Ideas for reducing illegal guns

Essence I suggest that you learn more about the gun laws (there are over 22,000) and about American sensibilities. Somethings will be accepted and others (that you don't find very important) are deal breakers.

One thing, there is really no such thing as a gun license except locally. When an American goes to buy a gun they fill out a fill for the federal goverment (4473). Using that form the FBI does a quick background check for disqualifiers. They are only looking for a conviction, a restraining order, a dishonorable discharge, and citizenship. If all is in order then they okay the purchase. According to the law the form is supposed to be destroyed after six months. HLS does not do that. It is not a license. There is a license for concealed carry and local municipalities license gun owners but a federal license is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Anything you need a license for is a privilege, a right does not require that permission.

I suggest that you try to make your case by comparing to illegal alien identification.

There is no such thing as an 'illegal gun' just as there is no such thing as an 'illegal human.'

But if your end game is to reduce the violence and damage done by guns my suggestions:

1) Legalize many classes of drugs (curbs border and gang violence, robberies and burglaries)
2) Free abortions (encourages idiot single mothers who don't want to raise their kids from producing criminals)
3) Mandatory gun safety classes to own firearm (unloaded firearms kill too many people)

Essence I suggest that you learn more about the gun laws (there are over 22,000) and about American sensibilities. Somethings will be accepted and others (that you don't find very important) are deal breakers. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Sensibilities I am very aware of. Arms laws and licensing etc. I am not so familiar with.

But I think you over simplify.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law...tates_by_state

has a good description.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law..._United_States

deals with federal issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...d_Check_System

describes the kinds of background checks.

California requires registration and New York requires registration, licensing and a permit.

The New York permit is on a 'may issue' basis, which seems to run counter to your 2nd amendment 'right' argument.

Maybe you don't consider California and New York to be part of the USA

Maybe different states have different views on a 21st century interpretation of the constitution.

Maybe different states have different sensibilities.

What I don't know is how effectively the existing laws are policed. Are the background checks thorough and rigorously applied? Do they only apply to registered dealers, not private sales?

If private sales and possession are, in many states, essentially unregulated and unlicensed, then I was certainly not aware, and am surprised how different the laws are across different states.

So somebody in Texas can legally sell a handgun privately to somebody who has known mental health problems?

Maybe in some states the concept of 'illegal owner of hand gun' is alien.

I hate to sound too simplistic here, but how about we simply do a better job of enforcing the thousands of laws already on the books?? The same would apply to immigration, taxes, drugs, you name it.

As of yet there can still be found a few places in this country
where one can enjoy a measure of freedom, like the ownership
of a firearm. Those days may be numbered though. Originally Posted by bojulay

You're right. You can enjoy that freedom in all fifty states.

(picture of CoG's intimate friends) Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

CoG, I don't think it needs a law, as far as I can make out, anybody (or almost anybody) can legally stand on a street corner and pay any passer by $500 for each arm, it is a private sale.

I think I will set up a stall down Scott in SunnySide.

Maybe different states have different views on a 21st century interpretation of the constitution. Originally Posted by essence

The Supreme Court's 21st Century interpretation of the Constitution:




District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...eller#Decision

I hate to sound too simplistic here, but how about we simply do a better job of enforcing the thousands of laws already on the books?? The same would apply to immigration, taxes, drugs, you name it. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

I tend to agree.

My emphasis is on the practical issues.

My impression is that there is much more regulation and registering and licensing on the buying and selling of cars than buying and selling of arms.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_H...Prevention_Act


From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent.[17] 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 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials. Between 2000 and 2009, over 30,000 denials were reversed on appeal.[17] In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.
Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[19]

What happened to PART 2) of Heller, IBRunning&Hiding? Why did you cut it out of your post?

What happened to "The whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

Great editing!

Just in case you forgot, here's the part YOU CUT OUT!

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Golly, IBR&H, I guess your back to lying and crying again!

What happened to PART 2) of Heller, IBRunning&Hiding? Why did you cut it out of your post?

What happened to "The whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

Great editing!

Just in case you forgot, here's the part YOU CUT OUT!

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Golly, IBR&H, I guess your back to lying and crying again! Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You're an ignorant jackass putz, Assup the jackass:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

Let me tell you of a couple of my experiences in Connecticutt. They had concealed carry in that state. I had a permit for concealed carry. It was illegal to openly (in the open or in the case) transport a gun to anyplace other than a gunsmith or gunstore and back home again. When I went shooting with usually a couple of rifles and a half dozen handguns I (by law) wore an old oversized army coat because I had six pistols strapped to my body to be in compliance with the law.
I had a break in while living in CT. The thief stole six handguns (different ones) and picked up my shotgun. He threw the shotgun down and left. The police picked up one of my pistols that night while I was still on base. They knew who the perp was before I knew I had been robbed. He was arrested two weeks later! The prosecutor dropped all of the stolen gun charges for the attempted sale of a stolen gun. He got an year in jail and was put in a half way house in two months. He ran away. This all happened before I got my shotgun returned. Everytime I called the prosecutor told me that they needed it for evidence even though the trial was months earlier. The last I heard was that New York had the thief but didn't have a strong case for criminal assault. I volunteered to go to New York and bring him back myself. That wasn't going to happen. So why did they string me along, Why did they drop the stolen gun charges? All typical behavior I was told by the detectives handling my case.

Let me tell you of a couple of my experiences in Connecticutt. They had concealed carry in that state. I had a permit for concealed carry. It was illegal to openly (in the open or in the case) transport a gun to anyplace other than a gunsmith or gunstore and back home again. When I went shooting with usually a couple of rifles and a half dozen handguns I (by law) wore an old oversized army coat because I had six pistols strapped to my body to be in compliance with the law.
I had a break in while living in CT. The thief stole six handguns (different ones) and picked up my shotgun. He threw the shotgun down and left. The police picked up one of my pistols that night while I was still on base. They knew who the perp was before I knew I had been robbed. He was arrested two weeks later! The prosecutor dropped all of the stolen gun charges for the attempted sale of a stolen gun. He got an year in jail and was put in a half way house in two months. He ran away. This all happened before I got my shotgun returned. Everytime I called the prosecutor told me that they needed it for evidence even though the trial was months earlier. The last I heard was that New York had the thief but didn't have a strong case for criminal assault. I volunteered to go to New York and bring him back myself. That wasn't going to happen. So why did they string me along, Why did they drop the stolen gun charges? All typical behavior I was told by the detectives handling my case. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

What happened to the pistols? Were they returned to you? Were they ever found?

Forgive my ignorance, but are hand guns marked with a serial number, and did you have a record of the serial number, and is there any register of serial numbers so if they ever turned up, they could be traced to you and known to be stolen. If not, why not? Cars have serial numbers, why not guns?

If you say "I support the second amendment" and use the word "but, except, however" in the same sentence YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

fuck you and your gun rules bullshit. It will NEVER happen. They can pass laws all day but real American gun owners will roll their eyes, reload and say, " I've got something here to shove up your ass."


PS no personal offense intended at essence.

PS no personal offense intended at essence. Originally Posted by LovingKayla

The word with the proper spelling you are looking for is 'offence'.


http://grammarist.com/spelling/offence-offense/


Seriously, I don't know why right to own a car has so many restrictions, licenses.registration, etc. but right to own a handgun does not.

Maybe they hadn't invented cars at the time the 2nd amendment was written