Are our gun rights currently being infringed?

[Sylvain]

Do you think that the current gun laws of the USA are an infringement on the gun rights stated in the second amendment of the US constitution?

Simple YES or NO answer.

Is the fact of needing the autorisation of the government to own full auto firearms, or the autorisation of the state to carry a handgun (and many other laws) an infringement on the second amendment or do you feel that some laws are needed and that doesn't make in an infringement upon the second amendment?

 

[Grizhicks]

I have no problems with the laws the way they are here in Indiana; I don't want someone under aged or with a criminal record to have/carry a firearm. -- Greg

 

[ATM]

The laws seeking to control and regulate mere possession/carry are definitely infringements.

There are already laws with varying associated penalties (to include loss of freedoms and rights) when one intrudes upon another's rights. These are sufficient. We don't need prior restraints on the 1st or pay-to play fees on the 2nd.

 

[Double T]

I believe they are, if a person is released from prison then are they less of a person? Give them back gun rights (unless they were put in for robbing at gun point, murder, rape at gunpoint...etc)

We also shouldn't have restrictions on where we can carry (except courthouses...a time to kill comes to mind)

 

[KLB]

I have no problems with the laws the way they are here in Indiana; I don't want someone under aged or with a criminal record to have/carry a firearm. -- Greg

What about the federal laws restricting what kinds of weapons you can buy?

Automatics as long as they were made before a certain date, really?

The joke of a process to get a stamp from the atf for a silencer, sbr or auto.

These infringe big time.

 

[jeremy]

I have no problems with the laws the way they are here in Indiana; I don't want someone under aged or with a criminal record to have/carry a firearm. -- Greg

And those Laws are working so well from keeping Firearms out of the Hands of Criminals...

 

[Sylvain]

And those Laws are working so well from keeping Firearms out of the Hands of Criminals...

I agree that criminals by definition dont follow the law.
But does that mean we shouldn't have any laws at all when it comes to guns?

Meaning that a 15 years old could legally buy a full auto rifle?
That someone with a criminal record could still own and carry guns?
That anyone could own a tank or hand grenades?

 

[Broom_jm]

Strictly speaking, yes...our rights are certainly being infringed. Whether or not that is being done for the "greater good" is a topic of much debate. In a perfect world, nobody would need guns and everybody would have them. In the real world, criminals will get them so law-abiding citizens DO need them. I'm glad to know we live in a place where it's still possible, if legislated.

 

[jeremy]

I agree that criminals by definition dont follow the law.
But does that mean we shouldn't have any laws at all when it comes to guns?

Personally, I think Shall Not Infringe says it all...
You want to own a F-14 Tomcat with a full payload. Go for it.

Meaning that a 15 years old could legally buy a full auto rifle?

Why should a 15 yearold not be able to purchase an FA Rifle?!

That someone with a criminal record could still own and carry guns?

I have absolutely no issue with this one either. Most persons with a Criminal Record that want to Carry still do and have very little trouble finding Weapons to purchase. Actually it might be easier for them than us...

That anyone could own a tank or hand grenades?

You can own a Tank...

The ammunition for it as well like Hand Grenades is Legal as long as you pay the DD Tax...

 

[Sylvain]

I have nothing about 15 years old with FA guns, I was just asking you.

I didn't know that grenades where legal, I will have to go to the store.

I guess that you could also say that having to pay extra taxes to own any weapon and having them registered by the goverment could also be an infringement on the 2A.

 

[ATM]

Most persons with a Criminal Record that want to Carry still do* and have very little trouble finding Weapons to purchase.

*To exclude those with a criminal record who actually abide by the laws and are thus rendered defenseless for the rest of their lives (often for a non-violent crime with no ill intent at all.)

 

[Sylvain]

You can own a Tank...

I always wanted one, I just need to save some more.
Can I drive it on the road or do I need a special permit for that, do you know?

I know you can drive a tank on the road in the UK, I already saw tanks driven by civilians there, and I find it funny knowing that they cant carry a hangun (even most cops cant ) and yet their government thinks it's safe for them to drive heavy battle tanks downtown, not that it isn't safe, but I would think that a tank is far more dangerous than a handgun so one being illegal is just silly.

 

[KLB]

I think a 15 year old should need a parent's permission to buy a firearm, nothing more.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I think a 15 year old should need a parent's permission to buy a firearm, nothing more.

This is how my father bought his first pistol (Schmaltz's in Bloomington). One had to be 16 to purchase a pistol but my father had a note from my grandfather, different times that's for sure.

You have to break it down to specific laws. Two that stick out--the NFA and the "Sporting purpose" clause of the GCA of '68.

The LTCH is arguably analogous to parade permits for the First Amendment but I would not mind abolishing the LTCH altogether.

Are there infringements? Sure but drawing the lines will take time, just like the First Amendment ligitation.

 

[PriestEG]

i hate how i cant own what i want to.. i can rapid fire nearly as fast as a FA m4, but at the same time FA guns KILL PEOPLE AND SHOULD COST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. but go to the middle east and you can trade a pack of american smokes or a small bottle of whiskey for an FA ak or what ever you might want.

 

[Sylvain]

i hate how i cant own what i want to.. i can rapid fire nearly as fast as a FA m4, but at the same time FA guns KILL PEOPLE AND SHOULD COST TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. but go to the middle east and you can trade a pack of american smokes or a small bottle of whiskey for an FA ak or what ever you might want.

I think the price of full auto guns is a clear ingringement on the 2A.

 

[PriestEG]

I think the price of full auto guns is a clear ingringement on the 2A.

heck yes it is. they have basically priced a large portion of the market out of being able to buy these

 

[kludge]

The question in your OP is different than your poll question, which is designed to elicit a particular response. Ergo I didn't vote in your slanted poll.

Bad pollster!

Yes, our rights are being infringed. NFA, GCA and the Hughes Amendment are all blatant infringements. So are the Chinese throwing star and switchblade bans in Indiana.

My feeling is that for any restriction to be constitutional, you should have to ratify a constitutional amendment to restrict or ban any class of arms. And I mean ANY, up to and including the Death Star. Banning nuclear weapons from private ownership would be a good example of a constitutional amendment that wouldn't get any noticeable resistance, yet one has never been proposed.

The problem is that we have accepted the premise that we are talking about guns and gun control as the only "arms" that the constitution protects, when really the question needs to be reframed and we need to make the talk about "arms" in general.

If you want to talk about banning all types or "arms" (like GB is trying to do with pointy objects now that guns are pretty much completely banned) and I'll start the negotiation by offering up the Death Star as a "reasonable" arms control... as long as you can get 3/4 of the states to go along with you.

The reason that anti-arms people will never try for a constitutional amendment to ban machine guns is that they know they won't get 3/4 of the states to go along with them, and the reason you won't see a constitutional amendment banning nuclear weapons from private ownership is because 1) it admits that the 2nd Amendment means exactly what it says and 2) it sets the precedent for banning less powerful and less devastating arms.

Look at the way the pro-choice people approach the subject of the right of having an abortion. People like Obama will say that if the doctor botches the abortion and the baby is born live they will vote against a measure that says the now very much legally "alive" and very much legally "human being" needs to be cared for as such.

In their mind it's a slippery slope leading to more controls on abortion. You want to ban ANY kind of abortion on a national level since Roe v Wade and you going to have to get 3/4 of the states to go along with you.

Just as we should approach any attempt to ban ANY arms.

Call me silly, but IMO we lost not just the battle, but the war when the negotiating chips became machine guns and sawed off shotguns, and now we fight over magazine bans and cosmetic features of rifles.

 

[Stschil]

Price of NFA items is not an infringements of anyones right to own them, however it is Definately driven by the moratorium because the supply of transferable ones is now set at a constant, yet the demand is static.

BTW: I vote yes. 2A has been folded, bent, mutilated and our rights are being infringed upon.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So are the Chinese throwing star and switchblade bans in Indiana.

Please support Senate Bill 006 to repeal the switchblade ban.