After another high profile shooting, a background check on gun rights
High-profile incidents, like the recent shooting during a congressional baseball practice, renew interest in the national debate over gun rights and gun control, but gun safety should be a concern for everyone, every day. Americans have strong and divergent views on the subject. The Pew Research Center reports that 37 percent of American households keep guns and 79 percent of gun owners think guns keep them safe. Yet statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that almost two-thirds of the 33,594 firearm-related deaths that occurred in 2014 were accidental (461) or suicides (21,386).
Gun control efforts and enforcement are important to reduce violent crime. According to theBureau of Justice Statistics, only 40 percent of state inmates who committed crimes while armed obtained their guns illegally.
Gun Control Legislation
Federal law places some restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms. Weapons manufacturers and professional firearms dealers must be licensed, keep transfer records and comply with relevant federal and state background checks. These laws do not apply, however, to intrastate purchases from unlicensed private sellers. This gap in the law is sometimes referred to as the “gun show loophole.”
The sale of new fully automatic weapons has been banned since 1986, but there are an estimated 182,600 pre-1986 machine guns in the United States that may be bought and sold legally.
The sale of new fully automatic weapons (machine guns) has been banned since 1986, but there are an estimated 182,600 pre-1986 machine guns in the United States that may be bought and sold legally. Semiautomatic assault rifles, which require a trigger pull for each bullet discharged and can shoot two shots per second, may be legally sold under federal law.
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) was established to prevent the sale of guns to convicted felons, fugitives from justice, drug addicts, persons involuntarily committed to mental institutions, unauthorized immigrants and most nonimmigrant visitors, persons dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces, persons who have renounced their U.S. citizenship, persons under court-ordered restraints and those convicted of domestic violence offenses. As noted in a 2016 Department of Justice report, however, the government’s incomplete database has, with tragic consequences, resulted in the sale of weapons to individuals who should have been denied purchase.
Minors may not purchase weapons from federally licensed dealers, but there is no federal age restriction on the use and ownership of rifles. Subject to Second Amendment or state constitutional restraints, state and local governments are free to enact stricter gun control laws, such as waiting periods, bans on the sale of semiautomatic weapons, background checks for private gun transfers, additional ownership and carry restrictions, and firearm bans on school grounds. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 16 states ban concealed weapons on college campuses while 10 states specifically allow concealed carry on campus. The rest of the states leave the decision up to college administrators.
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Although the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, it was not until 2008—in District of Columbia v. Heller—that the Supreme Court determined individual gun ownership is protected. The prefatory militia clause, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, “does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.” However, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited”:
[N]othing in our opinion should 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.
Justice Scalia went on to conclude that prohibitions also could be placed on “the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” The Heller decision struck down a federal District of Columbia law that prohibited the possession of a handgun in one’s home and required all weapons kept in the home to be disassembled or stored with trigger locks.
In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the court applied the Second Amendment to state gun control laws and reaffirmed that “the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense.” In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the court held the Second Amendment protects the right to own stun guns but did not determine the extent to which the government may regulate that right.
In Peruta v. San Diego (2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held: “The Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” The court did “not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry.”
The Supreme Court declined to review this decision, which means gun rights vary across the country. California, and other states and localities within the Ninth Circuit, may strictly curtail the possession of weapons on streets and public places, but lawmakers under the jurisdiction of other circuit courts must abide by different interpretations.
For example, in Moore v. Madigan (2012), the Seventh Circuit determined the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense “is as important outside the home as inside.” The court struck down “a flat ban on carrying ready-to-use guns outside the home.”
In addition to lobbying for stronger gun control laws and enforcement, victims of gun violence and their families have sought justice in civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers, sellers and owners of weapons that were used in violent acts. In 2005, Congress enacted the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to protect these defendants from personal injury claims based on the criminal activity of others.
The law was relied on when a Connecticut court dismissed claims against the manufacturer of the assault weapon used in the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings. Complicit gun retailers and straw purchasers (individuals with clean background checks who buy and then immediately resell weapons) do not benefit from the law’s immunity.
According to the Pew Research Center, “[l]arge majorities in both [political] parties continue to favor preventing people with mental illnesses from buying guns, barring gun purchases by people on federal no-fly or watch lists, and background checks for private gun sales and sales at gun shows.” If the polling numbers are correct and Americans want fewer criminals and dangerous individuals to own guns, it is time to fund gun buyback programs and improve our background check system.
Voters cannot leave these life-and-death issues to lobbyists but can write, call and peacefully remind elected officials that they want reasonable laws enacted to help end gun violence.
Feds should require liability insurance on guns to cover the "accidents".
The insurance issue has been looked at and the problem is insurance companies will only cover accidents and most gun injuries are intentional. Also, insurance underwriters won't write insurance policies for criminal acts since doing that is evidence of priori knowledge of a crime making the insurance underwriter an accessory to that crime.
Maybe you should prove lawful gun owners are the cause of that eh...no...
http : //nocera . blogs . nytimes . com/2014/05/19/weekend-gun-report-may-16-18-2014/#more-9199
The New York times gun report created in 2012 by anti gunterd editor of the NYTimes Joe Nocera, was created to embarrass gun owners. Funniest thing was, it was shuttered in 2014 because people started noting police reports on the comments section of each death and it turned out virtually all were criminals shooting criminals, and the 100 kids they listed, 97 lived in homes with criminals.
When the times lists a 20 year old "child" shot and killed, and people with access to arrest records note that the "child" has five arrests for gang activity the NYT has a problem with its spinning.
The first child death they covered in my state, a 4-year-old was living in the home where his mother was living with a boyfriend who had a prior murder conviction. He was high on crack and shot the kid by accident with his illegal gun.
The NYT's problem was what it really showed is almost all gun death is about criminal's killing each other or homes with criminals being dangerous to other occupants. guns don't elevate danger at all, criminals do.
Why is it you arrogant anti gun terrorists cant provide any real govt. cites or data to prove this isnt true in any of the other 49 states eh....
Maybe you post proof and also demonstrate how you will force the criminals responsible for the vast majority of accidental shootings to buy liability insurance without violating their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination, DOOOOH!
Re: "only 40 percent of state inmates who committed crimes while armed obtained their guns illegally"
That's misleading and only part of the story. It's true that 39.2% said they obtained their guns illegally but it also said another 39.6% got their guns from private sales or transfers from “family and friends” which didn’t require a background check. This begs the question - what are the scruples of the family and friends of a criminal? I don’t know what new law you could pass to close a loophole (like preventing straw purchases which are already illegal) that would force likely witting family members or criminal cohorts to run background checks on other criminals when all the parties involved will probably ignore any relevant laws. Note, the study also said only 0.7% got their guns from gun shows.
Re: "people on federal no-fly or watch lists"
There is no due process requirement levied upon the government to put a person on the no fly or terrorist watch list. In addition, a person on a no-fly list at the airport can be pulled out of line and questioned or detained. A person who fails a background check at a gun store is allowed to walk out of the store with information about how to challenge the denial. The no-fly and terror watch lists are supposed to be secret so all this really does is allow a terrorist to find out if he is on a list and realize he has to come up with another identity to 1) get a firearm and 2) get on an airplane. So the dirty little secret here is that in order to make this work like they think it should, everyone wanting to purchase a firearm would first have to go to a law enforcement organization for a background check and be detained if they failed. This would accomplish two things the anti-gun zealots dream about - 1) Allow arbitrary denials of the right to bear arms 2) A registry of all gun owners - and keep in mind in every instance where governments have confiscated firearms, it has been preceded by registration.
Right now, the criteria for being on the no-fly or terrorist watch list is somewhat secret and arbitrary and the latest legislation that was proposed would allow the Attorney General to add anyone based on some undefined, subjective things called “a reasonable belief” or “appropriately suspected” the person is connected with international or domestic terrorism - and the term “domestic terrorism” is so nebulously defined in 18 USC 2331(5) that it could include anyone the government doesn’t like.
Same thing that insurance would require of everyone, plus give the police a right to check your insurance coverage, just like driving on the road.
Okay - what events or acts do you think this insurance is going to cover?
Re: " background checks for private gun sales - PART 4"
Other specific public safety issues where it would be useful are:
>Allow potential victims to vet known stalkers or acquaintances under a restraining order
>Allow gun clubs to vet potential members
>Allow shooting ranges to vet suspicious customers
>Help prevent straw purchases by allowing FFL’s to vet all individuals involved with the purchase of a firearm as a gift
>Allow mental health workers to vet troubled individuals like the Aurora Colorado theater killer
>Allow resource officers and school officials to vet suspicious students like the Arapahoe High School killer in Colorado
>Allow the family of the mentally troubled Lafayette, LA killer to verify he couldn’t purchase a firearm
>Allow police officers to vet anyone they contact - (note the routine background checks performed by police often do not include information about firearms because they don’t directly access the NICS database
Re: " background checks for private gun sales - PART 3"
The real benefit of this proposal is how it can help identify the illusive killer with questionable behavior patterns or mental health issues that is causing so many problems. As it stands now there is no easy, fast, non-bureaucratic method for someone to determine if a suspicious person (client, neighbor, employee, student, etc) is a potential threat to society. If someone thinks an individual could be a threat, a query to a public NICS database would at least tell him or her in a few seconds if the individual could obtain a firearm. Then, armed with that information the appropriate authorities could be notified and they could decide if it was erroneous information or whether to investigate further. As it stands now, if you tell authorities you know a suspicious person they will probably ignore you, but if you tell them you know such a person and by the way according to the NICS database he can buy a firearm, they will probably be more inclined to investigate rather than risk embarrassment later if the worst happens. The same would be true if you see a suspicious acquaintance with a firearm when the NICS query says he’s prohibited from having one. It would also help provide piece of mind and a method for victims of violent crimes to ensure their assailants either on parole or still at large have not been excluded from the database because of some bureaucratic foul-up.
Re: " background checks for private gun sales - PART 2
2) Give anyone free, public, anonymous online access to the NICS database. The NICS database is really a go/no go process and no useful information has to be displayed to facilitate phishing expeditions for identity theft other than what was already known by the user making the query. It’s certainly no more revealing than the national $ex offender registry or the FAA’s pilot and mechanic license query system where the latter provides more detailed information on presumably law-abiding citizens. Once this system is implemented, you then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain documented proof that says you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. This would effectively close the so-called private sale loophole and still preserve the anonymity of the parties involved the same way the current background check system does now. If a private sale firearm shows up at a crime scene, the BATF follows their current procedure of using the serial number of the firearm to contact the manufacturer and ultimately the last FFL that sold the firearm to a private citizen to obtain that citizen’s name and address from the ATF form 4473 the FFL is required to keep on file. That citizen is then contacted and produces the piece of paper from the NICS background check that identifies the second private citizen who is then contacted, and so forth.
Re: " background checks for private gun sales - PART 1"
Currently, there are only 2 ways to legally sell a gun in the US to a private citizen. One is a private sale between individuals (typically like between family and friends) or by a gun dealer licensed with a Federal Firearms License (FFL) from the federal BATF. Only individuals with an FFL can run a background check through the government NICS database of prohibited persons. Private citizens cannot. Note that a person can purchase a firearm online, but the physical transfer of the firearm still must go through an FFL at the seller or an FFL local to the buyer. So anyone wanting to improve the process should encourage the federal government to do 2 things:
1) Allow any small gun dealer to get an FFL without having a storefront. Currently, thanks to the Clinton administration’s effort to reduce the supply of guns, you can’t get an FFL if you want to sell guns only at gun shows (Google BATFE form 5310 FFL application and look at question 18a). As a result someone that wants to sell guns but can’t afford the inventory costs, zoning challenges and overhead of a storefront has to sell illegally or discretely at the edge of the law as a “private individual” and hence can’t run a background check. Rather than throwing these “kitchen table” sellers out of the system like Clinton did hoping they would go away, they should allow them to get an FFL and subject them to BATF rules, audits and oversight like they were before the Clinton administration let political anti-gun ideology get in the way
Re: " Americans want fewer criminals and dangerous individuals to own guns"
The problem you have is that in 2010 (for example) there were 725000 violent criminals in state prisons and 15000 in federal prisons. This works out to a total of 740000 or about 0.238% of the US population which means that about 1 out of every 420 people in the US that have been caught have no qualms about ignoring whatever laws you pass and killing or injuring someone and the gun is often their tool of choice. So the bottom line is (1) The human race produces a few bad individuals prone to violence who just refuse to play by whatever rules you promulgate and until you find some way to identify these individuals and the courage to permanently eliminate them from society, innocent people are going to be killed (2) Because of these bad individuals, bad things happen every day to people who through no fault of their own were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Criminals will always have guns if they want them. If worst comes to worst they will be smuggled into the US from Mexico inside a bale of marijuana and sold on the black market.
Another point for insurance. With insurance on your weapon, you could own an automatic rifle with as many clips as you wish to own, as long as your insurance carrier will cover it.
Like Obama leveraged banks and credit services to stop letting gun companies and businesses have accounts eh......sorry, we arent playing that idiotic game, how about you put some skin in the game and start paying your fair share?
See anti gun advocates demand frivilous things be done by law abiding gun owners, and you provide NOTHING, no money, you dont give up any portion of any right you value in exchange, all you demand is someone elese pay for your fantasies, when you cant even prove those youre demanding these things from are responsible for your irrantional and unsubstantiated fears.
See in 60+ years of gun control, anti gun advocates havent given up ANYTHING to achieve gun control, you dont compromise.
See adults compromise to get what they desire.
Anti gun advocates are nothing but selfish immature brats based on the irrefutable fact they only take and never give up any of their rights, let us know when you aspire to join the adults and contribute.
Re: "reasonable laws enacted"
In 1934, 1938, 1968, 1986, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1994 I suspect similar arguments were made for “reasonable laws” when more restrictive federal gun laws were passed. Since all of the regulations derived from these laws are apparently not enough, maybe you can understand the reluctance of gun owners to entertain the idea of quietly accepting the any more. The problem is the real agenda of the people leading the charge for more gun control is to ban all guns except for the government and governments (unlike individuals) have the track record for killing people that don’t agree with them. This is really just about using relatively infrequent, isolated incidents of gun crimes to whip lawmakers into an emotional frenzy to goad them into quickly advancing the agenda of gun control irrespective of any facts in more incremental “progressive” steps in order to set a new baseline and move the goal posts to the point where an unscrupulous government would have the option to do what ever they please.
Re: "reasonable laws enacted to help end gun violence"
According to the CDC, in 2014 there were 33599 deaths from firearms and most were suicides while 10945 were homicides. If someone wants to kill themselves it’s a matter of individual choice where the person can pick the time, place and method and an argument can also be made that an individual’s life belongs to them exclusively and not you, the State or anyone else. Note also that the number of suicides committed with firearms (21334) is less than the number committed by other means (21439) so as long as there are other options, it’s not clear that restricting firearms would have any effect on the number of suicides.
Homicides are a different story. 10945 people murdered by firearms in the US works out to about 29 people per day. These are the “word doctored” figures the news media and anti-gun folks like to publicize because people relate to the magnitude of those numbers and it sounds like a lot of people until you realize this is out of a population of 320 million Americans. In that context, it works out to about 1 person out of every 29,000 people being murdered by a firearm. Dwell on the magnitude of your individual significance next time you are in a stadium with 29,000 people. To me, 1 in 29,000 is an acceptable cost to help ensure the security of a free state and the right to own a firearm that has harmed no one. It is also estimated there are 109 million gun owners in the US which means on any given day 108,999,971 gun owners didn’t kill anyone yet because the news media magnifies these relatively isolated and infrequent events to the level of an epidemic, the anti-gun folks answer is to take the guns away from people who harmed no one. The number of firearm homicides will never be zero. So given the fact that deranged individuals and murderers are an intrinsic part of the human race and we currently live in a free society, what number of illegal firearm homicides would ever be acceptable to you to the point you would say “we don’t need any more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms”?
Re: " preventing people with mental illnesses from buying guns"
In addition to the doctrine of prior restraint, there are 2 problems with this. First, mental health issues aren’t necessarily present at the time of an evaluation and a lot of mentally ill people “present well” - i.e. they are good at hiding their true personality unless it is inadvertently revealed in a psychotic break or crisis situation. The second problem is there are no objective criteria for a mental health evaluation. As is evidenced in court trials, you often have “experts” who disagree and reach completely different conclusions. When this ambiguity is married to regulations written by unaccountable bureaucrats and used by people who are trying to ban all guns from private citizens it would make it extremely difficult if not impossible for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm.
Again, insurance requirement will cause "someone" with a stake in the game to be in charge. Right now, no one is in charge. It's the wild wild West out there.
More fanatsie claims based on emotional rhetoric and opinion, no facts as always
Re: " gun show loophole"
There are no real “loopholes”. This is progressive speak for wanting to pass laws to monitor and control loans, transfers or physical access of firearms, ammunition, or “high capacity” magazines to distant relatives, friends, domestic partners, significant others, roommates, employees, house guests or other acquaintances you have known for years. You can see this philosophy reflected in the laws passed in CA, CO, NV, OR and WA. The only “loophole” that needs closing is the reluctance to enforce existing laws. You could start by quit allowing people who use a gun illegally to plea bargain away the illegal firearms offense. The feds are one of the worst offenders. Straw purchases and lying on the 4473 form you have to fill out for a background check to purchase a firearm is a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine - yet in 2010 76142 people failed the background check, 4732 were deemed worthy of prosecution and only 62 were prosecuted.
Re: " there are an estimated 182,600 pre-1986 machine guns in the United States that may be bought and sold legally"
Yes - as and as near as I can tell only 1 has been used illegally since 1934 and that was by a police officer that killed an informant - and since police departments have to register their machineguns with the BATFE as well as civilians, it's not clear if the firearm was his or his department's. Note also that under the provisions of the 1934 National Firearms ACT (NFA) civilians can and do own several military grade weapons such as hand grenades, bazookas, tanks, howitzers, etc and you never hear about any of them being used in a crime.
Re: " fund gun buyback programs"
Guns are not the problem. The first semi-automatic handgun was invented in the late 1800’s and the most popular version went into production in 1911. It is also noted the so-called evil “assault rifles” with standard capacity 30 round magazines are not new technology. A harbinger was invented in 1890 and the current versions evolved and were mass produced in the late 1940’s and have always been available to the public (note the “47” in AK-47 stands for 1947, the year the firearm went into production). As a matter of fact fully automatic versions (i.e. machine guns), which are true military grade rifles, were readily available to the general public until 1986 and background checks on firearm transfers weren’t required until 1994 - yet nobody talks about mass shootings with any version (semi-automatic or automatic) of these guns during the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s so it’s a relatively new phenomenon and logic would indicate it’s being caused by something else.
Note also that the worst mass killing in a US school occurred on May 18, 1927 in the Bath schoolhouse in Michigan where the killer used dynamite. And rather than immediately rush in an emotional tizzy to pass new laws to restrict the sale of dynamite, cooler heads prevailed and it took 43 years until October 15, 1970 when the law was changed. Up until that date anyone over 21 could walk into a hardware store or farm coop and buy dynamite and blasting caps
Re: " laws enacted to help end gun violence"
The sad fact is you can’t stop every lone wolf who is a first time offender so the reality is you need to get used to it. Even if all the guns could be banned, there are plenty of other methods available to kill a lot of people thanks to the internet - i.e things like pipe bombs (San Bernardino), pressure cooker bombs (Boston), propane tank bombs (Columbine), truck bombs (Oklahoma City), gasoline cans and a match (Happy Land fire on 3/25/90), heavy truck crashing in to a crowd of people (Nice, France), home made flame throwers made from plumbing parts and gasoline (nowhere - yet) and any pressure vessel filled with shrapnel and gun powder manufactured the same way it has been since the 6th century that will momentarily confine an explosive pressure wave. And when any of those things are used and there are no civilian firearms to deter the government from limiting our Bill of Rights, it’s likely no one will know about them because at that point in order to silence any criticism for actions they can’t control and to maintain civilian support and power, the government has no reason to allow them to be reported. In other words, banning “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines just starts us down the road of incessant, progressive bans on other firearms with the end result being that only criminals and the government will have guns
Re: " they want reasonable laws enacted to help end gun violence"
As was pointed out below----to say that only about 40% of guns are obtainned illegally---is misleading--- (dishonest?)--when another approx 40% come from family--friends--private purchases. So---80% of guns are NOT from classic--background check--purchases.
We will never solve the crime/killing horrors until we define the problems honestly and accurately. In Democrat run Chicago--you have some of the strictest gun laws in the Country--and a gun crime--gun murder set of numbers which are a discrace--a horror. Chicago is a perfect case study. Democrat-run---very high----school drop out rates--very high out-of-wedlock birth rates (no fathers in the home)--very high young black male unemployment rates--crime and murder are a life-style. What to do?---"Stop and Fisk"---long prison terms for carrying guns/ammunition----massive improvement in the union-run disaster of a school system---much more focus on trade school programs---like Germany----computers, mechanics---machine building---construction--heat/ac---plumbing-- (Didn't Obama announce that he was going to do this)---AND--the Church---with other Churches should undertake a renewal of the idea of Marriage-----stop the massive welfare benefits that encourage young women to have multiple out-of-wedlock children with multiple men (who then have multiple places to crash--and welfare money to share). This will take a lot of time and effort---BUT the current horrors are now more thgan 3 generations old. Pray----stop fudging gun numbers---focus on the undelying problems
"reasonable laws to help end gun violence"----like what??? the lack of "gun laws" is NOT the problem!!!
Thank you Jim for the fact checks.
I just love (sarcasm) the plaintive wailing that liability insurance should be forced upon law abiding gun owners to make the anti gun advocates FEEL BETTER.
Well as posted below, we see trhe anti gun advocates cant disprove their own reports proving that the vast majority of accidental shootings are tied to crimnals, already banned from having a gun, shooting people accidentally during commission of a crime, or being careless.
Next, its called the 5TH AMENDMENT, see since criminals, already banned from having a gun to begin with per USC 18 Sec 922, would be violating their 5th amendment right of no self incrimination by being forced to buy liability insurance as ruled upon in Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 & Freed vs US 401, 1971, thats a nasty legal issue ellen just cant ignore, but she does in classic fascist style.
That and it is irrefutable fact that no insurance underwriter in the world would knowingly sell liability gun insurance to a criminal, as that is priori knowledge of a criminal act maybe even aiding and abetting, much less liability insurance for an intentional criminal act, also priori knowledge making the insurance underwriter an accessory to the crime.
You anti gun advocates really arent very bright
Background checks cost $330 mil a year between federal and state costs per US Govt. budgets
27 Million background checks in 2016
130,000 avg rejections per NICS records
93.8% of all rejections are false positives per NICS operations reports since 1997, meaning that those 93.8% weren’t bad guys
8,060 avg. actual bad guys rejected
45 avg bad guys prosecuted per US Court records
That equals maybe 1 or 2 total injuries prevented each year
GAO General Accounting Office (US Congress) sent agents to 5 states, they used fake ID software to pass the background checks 100% of the time, a study repeated with the same exact results a dozen times
Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968
Freed vs US 401, 1971
Amazing how settled and codified law makes 85% of the 22,000+ gun control law that require one to provide an identification like licenses, background checks, permits, registrations etc, etc…cant be used to punish any of the 10 categories of criminals banned per USC 18 Sec 922 from possessing a gun
In the English language, delay doesn’t = stopped, so reality is only 45 bad guys were stopped from getting guns, unless you ignorant anti gun trolls can prove with proper vetted studies that human nature is to stop trying after being delayed just once eh…
By the way, why doesn’t UBC fix any of these failures by the BATF to stop any criminals from getting a gun eh….
Unfortunately for the anti gunutters like ellen, the only version of the second amendment ratified by the states, is the 1 comma version.
http : //www . occasionalplanet . org/2012/08/28/confusion-the-wording-of-the-second-amendment/
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)
Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.
http : //grammar . about . com/od/c/g/complexsentence . htm
http : //www . writingcentre . uottawa . ca/hypergrammar/sntstrct . html
http : //www . libertygunrights . com/4pg2A%20Diagram . pdf
http : //www . largo . org/literary . html
http : //www . constitution . org/mil/embar2nd . htm
http : //www . constitution . org/fed/federa46 . htm
http : //www . davekopel . org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne . htm
Quoting the second site below:
"The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected." -- end quote.
Lets see, have you elen, removed the 44 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.
So reality is, the only regulation that really is allowed by the govt., is to the unorganized militia.
But as govt. is responsible for the call up and muster of the unorganized militia, we see they are consistent in their failure to do their jobs in not doing so.
http : //www . rain . org/%7Ekarpeles/
Maybe ellen removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today, no she didnt did she...typikal.
original proposed draft of the right to keep and bear arms of the BILL of RIGHTS (17 TH of 20 amendments) on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library Santa Ana, California.
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted as clearly the original draft is written as a collective right....no......
Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words and our founding fathers unanimously rejected the collective rights inference and instead AFFIRMED THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE INDIDIVUDAL RIGHT. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.
http : //www . wemett . net/2nd_amendment_(original_draft) . html
Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti gun nutters like ellen always have.
They always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.
See the anti gunnuts always claim the individual is armed because of the existence of the militia, but that can only be true if the militia existed PRIOR to the armed individual....
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So since guns were invented in their basic form in China in the 12th centruy, please demonstrate where the Militia identified in USC 10 311 existed in the 12th centruy, NO....
Did the individuals being armed exist PRIOR to the USC 10 311...YEAH THEY DID....just as they existed prior to the ratification of the BOR in 1792.
The anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist without the individual right first existing, DOOOHH!
Getting rather tired of hearing the repeated lie that no right is absolute, when in fact the exercise of any right by a law-abiding citizen is indeed absolute.
What the fear mongering anti gunnutters cant discern is that it is the ABUSE of the right that is constitutionally restricted!
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Scalia's statement is what is called a DICTA! One would think someone with an inferred expertise in the law would know this, why doesnt ellen eh....typikal!
http : //www . lectlaw . com/def/d047 . htm
The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge's editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.
Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case.
"Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.
As one judge said, 'If general dicta in cases turning on special circumstances are to be considered as establishing the law, nothing is yet settled, or can be long settled.
"What I have said or written, out of the case trying, or shall say or write, under such circumstances, maybe taken as my opinion at the time, without argument or full consideration; but I will never consider myself bound by it when the point is fairly trying and fully argued and considered. "
And I protest against any person considering such obiter dicta as my deliberate opinion.'
And another said it is 'great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions.'"
From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333.
So all those private citizens who had frigates and field artillery batteries and such during all the wars from the revolutioanry war to the spanish american war in the 1890's were criminals, do tell!
For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
Oh wait, that is no longer elevent, as all 50 states have concealed carry now...
Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26
Reading this exact excerpt from the Heller ruling, dont see any mention or claim that additional laws were constitutional, or that additional laws were consitutional upon the law abiding, or any confiscations much less a limitation on the common use firearms in existance which this ruling did not in fact repeal Miller VS US 1939 which established the two pronged test for what is an acceptable fireamr, and geez, semi-auto weapons in common use for over 100 years are indeed qualified.
Oh darn, that footnote #26 states what?
And I quote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive”
Examples, of restrictions upon the abuse of a right, hmmm, not specific, not ruled upon, not qualified or ruled as constitutional against the lawful exercise of a right....
But hey, FEEL FREE TO POST ALL THE GUN CONTROL LAWS YOU INFER WERE MADE CONSTITUTIONAL IN HELLER AS THEY WILL BE IDENTIFIED BY PROPER NAME AND NUMERIC REFERENCE IN THE SUMMARY, here is the link sweety, point out where your claim isnt a lie, we are waiting ellen...
http : //www . law . cornell . edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO . html
Re: "According to the Pew Research Center, “[l]arge majorities in both [political] parties continue to favor...background checks for private gun sales"
These polls where large numbers of people support background checks ask questions like “Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gunbuyers “? That is not the same question that is relevant with regard to the laws that are actually proposed like the federal gun legislation that failed to pass the US Senate in 2013. The relevant poll question in that case would have been “do you support or oppose US Senate Bill 649 or any of its amendments”? Read the bill (SB-649) and the amendments. The title of the bill is word doctored to be innocuous but the devil is in the details and what was being proposed as part of the background check process was a litany of vague, abstruse and onerous restrictions on friends and family members that could trip them up and subject them to intimidation and entrapment by overzealous and unscrupulous authorities who are aligned with an anti-gun agenda. In addition, the hastily written Toomey amendment was worded in such a way that existing gun laws that currently protect gun owners (like a prohibiting a registry) could be circumvented by the President simply having the BATF report to DHS instead of the Attorney General.
If the totality of what is really desired is universal background checks, the answer is simple and easy - give anyone free, anonymous, public access to the federal NICS background check database of persons prohibited from owning firearms and then tell private sellers if you sell or give a firearm to someone and don’t retain a piece of paper that documents you did a favorable NICS check on the buyer, you could be held liable if they commit a gun-related crime. There is no reason to get the government involved any further in the process unless you have other goals in mind like a federal registry of all firearms.
Last but not least, is that ellen infers gun control of only the law abiding reduces violence by the criminals, and she provides claims and assertions but no proper proof, why is that...oh thats right, emotional word salad is what those pushing an agenda based on a lie do.
See ellen nor any other anti gun supporter in the world, can post ANY countries violent crime data from the year before they implemented strict gun control, to todays date and demonstrate a reduction based only on gun control of the law abiding
Then since the US govt. data show that 97.3% of all killings by illegal use of a gun are committed by career crimnals, felons, gang bangers, suiciders, crazies, domestic violence abusers, and illegal aliens who werent lawful gun owners to begin with, why is it that ellen supports unconstitutional laws that only persecute the law abiding...
Oh thats right, ellen isnt interested in the actual facts, ellen is just concerned with disarming the law abiding as every single talking point she copied and plagarized above are straight from the Brady Center play book on anti gun propoganda talking points, so noted
U.S. unemployment reached 25% during the Great Depression. Did the 25% unemployed pay for the guns, tanks, bombers, etc. American soldiers used in WWII? America’s greatest generation had shared sacrifice.
A 70% estate tax (on the top .01% incomes) could perhaps, depending on the state, fund a “personal safety” gun federal tax deduction (one per household every ten years) or expanded police protection.
Gun-owners have an estimated $150 billion of firearms, a cost easily exceeding the $50 billion total construction cost of all active U.S. aircraft carriers. While U.S. unemployment runs considerably below 25%, nearly forty percent of U.S. full time workers earn less than $20,000 annually.
All we really care about is that our loved ones end the day the same way they began it. Shared sacrifice perhaps separates a great generation from the rest.