Answer to firearms ownership laws?

[TimRB]

"Registration - I don't trust the antis to be satisfied with that but in light of current feelings I might do it if I would be authorized to carry anywhere. The problem is what if later down the road confiscation laws were passed? That would B-A-D!"

Well, duh!

Just what do you think registration is for, then? Every single place in the world that has experienced firearm confiscation has first been made to submit to firearm registration.

We can never give an inch to the gun-haters. They may not say it, but their GOAL is to confiscate every gun in America. "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in."

Tim

 

[Hkmp5sd]

RE: Firearms Training:

Firearm: A device so simple to use we need mandatory trigger locks to prevent children from accidentally shooting themselves, yet so complicated to use we need mandatory training classes before an adult can possess one.

- Then there's that old argument that we have to be liscensed to drive...they don't just trust us to do that right.

You only need a license to drive on public roads. Anyone, licensed or not, insured or not, convicted felon or not, under 18 or not, can buy, possess and drive a car on private property.

 

[WillBrayjr]

Why should there be any restrictions on firearms??? Baseball bats, axes, chainsaws, and knives are potentially dangerous. These are everyday items that you take for granted Striker1. Should there be restrictions on the items I have listed?

 

[redhawk41]

1. All persons desiring to own a 'vehicle' must pass a Federal safety course and qualification

2. All 'vehicles' registered

3. Those who complete the course shall be allowed to 'drive' anywhere - anytime - any state

Since this has worked so well and no one ever drives illegally or irresponsibly, i say go for it. please excuse my sarcasm.

then again, cars aren't to keep uncle sam off your back ...

 

[22-rimfire]

I think that this is a good thread topic even though the FL membership is generally one sided in the view of registration and ownership.

Stiker1: I would be very interested as to your bio.... approx age?, state? environment you grew up in (rural or urban)?, parents general attitude on the subject? hunting? fishing?... these things and others form the basis for your attitudes and ultimately for how you react or support or not support social issues.

Our forefathers were actually worried about a tyranical government developing in the US. That is why they wrote the First and Second Ammendments to the Constitution. There may just be some correlation as to their perceived importance when they made them No.1 and No.2.

History has shown since the formation of our government that tyranical governments can and do form (the easy example-Hitler). Gun registration and eventually confiscation was all about preserving their form of government and power base and implementing their goals. With an armed citizentry, it is more difficult for the tyranical government to stay in power.

The argument against the availabilty of guns and the relationship with crime just does not hold much water. The police can not protect you and they make no bones about telling you. Just complain to them that someone has threatened your life and see how they react? (Hint. You're on your own!)

Making ownership more difficult with training and registration just doesn't work unless working means less people own firearms. New Jersey requires purchase, qualification, and approval of a permit to purchase a handgun. Then, there are very strict laws after you wait 6-months for the permit to purchase and then there are strict laws about the lawful use. They simply do not want you to own guns. Period! We don't want that in the rest of the country to go this way and would like to see changes made in states like NJ, NY, CA, etc. where there are less laws not more laws.

As far as training goes, it does not take much training to safely handle and shoot a firearm. There is no need for a formal class to teach you what you can learn for free in perhaps 30 minutes with an experienced hunter or shooter. Most states require young people to take a hunter safety course prior to getting their first hunting license. If people would take more responsibility with their children, there would be no need for such classes or any requirement for such a class prior to buying a license.

Striker1: Just curious, is this whole thing all about your not being 21 and can not qualify for CCW?

 

[Al Norris]

Okay guys, nobody asked me but this has been my secret opinion on gun ownership for a long time:

You're right. NoBody asked you. But you are entitled to your opinion.

1. All persons desiring to own a firearm must pass a Federal safety course and qualification

You would invalidate not just Idaho State law, but our Constitution in favor of a one-size-fits-all federal law? I suppose under the Commerce Clause?

2. All firearms registered

What would be the purpose of this registration? Why would you go to the trouble of invalidating many State Constitutions, which hold that it is our right to keep and bear arms? If it has to be registered, it is not a right.

3. Those who complete the course shall be allowed to carry anywhere - anytime - any state

Idaho does not require any such thing. It is a right, not a privilege.

What do you think. Would the antis be satisfied or just welcome it as a small step towards confiscation since law abiding owners would already be in a database?

There is an Idaho Supreme Court Case (In Re Brickey, 8 Id 597 1902) that says you can not do any of this in our State.

I don't need a concealed weapons permit outside of cities; mining. logging or railroad camps. I don't need a permit to carry concealed in my place of business or my property. I can walk around just about anywhere in this state with open carry. No permits of any kind needed. No special taxation can be placed on firearms. The state may not confiscate my firearms unless they can prove the firearm was used in the commission of a felony. Even then, if I didn't commit the crime, chances are excellent that I can get my firearm back.

Striker1, I'm really curious. Why would you want to screw with Idaho?

 

[IZinterrogator]

And you should know that qualification makes sense, or would you prefer soldiers to just wing it if they never handled that 249?

Funny you should bring up that analogy. The first time I went into Sadr City, there were five people in my truck. I had two guys using some techie equipment in the back so they couldn't man the SAW. The LT in the passenger seat had to run the radios so he couldn't man the SAW. I was qualified on the SAW in the past, but I was also the only one left who could drive the Humvee well enough to drive it in combat, so I couldn't man the SAW. So who did that leave? My young specialist who had not touched a SAW since basic training. After an hour of going over functioning, malfunction clearing, and proper sighting with the SAW, I pronounced him ready to carry it outside the wire. No qualification, no problem. Same as a dealer showing you the functions of a gun before you buy it. The Army doesn't say that you have to be qualified on a weapon to carry it, but you have to be familiarized with it. Of course, they can place whatever restrictions they want on who can carry a weapon, since they own the weapon, not you.

 

[bastiat]

It's sad enough having to deal with the people who are trying to steal our rights away. Seeing people willing to throw them away because they think it's a clever idea is even worse.

:barf: :barf: :barf:

 

[drinks]

Gun laws

Striker;
I really, really hope you never have any responsible position in politics or LE.
You are the root problem, not the cure.
Don

 

[TheBluesMan]

It's unsettling to see people hurl couched insults toward a member who is asking a question that most Americans would consider "middle-of-the-road." Let's try to respond with civility.

(... buncha attack dogs... I'll tell you... pity any antis that might show up... chew 'em to bits...)

 

[Striker1]

Gentlemen,

This will probably be my last reply on this post

Thanks for all the replies. Most were well thought out points and enlightened me on several issues I have often wondered about. You cannot expect to counter the other sides arguments with hot tempered passion alone. Your arguments must be well thought out!

For those who didn't read the clarification of my stance on registration, let me re-state, I am not in favor of it, but many times I've had disagreements with those who are and every time I have said "well how about if I have to register my gun, that entitles me to carry anytime anywhere, and oh yeah...I get to pick what I carry" They would never agree...guess no matter how much we compromise, they have no intention of doing the same!

As for safety, I still would like to see a way to get people properly trained (inexpensively) maybe NRA volunteers. But that wont change until gun owner stops being a bad word. Things have been allowed to slide a long way and it's going to be an uphill battle.

Some folks mentioned freedom of speech..that has been eroded also, check out the new laws against political speech in tax free organizations (like churches)

I believe all persons have a right and responsibility to protect themselves, their property, and their families

Novus collectus and 22 Rimfire -I am from the South East, a state where guns are everyday tools...started hunting when I was 12...age...over 35

I did just read the American Rifleman colums mentioned by Rigatonirider and fully understand that the fight is never ending.

Finally - Can anyone state the positions of the GOA and NRA on the specific items I originally mentioned.

Thanks again

 

[jesse2005]

1. I don't like the idea of federally mandated training, mainly because it would be just another form of control imposed by the government, but I do see your point. Perhaps a better option would be to have federally funded training, i.e. anyone that buys a handgun has the option to take a safety/instruction class free of charge. If training is free and readily available, more people would be willing to participate.

2. I don't like the idea of registration at all. First off, there is the obvious potential for confiscation. Then you have to consider other potential for rights violations. Bad idea. As Americans, we have the right to privacy. It is unfortunate that this privacy is being attacked on all sides of government.

3. Concealed carry laws should be repealed. Instead, government should focus on stiffening penalties for actual CRIMES commited with weapons. Concealed carry in and of itself should not be a crime, regardless of how many saftey/training classes you have/haven't completed.

 

[22-rimfire]

Striker1: I am glad that you clarified your positions from your original posting. The problem (from my perspective) is that you still believe that everyone should be REQUIRED to take a class to learn how to handle a firearm safely. You just seem to be worried about the cost, not the REQUIREMENT.

Registration: As was said above, the only purpose of registration is the EVENTUAL confiscation of firearms from American citizens. We don't want to throw any bones to the Anit-gun movement; certainly not this bone. Registration does not reduce crime of any sort with firearms. You see that Maryland is considering eliminating the fingerprinting a bullet from each gun prior to its sale.... as ineffective. But, you stated flat out that you would favor registration IF you could carry legally without the requirement of a permit. I believe you have already reconsidered this comment, but I just hope that you truly believe what you said. NO BONES!

Concealed Carry: I have no problem with eliminating the license for concealed carry nationwide as long as it is mandated (prior to the change eliminating concealed carry) by both federal and state law that it is LEGAL to carry any firearm concealed if you are not a fugitive from justice or otherwise would not qualify to fill out form 4473 and purchase a handgun. That means you would have to be at least 21 years old.

I hope that you respond again to this thread. It is refreshing to see someone willing to state in plain English the way you feel about guns regardless of whether or not I agree or disagree with you. It is an opportunity to express ones views and perhaps to educate. This forum is FREEDOM.... as long as you don't use any cuss words.

 

[toivo]

There is only ONE logical reason for the registering of firearms. CONFISCATION!

I don't know--I register my car, and nobody ever tried to confiscate it. Then again, it's paid for...

Seriously, I know this isn't a popular view, but there really are people out there who have MIXED feelings about guns: not totally pro and not totally anti. Not everybody who isn't a gun owner is a rabid anti. Some of these people are just uninformed or misinformed; hardline rhetoric scares them and pushes them the other way.

I think the question that needs to be put on the table is whether there's any such thing as a reasonable national firearms policy, or whether every gun owner and gun organization wants to go to the wall saying that no policy is a good policy. I'm happy to leave things to the states as much as possible--that way people can choose to live with the type of laws they feel comfortable with. Then, of course, you're left with the hassles if you want to carry coast-to-coast. The laissez-faire era in American gun ownership was at a time when most people didn't travel around like they do now. Carrying on an airplane? Never an issue. Five states in one day? Didn't happen. As a nation, we're a lot more interconnected than we used to be, and state-vs.-federal jurisdiction is much more of an issue.

You can be as strict-constructionist as you want to be, but there will always be some wise-ass to say that as long as you can have your single-shot shotgun or .22 rifle, your RKBA has not been "infringed." My personal feeling is that somewhere between there and the right to own a Stinger or RPG, there's a rational policy. I also think that anti-government rhetoric is not the greatest strategy for safeguarding gun rights. No government of any type has ever been comfortable with a population that is specifically arming themselves against it. Gets the paranoia going on the other side. This isn't strictly a right-vs.-left split, either. Ask G. Gordon Liddy how he felt about the Black Panthers' RKBA when he was with the Nixon administration.

As far as instruction goes, I wouldn't have a huge problem with some rigorous training in safe gun handling. A reduction in gun accidents would be a great thing and would be great PR to boot. Make it a marketplace issue, like insurance. For example, people without training can buy a gun, but they have to buy accident insurance to go with it; people with a training certificate don't have to buy the insurance. Incentive without infringement.

It all comes down to the rights/responsibilities balance. I personally don't believe that compromise=sellout. I think it can get some good results. You're never going to make the hardcore antis budge, whether you go hard, soft, or in-between. Aim at the uncommitted middle. Let them see that we're not crazy and dangerous.

 

[TimRB]

"I don't know--I register my car, and nobody ever tried to confiscate it. Then again, it's paid for..."

You don't have to take our word for it. Here is what Senator Dianne Feinstein had to say on the subject when she was interviewed on "60 Minutes":

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

Not too much gray area there. It all begins with registration.

Tim

 

[22-rimfire]

Toivo: I believe there already is in place a semi-rational gun control policy. The line is drawn at explosive projectiles for civilians. Full auto guns (and other ones classifed as Class III) have been severely restricted already with the 1934 law which continues today. The para-military or "assault rifle" thing is a ruse in terms of effective control as was pointed out in another thread in the NY Times article.

I personally see little effective difference between an AK47 clone or SKS (semi-auto) and a Remington 7400 "deer rifle" or other semi-auto centerfire in traditional rifle design. In fact, I see little effective difference between the Remington 7600 (pump) in terms of use and how quickly you can shoot accurately. So, according to this reasoning (or what I would suspect is your argument), rational national gun control policy would include essentially every pump action centerfire rifle and certainly every semi-auto rifle and not be limited to "bad looking para-military" firearms. It is an easy next step to limit shotguns (sem-auto & pump), handguns (all), and 22 rifles. This is essentially what happened in England and Australia. It all begins with REGISTRATION. Without registration, the government can not find the guns effectively..... look at Iraq. What happens after registration boils down to "death by a thousand cuts" in terms of national or state gun control policy.

Just look at California... now they want to (or have passed legislation) that requires a serial number on the bullet which will be added to the cost of the ammunition. Next, they will limit how much ammunition you can buy and how much you can own at any one time. If you have 5,000 rounds of 22 ammunition at your house, you could be planning a war. Certainly no normal person would have a need to own that much ammunition at one time. This is part of "the death by a thousand cuts" in terms of firearms.

So, it really boils down to what I feel is that the "rational" (and some irrational) legislative controls have already been enacted and they provide the boundaries for legality for law abiding citizens.

Anti-Gun legislators try to access their "majority" from the middle of the road people. For example, several states are looking at making illegal 50 caliber rifles. The reasoning... why would any rational law abiding citizen want to own such a firearm that if placed in the wrong hands could jeaprodize the lives of many (as in a plane). The middle of the roads foks agree because they don't wish to own such a firearm. So, what's wrong with making them illegal or classifying them as Class III weapons? The same reasoning applies to the so-called "assault rifle", what ever that means. It is all about pushing forward by any means acceptable to the majority laws that limit the ownership and use of firearms.

We need to try to educate the people who have "mixed feelings" as to what the real political legislative agenda is by the anti-guns folks. That is hard to do. "Death by a thousand cuts"... the the end result is the same.

No firearm registration. No magazine restrictions. No firearm restrictions other than explosive rounds. (A bit of a generalization, but it illustrates my general view.) Remember, there are NO restrictions for the bad guys.

 

[tyme]

1. Anyone shall be allowed to carry anywhere - anytime - any state
That is not an exercise of some power. It is an obvious statement of the RKBA that needs to be adopted federally in order to preempt silly state and local laws.

As far as instruction goes, I wouldn't have a huge problem with some rigorous training in safe gun handling. A reduction in gun accidents would be a great thing and would be great PR to boot.

Then, as Jesse said, the government should offer voluntary taxpayer-funded training classes, or it should subsidize NRA classes. The government has a responsibility to regulate the militia. If it's not going to equip us with nice toys, at least it could give us basic training and at least one nice, free range per 500,000 or so urban-dwellers.

How about another law forcing U.S. arms manufacturers and importers to offer for sale to the public any small arms they make, import, or sell to U.S. agencies or military abroad? That too falls under the scope of the 2nd amendment.

 

[toivo]

22-Rimfire,

It sounds to me like you're arguing in favor of the status quo, and I'm pretty much with you there. I don't think the status quo (no explosive projectiles, full auto) is so bad. I definitely DO NOT believe that a ban on semi-auto and pump centerfires would be reasonable or rational. I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but I think the AWB had some value as insurance AGAINST such a ban. It was a relatively painless (though annoying) compromise, and now that it's gone I'm afraid we're going to start hearing calls for a ban on autoloaders. (See the NYTimes thread.) Regardless of ideals and the Constitution, the reality of day-to-day politics makes it useful to have bargaining chips: "You got your ban on scary rifles; now leave us alone." Not that they will, but it's a valuable way to market to the middle. Always be reasonable and let the other side be hysterical.

 

[cuate]

Firearms Ownership Laws

To begin with, the 10th Amendment of our Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from making certain laws and if they do, they are wrong.

Secondly, There are people that should not be allowed to drive automobiles, there are people that should not be allowed to fly aircraft and there are people who should never be allowed to possess firearms. You and I are not allowed to state who can and who can't.

The whole mess is rather sad, isn't it?

 

[progunner1957]

Why is the Second Amendment singled out for "special" attention?

The Bill of Rights uses the phrase "The Right of the People" in addressing the following rights:

Article 1: To peacably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Article 2: To keep and bear arms without infringement.

Article 4: To be secure in their houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures.

In addition, Article 9 states that the enumeration in the Constitution of a given right or rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage any other right or Rights retained by The People (paraphrased).

In Article 10, powers not specifically delegated to the United States Government by the Constitution are reserved to the states or to The People (paraphrased).

Therefore, the "plan" advocated by Striker violates not only Article 2 but also Articles 4, 9 and 10.

"The Government" hasn't gotten around to trying to destroy the First Amendment just yet, but "The Government" has been working relentlessly for decades to destroy all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights which use the qualifier, The Right of the People."

The Second Amendment is the prize which powermongering politicians and bureaucrats seek to destroy like no other, because they understand that it is the fortress in which all other "rights of The People" are secured and protected.

Without the Second Amendmendment, all the other nine Amendments are nothing but words on paper; that's why the Second Amendment receives the "special" attention (that is, contempt and hatred) of the power mongering bureaucrats of all political parties.