Gun control ideas

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are so many guns distributed through various black markets, I don't know how you can control it much. Bad guys are going to get guns. There's no problem with good guys having guns, though I think in order to purchase a gun you should have to demonstrate responsibility somewhat like applying for a driver's license. I have a bit of a problem with the "stand your ground" laws as people can get trigger happy, and there's the problem with accidental shooting from parents leaving guns laying around the house for their kids to get ahold of which is just plain stupid. Sometimes, however, you can't fix stupid.

Cornographic: You just violated stipulation #2. "Just because we can't eliminate 100% of any given crime doesn't mean we can't reduce the problem. DUI and Crack Cocaine use were sited earlier."

 

We lowered DUI deaths by 50% without taking away anyone's cars. Shouldn't we try to reduce gun deaths without taking away anyone's guns?

 

 

Actually, they usually take away the driving privileges of DUI offenders. I think my position is clear: make it harder to get a gun(s), and go after the various gun black markets/gun show/online loopholes.

 

There are no gun show or online loopholes. What are you talking about?

 

It's possible the "loophole" in question would be that some states do not require secondary market sellers (gun shows) to perform background checks on the purchaser of the firearm.

 

This is is a common myth that's pushed out by the gun control groups. There is no gunshow/internet loophole. The only way to buy a firearm without a background check is person to person. It's federal law. Any business caught selling a firearm without a background check would have the ATF on them immediately.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

 

Right. It's a private party sale. And the reality is, individual sellers at gun shows are nearly nonexistent these days, because the booth space is outrageous. Plus, many of them have clamped down on private party sales by not allowing transactions on site. I'm fine with requiring a BG check at shows, but it's going to affect somewhere around less than 1% of PP transactions.

 

The problem is, the vast majority of guns used in crimes were via a straw purchase, so a BG check can only do so much.

 

This doesn't mean it's a myth and not a loophole.

 

And I am not sure what individual vendors try to sell at these shows to pay for itself but a quick Google search found that several shows run from $350-$500 for a 10X10 booth. Seems reasonable if you are in that business. But I admit I don't really know much about it/

 

Politicians like to lump the "gun show/internet purchase" into this loophole talk like it's something special. I've even heard them say "oh you can just buy it and get it shipped to your house" which is unequivocally false. It has to be shipped to a firearms dealer, and they have to ship it via UPS or FEDEX express protected shipping.

 

Buying a gun from a person is a private party sale. It's no different than going to someone's house, or meeting up in person. Plus, the ATF watches gun shows, and if they see a guy moving lots of firearms via "private sales" they quickly become very interested.

 

But like I said before, straw purchases are a much, much bigger problem.

 

You are doing a fine job dancing around the original statement.

 

I'm not dancing around anything. You said:

 

It's possible the "loophole" in question would be that some states do not require secondary market sellers (gun shows) to perform background checks on the purchaser of the firearm.

The "loophole" has absolutely nothing to do with gun shows.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

 

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

 

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

 

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

 

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

 

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

 

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

 

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable.

 

To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest…

 

So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest?

 

The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms.

 

Of course it does. Please explain how you can possibly think it doesn't.

 

Because it doesn't keep you from owning them. Unless, of course, you are found to be a felon that isn't allowed to have them anyway.

 

Did you read the definition of infringement that you posted? It says nothing about "keep you from owning them".

 

Forced background checks limit your right to keep and bear arms (yes, even when you pass the background check). I don't see how that can be debated.

 

Well then I guess we have to define what "limit" means in this context. Which I don't really care to do with you.

 

This conversation has gone in a direction I would rather not go with you so I will end it here.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

 

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

 

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

 

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

 

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

 

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

 

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

 

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

 

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

That's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

 

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

 

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

 

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

 

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

 

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

 

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

 

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable.

 

To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest…

 

So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest?

 

The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms.

 

The very fact that politicians have suggested using the "no fly" list as a means to prevent people from purchasing/owning a firearm proves that it is problematic at best. Ignoring the fact that it's a dubious list at best, it chucks due process right out the window.

not how the argument works.

[Saunders]

For the record, as an avid gun owner, I'm not opposed to making some changes to our current firearms laws. But they need to be logical. Not stupid stuff like Feinstein and Hillary are want to support.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

 

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

 

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

 

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

 

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

 

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

 

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

 

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

That's

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no gunshow loophole. The wikipedia link above explains it pretty well.

 

All dealers have to do background checks on every sale, even at gun shows. Private sellers do not have to do background checks no matter where the private sale occurs.

 

There is also no Internet loophole. All gun purchases on the Internet must be shipped trough a licensed dealer and background checks are required.

You are assuming that there are no private sales going on at a gun show?

 

It has nothing to do with a gunshow. "Gunshow loophole" is a misnomer. Private sales occur lots of places, with gunshows being a fairly rare one. Private sales do not require background checks, no matter where they occur.

 

It's not even a "loophole". Requiring all citizens to perform background checks on anyone (including family members) they might sell or gift a weapon to is unconstitutional. Forcing dealers to do it is an acceptable cost of doing business.

It isn't unconstitutional.

 

Yes, it is. (You're not talking semantics here, are you? Just because there is a law on the books doesn't mean it's constitutional. As soon as someone contests any of the existing state laws requiring it, they will be struck down.)

 

Requiring background checks for all private party transfers is a clear infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. There must be a clear compelling governmental interest to infringe on that right. What possible interest is there in forcing a father to order a background check on his own 17 year old son so he can give him a gun for his 18th birthday?

 

If it was a clear infringement, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

It's definitely a clear infringement. If you understand the meanings of words, there can be no debate about that. The only debate is if the infringement is constitutionally acceptable.

 

To pass constitutional muster, a gun law that infringes on the 2nd amendment (which would be practically every gun law) must pass strict scrutiny: Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a ‘compelling governmental interest,’ and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest…

 

So what is the compelling governmental interest in requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons, and how does requiring fathers to run background checks on their sons achieve that compelling interest?

 

The definition of infringement is the act of limiting or undermining something. A background check does not limit nor undermine the right to bear arms.

 

The very fact that politicians have suggested using the "no fly" list as a means to prevent people from purchasing/owning a firearm proves that it is problematic at best. Ignoring the fact that it's a dubious list at best, it chucks due process right out the window.

not how the argument works.

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

[Saunders]

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

Like what? Taking away rights without due process? That's a terrible precedent.

[StPaulHusker]

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

Like what? Taking away rights without due process? That's a terrible precedent. Do you support racial profiling too?

 

What I mean is that there should be room for negotiation. People like you take the words of a politician you don't like and instantly spout out how awful they are and the country will be without ever considering that there are workable solutions from even the far left or far right of ideas.

 

There must be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety. And based off the statements above, there are people that want to deny that there is any connection between those things.

[GBRedneck]

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

 

 

I thought we were having a civilized discussion.

 

But if you want to include all options for gun control, you need to first repeal the 2nd amendment. Then you can pass whatever kind of law you want without worrying about strict scrutiny and constitutional muster.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

 

 

I thought we were having a civilized discussion.

 

But if you want to include all options for gun control, you need to first repeal the 2nd amendment. Then you can pass whatever kind of law you want without worrying about strict scrutiny and constitutional muster.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about how a person has to go about obtaining them.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

Like what? Taking away rights without due process? That's a terrible precedent. Do you support racial profiling too?

 

What I mean is that there should be room for negotiation. People like you take the words of a politician you don't like and instantly spout out how awful they are and the country will be without ever considering that there are workable solutions from even the far left or far right of ideas.

 

There must be a balance between acceptable risk, personal freedom, and public safety. And based off the statements above, there are people that want to deny that there is any connection between those things.

 

Where does the constitution explain how to maintain the proper balance?

 

As Aristotle said, "Law is reason, without passion."

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

 

 

I thought we were having a civilized discussion.

 

But if you want to include all options for gun control, you need to first repeal the 2nd amendment. Then you can pass whatever kind of law you want without worrying about strict scrutiny and constitutional muster.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about how a person has to go about obtaining them.

 

"Keep" means buy or acquire, and own. So obtaining them is part of the protected right. By definition, if you put limits on how they may obtain them, you are infringing on the right.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

 

 

I thought we were having a civilized discussion.

 

But if you want to include all options for gun control, you need to first repeal the 2nd amendment. Then you can pass whatever kind of law you want without worrying about strict scrutiny and constitutional muster.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about how a person has to go about obtaining them.

 

"Keep" means buy or acquire, and own. So obtaining them is part of the protected right. By definition, if you put limits on how they may obtain them, you are infringing on the right.

 

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/10/supreme-court-asked-to-clarify-what-it-means-to-bear-arms/

 

 

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

 

 

I thought we were having a civilized discussion.

 

But if you want to include all options for gun control, you need to first repeal the 2nd amendment. Then you can pass whatever kind of law you want without worrying about strict scrutiny and constitutional muster.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about how a person has to go about obtaining them.

 

"Keep" means buy or acquire, and own. So obtaining them is part of the protected right. By definition, if you put limits on how they may obtain them, you are infringing on the right.

 

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/10/supreme-court-asked-to-clarify-what-it-means-to-bear-arms/

 

 

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home.

 

And?

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

 

 

I thought we were having a civilized discussion.

 

But if you want to include all options for gun control, you need to first repeal the 2nd amendment. Then you can pass whatever kind of law you want without worrying about strict scrutiny and constitutional muster.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about how a person has to go about obtaining them.

 

"Keep" means buy or acquire, and own. So obtaining them is part of the protected right. By definition, if you put limits on how they may obtain them, you are infringing on the right.

 

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/10/supreme-court-asked-to-clarify-what-it-means-to-bear-arms/

 

 

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home.

 

And?

 

And people have differing opinions of what "keep" means.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heaven forbid that all options should be on the table for a civilized discussion.

 

 

I thought we were having a civilized discussion.

 

But if you want to include all options for gun control, you need to first repeal the 2nd amendment. Then you can pass whatever kind of law you want without worrying about strict scrutiny and constitutional muster.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about how a person has to go about obtaining them.

 

"Keep" means buy or acquire, and own. So obtaining them is part of the protected right. By definition, if you put limits on how they may obtain them, you are infringing on the right.

 

 

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2014/02/10/supreme-court-asked-to-clarify-what-it-means-to-bear-arms/

 

 

The Supreme Court in 2008 made it clear that the right to “keep” a gun is a personal right, and that it means one has a right to keep a functioning firearm for self-defense within the home.

 

And?

 

And people have differing opinions of what "keep" means.

 

Luckily, the courts are pretty clear on it. http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/does-the-second-amendment-protect-firearms-commerce/

 

How can you have an uninfringeable right to own a gun if you don't have the same right to acquire one?