-game hunting round, fired from a handgun or rifle, will zip right through soft body armor. So that law, if enacted, would effectively outlaw the majority of ammunition produced and sold in the U.S. (and most of the ammo in my own supply).

But if you look at it on the surface, it looks like a good law designed to protect police officers from "cop-killer" bullets. In reality, EVERY bullet is a "cop killer" when it is fired at a police officer.

So unfortunately we have to dig deeper than a candidate's voting record and examine why they voted the way they did and question if they really understand the subject matter.

This is what is so frustrating about politics. Legislators do not have to have expert knowledge in any field to draft legislation that directly affects it. They only need to understand how to write the law and convince other legislators to vote for it. The most despicable way to do this, in my opinion, is to appeal to people's emotional response to tragedy, potential or otherwise.

I'll bet I could get you over that anticipation problem in one session.

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby pitbullmamaliz » October 26th, 2008, 12:50 pm

Demo, let's go shooting next time I'm up there! I'll have to borrow one of your guns since I'm not allowed to carry out of Ohio.

That armor-piercing bullets issue is an excellent point. Before I got my current job, I was all for bans on armor-piercing bullets. While we were still in the training academy though, they took one of the bullet-resistant vests we are issued and shot different weapons at it. It stopped our ammo (most cops are killed by their own weapons) which is good, but legal hunting rifle rounds went right through it. It was very eye-opening and sobering.
"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

http://www.pitbullzen.com
http://inaradog.wordpress.com
User avatar
pitbullmamaliz
Working out in the buff causes chafing
 
Posts: 15437
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby DemoDick » October 26th, 2008, 1:19 pm

Demo, let's go shooting next time I'm up there! I'll have to borrow one of your guns since I'm not allowed to carry out of Ohio.


This is how screwed up our gun laws are here in NY state...you CAN'T shoot one of my handguns, because you can't legally "possess" one without a NY State pistol permit. Simply picking one up at the range, even with my permission, would be a felony. Nice, huh?

Long guns are a different story though. I have a few of those, too. :)

Demo Dick
"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama
"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge
User avatar
DemoDick
They Like to Fondle My Gun
 
Posts: 1910
Location: New York

Postby pitbullmamaliz » October 26th, 2008, 1:22 pm

What? That's insane. Do the shooting ranges have loaners? The range I go to has hundreds of different guns you can rent, even that big one from Dirty Harry. And I would love to shoot a long gun - I've only done it a couple times and I suck at it. I can't figure out how to comfortably hold them.
"Remember - every time your dog gets somewhere on a tight leash *a fairy dies and it's all your fault.* Think of the fairies." http://www.positivepetzine.com"

http://www.pitbullzen.com
http://inaradog.wordpress.com
User avatar
pitbullmamaliz
Working out in the buff causes chafing
 
Posts: 15437
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby cheekymunkee » October 26th, 2008, 3:10 pm

Gun control laws do NOT work because you cannot regulate what is bought on the street or stolen. Which is where MOST criminals get their guns. Law abiding citizens are going to be the ONLY people affected by these laws. Criminals will still get their guns the way they always have. Gun control laws are about as effective as the war on drugs.....not very.
There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Debby
User avatar
cheekymunkee
I Have Your Grass
 
Posts: 28540
Location: Dallas

Next

Return to Off-Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron