Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: What additional laws should local govts make regarding gun control?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: What additional laws should local govts make regarding gun control? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
[Poll]

What additional laws should local govts make regarding gun control?


None- they should stay out of it; the federal laws are enough
  72% (13)
Other- please specify
  27% (5)


Total Votes : 18
(last vote on : 12/28/2011 7:05:02 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/3/2011 11:29:40 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09
The fact is that the 2nd Amendment *absolutely* promises very little. It merely grants the right for qualified individuals to possess and use guns (for the purpose of self defense) in their own homes.

The open ended nature of the 2nd Amendment empowers state and local governments to make their own laws to restrict, or NOT to restict, gun possession and use outside the home.


These statements refer to the Supreme Court's recent rulings. (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008), (McDonald v. Chicago, 2010).

In them, the Supreme Court rejects the narrower interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (that it refers to the state militia's right to bear arms) in favor of a broader one (that it refers to individual's right to possess firearms for use within the home). THIS IS THE SUPREME COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT, NOT MINE. According to them, that is the law in this country.

The Supreme Court has refrained from interpreting this law beyond guaranteeing the right to possession within the home. In fact, it expects the state and local governments to interpret the law for themselves, and to pass any law that they will, provided that it does not contradict the Court's own ruling on the right to possession within the home. As always, the city laws must not violate the state laws, the state laws must not violate the federal laws, and the Supreme Court interpret's federal law.

pam


(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 12:03:55 AM   
omkfY


Posts: 104
Joined: 7/7/2009
From: State of Jefferson
Status: offline 		Prefacing an opinion with "in fact" doesn't make it so. The supreme court rules on the issue at bar. The cases brought to the court were related to whether an individual has a right to own a gun in a home (once when this right was in conflict with federal law, and once when in conflict with state law). In both cases they ruled that individuals do have a right to own guns in their home and McDonald confirmed that this right supersedes laws in all other jurisdictions.

The court has not ruled on anything else recently. You are simply assuming that since they didn't take the opportunity explicitly state how far this right extends, that the right absolutely extends no further. You're wrong

< Message edited by omkfY -- 1/4/2011 12:08:45 AM >

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 12:10:09 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY

Under the guise of "fact" you did state opinions, specifically:

* that you believe the 2nd amendment is limited to home

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right, namely, the right to possession in the home. (District of Colombia v. Heller), and (McDonald v. Chicago) That is as far as the Supreme Court has ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment. In other words: They have not ruled that possession ouside the home is illegal. Nor have they ruled that possession outside the home is legal. They leave that for the state and local governments to decide.

* that you believe the 2nd amendment is subject to interpretation

Yes, the Constitution, and in fact every law, is subject to the Supreme Court's interpretation.

* that you believe local jurisdictions have the ability to restrict use & ownership

i'm sorry, i don't know how to do links. Please google "Gun laws in the U.S.- by state", "and "Gun laws in California" (or whatever state...); This will provide any state's or city's gun laws. But...of course cities and states have the right to pass their own gun laws (just as they have the right to pass any other kind of laws, provided that the law is not unconstitutional).

* that with those opinions suggested as fact, the only possible choices are 1) no new laws or 2) additional laws (missing was #3 -- less laws)

The only law that i referred to was the 2nd Amendment. It is not possible to have LESS gun laws than that one law, only MORE (unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed, which it won't be). The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to possession within the home, and stops there (at least by the Supreme Court's interpretation). Any further law providing the right to possession in public, or restricting the right to possession in public, must come from the state and local governments.

An example of such a law might be that a person must have a permit to (legally) carry a gun in public. Another example might be for a city or state to decide that a person does NOT need a permit to carry a gun in public. Each city and state decides it's own laws. That is what i'm asking. What do you think those laws ought to be?

quote:

No, by definition, the fact that the legislation makes a law DOES make it legal, unless the Supreme Court finds that the law is unconstitutional, and overturns it.


Unconstitutional laws are not legal period

That is exactly what i just said.


pam


< Message edited by gungadin09 -- 1/4/2011 12:12:50 AM >

(in reply to omkfY)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 12:21:58 AM   
omkfY


Posts: 104
Joined: 7/7/2009
From: State of Jefferson
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment guarantees that right, namely, the right to possession in the home. (District of Colombia v. Heller), and (McDonald v. Chicago)


Yes

quote:

That is as far as the Supreme Court has ever interpreted the 2nd Amendment.

Recently, yes.

quote:

In other words: They have not ruled that possession ouside the home is illegal.

Correct

quote:

Nor have they ruled that possession outside the home is legal.

You're on a roll now dawg!

quote:

They leave that for the state and local governments to decide.


No. They just have not ruled on a case like this recently. It certainly doesn't encourage states to make whatever other restrictions they want. It just means they have not ruled on a case like this recently.

quote:

Please google "Gun laws in the U.S.- by state", "and "Gun laws in California" (or whatever state...); This will provide any state's or city's gun laws. But...of course cities and states have the right to pass their own gun laws (just as they have the right to pass any other kind of laws, provided that the law is not unconstitutional).


Added bold for emphasis. There are hundreds if not thousands of unconstitutional laws on the books right now. (It is against Wyoming law for a woman to drink within 5 feet of a bar) Just because states have put restrictions on gun use and ownership does not automatically mean such restrictions are constitutional.

quote:

Any further law providing the right to possession in public, or restricting the right to possession in public, must come from the state and local governments.

There is absolutely nothing stopping our supremely wise representatives from passing gun restrictions. Whether those restrictions are constitutional is another story.

< Message edited by omkfY -- 1/4/2011 12:26:14 AM >

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 12:24:57 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY

Prefacing an opinion with "in fact" doesn't make it so. The supreme court rules on the issue at bar. The cases brought to the court were related to whether an individual has a right to own a gun in a home (once when this right was in conflict with federal law, and once when in conflict with state law). In both cases they ruled that individuals do have a right to own guns in their home and McDonald confirmed that this right supersedes laws in all other jurisdictions.

The court has not ruled on anything else recently. You are simply assuming that since they didn't take the opportunity explicitly state how far this right extends, that the right absolutely extends no further. You're wrong


THEY interpret the law. Until another case comes before the Supreme Court, and they do explicitly state otherwise, that IS the absolute extent of the federal law. If they do try another gun case, they MAY decide that the federal law absolutely extends further, AT THAT TIME. But for now, it doesn't, and any further laws are passed by local governments.

pam

(in reply to omkfY)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 12:31:14 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY

There is absolutely nothing stopping our supremely wise representatives from passing gun restrictions. Whether those restrictions are constitutional is another story.


In that case:
Which gun laws in your city or state do you feel are unconstitutional?
Which gun laws do you agree with?
Which gun laws would you like to change?
And how would you change them?

pam


(in reply to omkfY)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 12:34:40 AM   
omkfY


Posts: 104
Joined: 7/7/2009
From: State of Jefferson
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Until another case comes before the Supreme Court, and they do explicitly state otherwise, that IS the absolute extent of the federal law. If they do try another gun case, they MAY decide that the federal law absolutely extends further, AT THAT TIME. But for now, it doesn't, and any further laws are passed by local governments.


Using your logic, someone who had an abortion in a jurisdiction forbidding it in 1972 committed a crime. If sentenced to 10 years in prison, that person should have remained in prison until 1982. Afterall, the right to abortion miraculously appeared January 22, 1973...

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 1:21:48 AM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Until another case comes before the Supreme Court, and they do explicitly state otherwise, that IS the absolute extent of the federal law. If they do try another gun case, they MAY decide that the federal law absolutely extends further, AT THAT TIME. But for now, it doesn't, and any further laws are passed by local governments.


Using your logic, someone who had an abortion in a jurisdiction forbidding it in 1972 committed a crime. If sentenced to 10 years in prison, that person should have remained in prison until 1982. Afterall, the right to abortion miraculously appeared January 22, 1973...


Um...yes, exactly.

Now, can you quit hijacking my thread long enough to answer the OP? Which restrictions (or freedoms) should local governments legislate regarding the possession and use of guns in public?

pam

(in reply to omkfY)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 2:23:44 AM   
omkfY


Posts: 104
Joined: 7/7/2009
From: State of Jefferson
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09


quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY


quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

Until another case comes before the Supreme Court, and they do explicitly state otherwise, that IS the absolute extent of the federal law. If they do try another gun case, they MAY decide that the federal law absolutely extends further, AT THAT TIME. But for now, it doesn't, and any further laws are passed by local governments.


Using your logic, someone who had an abortion in a jurisdiction forbidding it in 1972 committed a crime. If sentenced to 10 years in prison, that person should have remained in prison until 1982. Afterall, the right to abortion miraculously appeared January 22, 1973...


Um...yes, exactly.
But courts don't give us rights, rights are already ours. We hold these truths to be self-evident and whatnot...

quote:

Now, can you quit hijacking my thread long enough to answer the OP? Which restrictions (or freedoms) should local governments legislate regarding the possession and use of guns in public?


I find most, if not all, gun control laws objectionable. Sure they were usually written with the best of intentions, but they almost always presume that a certain style of life is better than another (essentially seeking to make life "safer" for your average urban citizen -- often at the expense of the rural). As I put in another thread, we've all been ingrained with an inherently judgmental notion of "great civilizations." Ancient Egypt, China, Greece, England, France, Spain, Vikings, the Huns, the Turks, etc. A more "progressive" textbook might even include the Inca, Mayans, and Aztecs. All are societies that became "civilized" by radically altering their environments to suit their own needs...

I don't believe this is inherently a desirable trait; perhaps the greatest human civilizations are the ones we've never known for they left no mark on the Earth...


What laws specifically offend my sensibilities?

* Can no longer buy ammo mail order (have to go to a store and get fingerprinted). I don't like gov tracking, so the fingerprint annoys me. And I don't think people in rural communities should have to drive hours out of their way to stock up on potentially special order, overpriced ammunition.

* All felons can not own guns. Doesn't matter the crime, or the time passed. Sure closes some doors for those non-violent offenders who late in life decide to go Thoreau and live off/with the land

* Those with history of mental illness can't own guns. Who defines mental illness? Everyone has been depressed at some point in their lives... What about those with a genetic predisposition to (but no personal history of) things like schizophrenia?

* Certain guns are OK, and others aren't. Most legislators "learned" what they know about firearms from Hollywood. Imagine if vanilla folks decided to make laws about BDSM based entirely on what they saw from porn... Plus the whole point of the 2nd amendment was to insure those in power would always fear the people's ability to overthrow a tyrannical government (difficult to do these days with a muzzle loader).

* Gun Free Zones... I have a right to a gun & protection in my home and a right to gun & protection at my business, but I can't get from one to the other without passing through a gun free zone?

etc etc etc

< Message edited by omkfY -- 1/4/2011 2:29:27 AM >

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 3:06:06 AM   
SexyBossyBBW


Posts: 1693
Joined: 2/25/2010
Status: offline 		I'll preface this with:   I abhor violence, and strive for peace every day.   Having said that, I like the state (I think NC) with the law, saying you may shoot, if someone invades your home.   I don't love that law, because some people may use it wrongly (mistress/married man situation, for example).  
I'm fairly intense, when it comes to feeling safe in one's home, and using everything at one's disposal, to discourage anyone who would invade a home.     M


_____________________________

"..touching was and still is and always will be the True Revolution" Nikki Giovanni
"Only when there are many people who are pools of peace, silence, understanding, will war disappear." -Osho

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 9:23:57 AM   
AquaticSub


Posts: 14867
Joined: 12/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: AquaticSub

quote:

ORIGINAL: omkfY

I disagree with just about everything you said. Until the 2nd amendment is repealed, I have a right to take up arms to protect my rights -- inside, outside, no matter the state or jurisdiction. Just because a government makes a law, does not make it legal (eg bans on interracial marriage). So my not abiding unjust laws is related to the subject of this thread: "in what ways can a tyrannical majority force their will upon a minority"

Indeed. One of the reasons the right to bare arms is in there is because we have a duty to overthrow the government should it become oppressive.



YAY!


Can I have a yellow crane now?


Anything for you sweetie.


_____________________________

Without my dominance you cannot submit. Without your submission I cannot dominate. You are my equal in this, though our roles are different.-Val

It was ok for him to beat me but then he tried to cuddle me! - Me

Member:Clan of the Scarlet O'Hair

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 9:35:04 PM   
Dragonspinkkitty


Posts: 24
Joined: 10/20/2010
Status: offline 		I seriously don't feel that any additional laws are needed. I do however feel that the ones currently in place should be strictly enforced and that the consequences for breaking said laws should be much harsher than they already are. 

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 9:43:15 PM   
gungadin09


Posts: 3232
Joined: 3/19/2010
Status: offline 		After reading some of these threads, i see that legal gun ownership is much less of a problem than i thought. i don't know what we can do to fix that, but i can appreciate that legal ownership is not the main problem.

pam

(in reply to Dragonspinkkitty)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 10:02:48 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline 		Add another to the "We dont need a bunch of new laws, enforce the ones we have" crowd.

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 1/4/2011 10:58:58 PM   
Dragonspinkkitty


Posts: 24
Joined: 10/20/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gungadin09

After reading some of these threads, i see that legal gun ownership is much less of a problem than i thought. i don't know what we can do to fix that, but i can appreciate that legal ownership is not the main problem.

pam


Exactly. It's not those of us that own guns legally that cause all the trouble. It's the ones that get them illegally. As I said in the other thread, the FBI stats show that 98.2% of gun crimes committed are done so by people who have obtained the firearm illegally. Stiffer gun laws aren't going to to a darn bit of good because only law abiding people are going to abide by them. Criminals don't obey laws. What needs to happen is for the gun laws already in place to be enforced and the consequences for breaking those laws should be harsh.

In the end though no matter WHAT kind of consequences are metted out to criminals for broken gun laws, there will always be those who will never learn their lesson and will be habitual repeat offenders.

Gun Free Zones only serve to protect criminals by disarming those that legally carry and thus making them potential victims. My rule of thumb is: If a business has signs barring legally carried weapons, they don't need my business. I refuse to shop in places that protect the criminals. My money will spend just a well elsewhere where I can carry.

As a side note, stop and think about how many people around you could possibly be legally carrying a gun on them. Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not there. Especially in states like Florida where the only way you can carry is concealed. Wouldn't you rather SEE the gun and know it's there, than not see it and have to wonder? Have you ever seen a criminal carry a gun in a holster on their hip for all see?

(in reply to gungadin09)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 2/20/2011 4:59:21 AM   
DevilishEnvy


Posts: 48
Joined: 2/16/2011
Status: offline 		I think there should be a law enforcing any new gun owners to shave their mullets, at least in my town. ( this is intended jokingly, as I have no serious issues with mullets. Provided that the above mentioned mullet isn't on me.)

Just a silly attempt at levity.

Governments already have too many laws that aren't adequately enforced. I, for one, personally can't afford any more taxes. Especially, not ones related to a problem that may or may not have been adequately fixed the first time, that they may just want to expound on to increase federal revenue.

(in reply to Dragonspinkkitty)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 2/20/2011 5:16:20 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline 		Hmmmm. Based on current experience, it seems like there is no point adding restrictions to the types of people allowed to buy guns. All of those ideas depend on a reliable database of prospective owners, and that just isn't here. (which is sad, because the private sector could have done this easily, but I digress.) So the only possible restrictions would be on the guns themselves or the places they can be bought.

I see no reason that private citizens need automatic or semiautomatic weapons. I would ban those. Since they did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written, there's a fair argument they're not guaranteed.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to DevilishEnvy)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: What additional laws should local govts make regard... - 2/20/2011 5:18:56 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesFIP

In many places, any history of mental instability can prevent you from ever getting a permit or a hunting license.



And in those places is there a thorough search of a person's medical records?

No, because those are private.

They are "feel-good" laws that have no enforcement capability.

(in reply to DesFIP)
Profile   Post #: 38
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Polls and Other Random Stupidity >> RE: What additional laws should local govts make regarding gun control? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094