President's Gun Control Proposals

P

psandk

New member
Let me start by apologizing for the mis-quotes in my paragraph. I can see that I am going to have to be more precise with any statements.
My point is that any one person with the mind set to do harm to another individual or group can't be stopped. You can pass all the gun laws that you want and it won't keep the guns out of the hands of people who are determined to do harm to others. Those who choose to be LAW-ABIDING citizens are the ones who pay the price of government control. We have the right to defend and protect ourselves and our families from those individuals who chose to do harm. I need a weapon of equal stature. I would not want to go up against a man who has a AK-47 with a BB gun. It would be like showing up to a gun fight with a knife.
At the end of the day law abiding citizens have the right to choose the weapon that makes them feel safest.
 
C

Crankgrinder

New member
Im not sure if this helps, but here it has been reported that lanza did not own any guns legally. HIs mother did, who was shot by lanza himself with those same guns right after he stole them from her. If this is true then his posession of such is security issue in his household, and then another security issue at that school. Ive also watched a few videos on that shooting itself and i find a few things inconsistent to say the least but perhaps that is a topic for another discussion entirely. The reporting on this issue seems very self contradictory at times. The whoe story around this thing is very convoluded and reaks of one sided agenda.
 
M

MLeake

New member
No, manta49, the logic is that asserting a new law will fix the underlying problems being discussed makes no sense.

Existing laws already address: murder; assault; possession of a firearm by a prohibited person; sale of a firearm to a person who one should reasonably believe to be a prohibited person; carrying of a weapon in a no guns zone.

So, obviously, it isn't the existence or lack of laws, in this case.

It may be improper enforcement by law enforcement agencies and prosecutors; it may be poor sentencing decisions by the judiciary; it may be poor mental health care availability; it may be a societal disconnect from the traditional family and neighborhood model.

But none of those will be changed for the better by new gun control laws.
 
M

Metal god

New member
I'm not sure if this helps, but here it has been reported that lanza did not own any guns legally. HIs mother did
Click to expand...

Sorry , my bad :( I was thinking of the guy in Colorado James Holmes . You are correct . :)
 
X

-Xero-

Moderator
I didn't do a close read here, but what I see entirely ABSENT in any of these discussions is the legal premise behind Constitutional Law --

Constitutional Civil Liberties are intended to protect the rights of minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Best and most often cited example is desegregation in the Deep South. The MAJORITY of Southerners in the 1950's, 1960s before desegregation supported segregation. That was the majority sentiment.

But SCOTUS ruled that "separate but equal" (1896, Plessy v. Ferguson) is not equitable. 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruled that separate is inherently unequal. 14th Amendment ruled that segregation was a Constitutional violation.

Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Bill of Rights is right in there politically/historically with Moses and the Ten Commandments. The Bill of Rights is carved in stone --

Second Amendment has been problematic. SCOTUS has be reluctant to rule on the 2nd because SCOTUS has been leery of the unintended consequences of any 2nd Amendment ruling might have on case law (stare decisis) -- how any ruling by SCOTUS determines subsequent rulings by the court.

We have McDondald v. Chicago, and Heller v. Wash. DC -- Both ruling that RKBA is an individual right, that it's not about a "militia." And Scalia writes that the means of accessible defense is and should be "commonly used handguns." (Not a stretch to argue that "commonly used" should include rifles, and the AR is currently the most common rifle in the USA.)

Doesn't matter if 78% of America's mis-informed, clueless, reactionary gun grabbers think assault weapons are a bad idea and ought to be banned. First of all, they're not "assault weapons." And second (as in Second Amendment) the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS asserts:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

-- Doesn't matter how the tyrannical majority feel about this right. It's God given and Constitutionally enacted.
 
S

Spats McGee

Administrator
I just went on the White House's website, and the EOs that Obama was supposed to have signed in late December are still not available. Subsequent EOs are, though. This bothers me.
 
F

Frank Ettin

Administrator
-Xero- said:
I didn't do a close read here, but what I see entirely ABSENT in any of these discussions is the legal premise behind Constitutional Law -- ...
Click to expand...
Well, I certainly don't see anything germane in your post.

You might want to brush up a bit on the Constitution by having a good look at Spats McGee’s Federal Constitutional Primer.

Here's roughly how things work:

  1. The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2):
    Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish....

    Section 2. The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,...
    Click to expand...

  2. And thus disagreements concerning the application of the the Constitution to the resolution of particular disputes is the province of the federal courts. The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute.

  3. And that is no doubt what the Founding Fathers would have expected. Many were lawyers. They were familiar with English Common Law (the basis of our legal system) and that for a long time it had been customary for the courts, under the Common Law and understood the exercise of judicial power in such terms.

  4. Any gun control or gun ban law enacted by Congress or by any State is subject to judicial challenge on constitutional grounds. That thus becomes "a case arising under [the] Constitution" and thus as the Founding Fathers provided a proper subject for the exercise of the judicial powers of the federal courts.

  5. In the course of deciding Heller (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (United States Supreme Court, 2008)) and McDonald (McDonald v. City of Chicago (Supreme Court, 2010, No. 08-1521)), the rulings made by the United States Supreme Court on matters of Constitutional Law, as necessary in making its decisions in those cases, are now binding precedent on all other courts. Now the Supreme Court has finally confirmed that (1) the Second Amendment describes an individual, and not a collective, right; and (2) that right is fundamental and applies against the States. This now lays the foundation for litigation to challenge other restrictions on the RKBA, and the rulings on matters of law necessarily made by the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald will need to be followed by other courts in those cases.

  6. There is judicial authority going back well before Heller and McDonald for the proposition that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited regulation by government. Any such regulation must pass some level of scrutiny. The lowest level of scrutiny sometimes applied to such regulation, "rational basis", appears to now have been taken off the table, based on some language in McDonald. And since the Court in McDonald has explicitly characterized the right described by the Second Amendment as fundamental, there is some possibility that highest level of scrutiny, "strict scrutiny" will apply, at least to some issues.

  7. There are three prongs to the strict scrutiny test, as follows:

    • The regulation must be justified by a compelling governmental interest; and

    • The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest; and

    • The law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest (i. e., there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive).

  8. The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.

  9. Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S

shortwave

New member
I just went on the White House's website, and the EOs that Obama was supposed to have signed in late December are still not available. Subsequent EOs are, though. This bothers me.
Click to expand...

Bothers me also.

Is it possible that this may be Obama doing just what he said he was going to do? Using every power of the Presidential office to insure stricter gun control?

Maybe the EOs he signed in late Dec. don't support the subsequent signed EOs when pertaining to gun control. Just a thought.
 
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Dana Milbank, in the Washington Post, said the other day that the moment was gone and the tide was turned. Obama lost the opportunity.

One wonders if this was deliberate? Make a fuss and then do nothing effective.
 
E

Evan Thomas

New member
Not so much deliberate as a form of throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it sticks... Make a fuss, keep the base happy, and if some of it goes through, why, then, the base will be that much happier. If not -- well, they tried, they really did try, but the time just wasn't right...

That, and it's a wonderful way to distract the masses and keep them divided.
 
T

Tom Servo

Staff
That, and it's a wonderful way to distract the masses and keep them divided.
Click to expand...
Yep. Thing is, everyone knew Feinstein and Schumer were going to throw a tantrum and demand that their proposals be heard. They've been around too long to get shushed by leadership, so they were allowed to write their bills and rattle their sabers.

What we've seen these last two weeks is a gradual (and if I were a gun-control supporter, craven) backing away from the whole issue. The President is still working the rhetoric, but he's got nothing to lose. To the base, he looks like a true believer, but when it comes time to produce, he can say I tried, but the NRA wouldn't help me save the children.

I seem to remember calls for a "conversation" on mental illness. That also seems to have been pushed quietly out of focus as well.
 
G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
Yep, the video game push died very quickly.

It's a common tactic - I recall a past president who would talk up a couple of amendments when in trouble. But then they went away.
 
B

bt380

New member
On one hand, everything he touches seems to fail in one form or fashion. The question is...which way will his failure land on this.... Will it fail in favor of the innocent or the criminals.
 
B

BarryLee

New member
As difficult as it is to believe it appears that Mr. Obama may actually be using dated and disputed data to make his case for gun control. He constantly quotes a study that indicates 40% of guns are purchased with no background check. However, the study is over twenty years old and only includes responses from 251 people. When asked if the study was accurate the original author said, “The answer is I have no idea. This survey was done almost 20 years ago.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/02/obama-criticized-for-using-dated-disputed-gun-stat-to-sell-background-checks/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top