Gun Rights: Increasing or Decreasing?

[carlfense]

Some of them have not been presented yet, but all you have to do is look at gun control and how it becomes more intrusive every day (frog in the pot of water).

Huh? If anything gun rights are increasing since the mid-90s.

[74Hunter]

Some of them have not been presented yet, but all you have to do is look at gun control and how it becomes more intrusive every day (frog in the pot of water).

Huh? If anything gun rights are increasing since the mid-90s.

Really, do tell?

[carlfense]

Some of them have not been presented yet, but all you have to do is look at gun control and how it becomes more intrusive every day (frog in the pot of water).

Huh? If anything gun rights are increasing since the mid-90s.

Really, do tell?

There are more and more shall issue concealed carry states. Sunset of the Brady Bill (the so called assault weapons bill). The Supreme Court specifically said that the 2nd amendment is a personal right and NOT just applicable to the National Guard. The Supreme Court will likely soon issue an opinion that will state that the 2nd amendment is also applicable to state gun restrictions and not just to federal legislation. Shall I go on or is that sufficient for you?

[74Hunter]

Some of them have not been presented yet, but all you have to do is look at gun control and how it becomes more intrusive every day (frog in the pot of water).

Huh? If anything gun rights are increasing since the mid-90s.

Really, do tell?

There are more and more shall issue concealed carry states. Sunset of the Brady Bill (the so called assault weapons bill). The Supreme Court specifically said that the 2nd amendment is a personal right and NOT just applicable to the National Guard. The Supreme Court will likely soon issue an opinion that will state that the 2nd amendment is also applicable to state gun restrictions and not just to federal legislation. Shall I go on or is that sufficient for you?

I just know that I have fill out long purchase orders when buying guns, even to this day, and that there are firearms that I may or may not like to purchase that I am not able to.

 

IF gun restrictions are loosening, it isn't enough for me.

[carlfense]

Some of them have not been presented yet, but all you have to do is look at gun control and how it becomes more intrusive every day (frog in the pot of water).

Huh? If anything gun rights are increasing since the mid-90s.

Really, do tell?

There are more and more shall issue concealed carry states. Sunset of the Brady Bill (the so called assault weapons bill). The Supreme Court specifically said that the 2nd amendment is a personal right and NOT just applicable to the National Guard. The Supreme Court will likely soon issue an opinion that will state that the 2nd amendment is also applicable to state gun restrictions and not just to federal legislation. Shall I go on or is that sufficient for you?

I just know that I have fill out long purchase orders when buying guns, even to this day, and that there are firearms that I may or may not like to purchase that I am not able to.

 

IF gun restrictions are loosening, it isn't enough for me.

Maybe we should start a new thread about this . . . but are you suggesting that you should be able to buy whatever gun you want? I'm very pro-gun . . . but I'm not THAT pro-gun. I'll leave the belt fed machine guns and grenade launchers to the military.

 

Sorry for the thread hijacking . . . if I get time I'll copy and paste these posts into a new thread.

[carlfense]

knapplc agreed to move these posts here from the other thread. We can carry on the conversation here if anyone is interested.

[knapplc]

I'm pretty sure I got that right. Let me know if there are any missing.

 

For the record, I think we have some pretty liberal gun laws. I'm not sure which guns I'm not allowed to have, but I'm pretty sure the handguns I'd like to buy I would be able to buy. I have a couple of shotguns that I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to have. What guns can't I have that I should be able to have? Or am I missing the point?

[carlfense]

74Hunter said this:

I'm glad you brought that up, because it just makes my point. I don't recall ever saying, "They're taking all of our guns!" I do recall mentioning that firearm laws have become more restrictive, and I expect them to become even moreso if Obama gets his way.

 

I'll just metioned a couple firearms regulations like mandatory waiting period, background check, "assault" weapons bans and reclassifications, etc. as opposed to more lenient gun laws of years past. Another small gun related issue is that I am legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm by over 40 different states, however, any knucklehead property owner can put a "no guns allowed" sign on his property, which only disallows law-abiding citizens of their rights, while making his property a target for criminals. Besides the expiration of the Brady Bill (which hasn't really effected gun ownership rights positively, IMO), I don't recall any actual FACTS presented by you that indicate that gun laws are becoming less restrictive. Heck, I never even got to mention specific gun laws in DC or California. Honestly, I didn't want to rehash that argument.

 

1. Firearms laws are actually becoming LESS restrictive. As noted before, the Brady Bill ended in 2008. In 2008 the Supreme Court has found that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right and NOT just a right held by the National Guard in DC v. Heller The Supreme Court in 2010 will VERY LIKELY find that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the same protection from state governments as it does from the federal government in McDonald v. Chicago.

 

2. The assault weapons ban you mention was the Brady Bill and that is now gone. You don't think that bill sunsetting has positively effected gun rights? Maybe you should check out how many AR-15 type rifles were sold while the law was in effect and after it sunsetted.

 

3. You don't want background checks? I suppose you support keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons, correct? If so, you support background checks.

 

4. You think the US government should REQUIRE private landowners to let other people carry concealed weapons onto their property against the wishes of the private landowner? Wow. Talk about supporting governmental power at the detriment of individual liberty.

[74Hunter]

1. Firearms laws are actually becoming LESS restrictive. As noted before, the Brady Bill ended in 2008. In 2008 the Supreme Court has found that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right and NOT just a right held by the National Guard in DC v. Heller The Supreme Court in 2010 will VERY LIKELY find that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the same protection from state governments as it does from the federal government in McDonald v. Chicago.

First, you really want to use Wikipedia as a credible source? Really? Where is it that you supposedly go to law school, because I know that if I used Wiki as a credible source on any research paper that I ever wrote, I would have gotten an F.

 

Second, unless I missed it, it never said that the bill ended in 2008.

 

"From 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials[18]. In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before."

 

Apparently, this bill, that according to you ended in 2008 was still making purchase denials/approvals in 2009.

 

Also, the Supremes confirming existing Constitutional rights (2nd amendment) is not the same thing as gun laws becoming less restrictive.

 

The assault weapons ban you mention was the Brady Bill and that is now gone. You don't think that bill sunsetting has positively effected gun rights? Maybe you should check out how many AR-15 type rifles were sold while the law was in effect and after it sunsetted.

I don't know all of the specifics, but my understanding was that the AR-15 was never "banned" and has been sold all along (possibly private sales only?). The reason for the upswing in sales was due to the election of Obama, and the fear that he would soon ban these guns. But what would I know about that, I only heard that information from a couple of gun dealers, one being my brother-in-law. I was also at the Bullet Hole (gun range/distributor in Omaha) recently which was selling AR-15s "while they last." FWIW.

 

4. You think the US government should REQUIRE private landowners to let other people carry concealed weapons onto their property against the wishes of the private landowner? Wow. Talk about supporting governmental power at the detriment of individual liberty.

And how about my right as a law abiding, licensed citizen? I, legally carrying a firearm, am not a threat to any other law abiding citizen. Besides, I may be able to protect the lives and well being of other law abiding citizens in the event a criminal tries to rob the place or worse (check the recent Walgreen's shooting on 61st and Military in Omaha).

[carlfense]

1. Firearms laws are actually becoming LESS restrictive. As noted before, the Brady Bill ended in 2008. In 2008 the Supreme Court has found that the 2nd Amendment is a personal right and NOT just a right held by the National Guard in DC v. Heller The Supreme Court in 2010 will VERY LIKELY find that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the same protection from state governments as it does from the federal government in McDonald v. Chicago.

First, you really want to use Wikipedia as a credible source? Really? Where is it that you supposedly go to law school, because I know that if I used Wiki as a credible source on any research paper that I ever wrote, I would have gotten an F.

 

Second, unless I missed it, it never said that the bill ended in 2008.

 

"From 1994 through 2008, 1.8 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system. For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials[18]. In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before."

 

Apparently, this bill, that according to you ended in 2008 was still making purchase denials in 2009.

 

Also, the Supremes confirming existing Constitutional rights (2nd amendment) is not the same thing as gun laws becoming less restrictive.

 

The assault weapons ban you mention was the Brady Bill and that is now gone. You don't think that bill sunsetting has positively effected gun rights? Maybe you should check out how many AR-15 type rifles were sold while the law was in effect and after it sunsetted.

I don't know all of the specifics, but my understanding was that the AR-15 was never "banned" and has been sold all along (possibly private sales only?). The reason for the upswing in sales was due to the election of Obama, and the fear that he would soon ban these guns. But what would I know about that, I only heard that information from a couple of gun dealers, one being my brother-in-law. I was also at the Bullet Hole (gun range/distributor in Omaha) recently which was selling AR-15s "while they last." FWIW.

 

4. You think the US government should REQUIRE private landowners to let other people carry concealed weapons onto their property against the wishes of the private landowner? Wow. Talk about supporting governmental power at the detriment of individual liberty.

And how about my right as a law abiding, licensed citizen? I, legally carrying a firearm, am not a threat to any other law abiding citizen. Besides, I may be able to protect the lives and well being of other law abiding citizens in the event a criminal tries to rob the place or worse (check the recent Walgreen's shooting on 61st and Military in Omaha).

I guess I missed where a message board is a "research paper." I provided wikipedia links because I figured they'd be more digestible than providing links to the text of the law itself and the Supreme Court opinions that run about 50 pages. Would I cite wikipedia in an academic paper? Absolutely not. Is it reliable enough for a message board discussion? Yes. I think so. Since you're concerned about accuracy here are the links to the raw text:

D.C. v. Heller

McDonald v. Chicago (Scroll down, transcript dowloadable as .pdf)

Assault Weapons Bill (You're correct about the Brady Bill. I was confusing it with the AWB which DID sunset. Here's the wikipedia link if you don't want to wade through the text of the bill itself: Wiki: AWB)

 

And yes, the Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment is expressly an individual right is an expansion (or at the very least, a reassurance) of gun rights. You say you wrote a thesis about gun control. If that is true you are surely familiar with the anti-gun crowd's argument that the 2nd Amendment only said that the militia (i.e. the National Guard) had the right to own guns. This case was a huge victory for the pro-gun crowd. McDonald will be a similarly impressive victory.

 

Concealed carry laws have been enacted in 48 states. Here's a visual representation of concealed carry history.

 

The upswing in sales mentioned was in 2004 . . . not in 2008. Obama wasn't even a blip on the national radar yet.

 

Regarding the private property issue: again . . . if you are honestly saying the government should dicatate to private landowners that concealed carry owners MUST be allowed the right to carry guns onto their property you are against individual liberty. It's the landowners right to say exactly who can come onto his land and what that person can bring onto his land. If you argue otherwise you're arguing against the rights of private property owners. (On that note, one more expansion of gun rights. In 2010, Obama enacted a law allowing the carrying of guns in national parks. Article)

 

Any questions?

[74Hunter]

And yes, the Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment is expressly an individual right is an expansion (or at the very least, a reassurance) of gun rights. You say you wrote a thesis about gun control. If that is true you are surely familiar with the anti-gun crowd's argument that the 2nd Amendment only said that the militia (i.e. the National Guard) had the right to own guns. This case was a huge victory for the pro-gun crowd. McDonald will be a similarly impressive victory.

I would agree that this is a good victory for guns rights, however, this is where your argument is getting clouded. Simply re-affirming existing rights it not the same as expanding them.

 

Concealed carry laws have been enacted in 48 states. Here's a visual representation of concealed carry history.

Interesting information, but as I previously mentioned, just having concealed carry doesn't loosen restrictions. If you think it does, don't take my work for it, either contact the NE State Patrol, or take a concealed carry class yourself. You would be astounded by how restrictive the law is and how few places you can carry.

 

Regarding the private property issue: again . . . if you are honestly saying the government should dicatate to private landowners that concealed carry owners MUST be allowed the right to carry guns onto their property you are against individual liberty. It's the landowners right to say exactly who can come onto his land and what that person can bring onto his land. If you argue otherwise you're arguing against the rights of private property owners. (On that note, one more expansion of gun rights. In 2010, Obama enacted a law allowing the carrying of guns in national parks. Article)

I'm not sure that the gov't must mandate that legal firearms are allowed on a persons property. But I would have no problem with law abiding citizens carrying on my property. Your catch of the law signed this year is good, but did you notice that it wasn't exactly a "gun law" per se? It was nestled in the credit card reform act. My assumption would be that it would never had been signed if it was a stand-alone bill. And again, it only confirms existing rights.

 

Any questions?

Again, for every instance you show, do you think that by looking at laws in states like CA or in DC that you wouldn't find more restrictions put on gun owners?

[carlfense]

Interesting information, but as I previously mentioned, just having concealed carry doesn't loosen restrictions. If you think it does, don't take my work for it, either contact the NE State Patrol, or take a concealed carry class yourself. You would be astounded by how restrictive the law is and how few places you can carry.

Been there, done that. I also taught hunter safety for a few years. We agree that there has been a vast increase in concealed carry liberty in the states. You appear to be saying that because there are hoops you have to jump through to get that license that it's more of a restriction of gun rights than an expansion. I can't agree with that.

 

I'm not sure that the gov't must mandate that legal firearms are allowed on a persons property. But I would have no problem with law abiding citizens carrying on my property. Your catch of the law signed this year is good, but did you notice that it wasn't exactly a "gun law" per se? It was nestled in the credit card reform act. My assumption would be that it would never had been signed if it was a stand-alone bill. And again, it only confirms existing rights.

Actually, it doesn't just confirm existing rights. It was illegal before to openly carry (or concealed carry for that matter) in national parks. Now it's legal. That's an expansion of gun rights.

 

Again, for every instance you show, do you think that by looking at laws in states like CA or in DC that you wouldn't find more restrictions put on gun owners?

So the gun laws in CA and DC (which again, read DC v. Heller because it dealt a serious blow to DC firearms regulations) disprove that gun rights are expanding or being confirmed most everywhere else? I don't see it that way. CA and DC are not the norm, thank god. And some of DC's laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court.

[Husker_x]

Here's the debate I have with myself about this. On the one hand, the main reason outside of self defense or hunting that I would want to own a firearm is in the event that a tyrant erects a form of dictatorship in the United States, in which case it would be incumbent upon me and every citizen who's able to destroy him and anyone involved in his government.

 

On the other hand, the Founders couldn't have envisioned the world we live in when they wrote the generic law. Single-shot muskets and canons were the weapons of war in their day. Today even amateurs can built incredibly destructive bombs and use them in acts of terrorism. Since those kind of weapons are not useful for hunting or self defense (in most cases, anyway), and it's more likely to be used for terrorism and not a legitimate assault on a tyrant, there obviously has to be reasonable limitations on owning weaponry for general public safety.

[carlfense]

Here's the debate I have with myself about this. On the one hand, the main reason outside of self defense or hunting that I would want to own a firearm is in the event that a tyrant erects a form of dictatorship in the United States, in which case it would be incumbent upon me and every citizen who's able to destroy him and anyone involved in his government.

 

On the other hand, the Founders couldn't have envisioned the world we live in when they wrote the generic law. Single-shot muskets and canons were the weapons of war in their day. Today even amateurs can built incredibly destructive bombs and use them in acts of terrorism. Since those kind of weapons are not useful for hunting or self defense (in most cases, anyway), and it's more likely to be used for terrorism and not a legitimate assault on a tyrant, there obviously has to be reasonable limitations on owning weaponry for general public safety.

Agreed. I'm for SOME regulation. I'll give up some convenience to keep guns out of the hands of felons and I don't think ALL types of firearms should be readily available. (fully automatic for one, grenade launchers for another.) I'm reasonably content with where Nebraska's laws are on the issue.