Class III unconstitutional?

[techres]

Unconstitutional. Period.

End of line.

 

[slow1911s]

totally unconstitutional!!!!!! it takes just one bullet from the smallest cal. single shot gun to kill but they dont tax me or regulate that.

BS - you pay 11% Federal Excise Tax on both the ammo and the weapon that fires it. You probably paid state sales tax on one or both. Shall I continue?

Regulating rights is a sticky wicket. The constitution outlines a right to free speech. But, you can't yell "FIRE!!!" in public place, insight a panic where people are injured or killed and expect constitutional protection.

 

[techres]

The constitution outlines a right to free speech. But, you can't yell "FIRE!!!" in public place, insight a panic where people are injured or killed and expect constitutional protection.

You have a right to your speech. The result you are also responsible for and thus in a crowded theater you may create a liability for "inducing a panic".

Owning a class III has no other result than ownership. Shooting into the air and creating a panic would be inducing panic.

Perhaps a better parallel would be if the government, concerned over your ability to create a wide spread panic, chose to license you - do backround checks and give you a pretty stamp so that you could have the ability to blog or post on the internet?

That would be a closer parallel.

 

[dburkhead]

BS - you pay 11% Federal Excise Tax on both the ammo and the weapon that fires it. You probably paid state sales tax on one or both. Shall I continue?

Regulating rights is a sticky wicket. The constitution outlines a right to free speech. But, you can't yell "FIRE!!!" in public place, insight a panic where people are injured or killed and expect constitutional protection.

In both of the examples you give they _don't_ regulate your ability to speak. Nobody gags you when you go into the theater against the possibility that you might shout "Fire" when there isn't, actually, a fire.

When it comes to all the other rights, "prior restaint" is the line which is not supposed to be crossed. Only with the 2nd has it been considered okay to regulate ownership based on what people might do.

Instead, the 2nd should be treated like the other rights: put sanctions on actual harm done, not on what people "might" do.

 

[slow1911s]

So there should be no laws or regulations regarding firearms or ammunition? We're good enough with battery, murder, manslaughter, etc.?

 

[techres]

So there should be no laws or regulations regarding firearms or ammunition?

Correct.

We're good enough with battery, murder, manslaughter, etc.?

Yes. If we did these correctly, then there would not even be a discussion of the first.

It's just that simple.

 

[slow1911s]

Correct.



Yes. If we did these correctly, then there would not even be a discussion of the first.

It's just that simple.

I pray for such a place where those things are possible.

 

[dburkhead]

I pray for such a place where those things are possible.

Don't pray for it. Make it happen.

Basically, use a weapon to commit a violent crime, they lock you up and throw the warden away. Simple, elegent, and actually effective unlike the various "gun laws" which only serve to disarm the folk who don't commit the crimes.

When it comes to reducing crime and making the streets safer for you and me and other folk (like, say, my wife) gun control doesn't work. It has never worked.

 

[slow1911s]

Don't pray for it. Make it happen.

Basically, use a weapon to commit a violent crime, they lock you up and throw the warden away. Simple, elegent, and actually effective unlike the various "gun laws" which only serve to disarm the folk who don't commit the crimes.

When it comes to reducing crime and making the streets safer for you and me and other folk (like, say, my wife) gun control doesn't work. It has never worked.

So, a felon who was convicted of a violent crim gets paroled, walks into Don's Guns, buys a [inserttypeofNFAof1934weaponhere] and then walks into your church and guns down your wife and a few other people. The guy is guilty of murder - clearly. But, you're also fine with no speed bumps or hurdles for him to purchase the weapon?

By the way, you weren't there to stop him because you were at an Appleseed Shoot and no one in the church was armed because church board chose to keep their church campus weapon free.

 

[dburkhead]

So, a felon who was convicted of a violent crim gets paroled, walks into Don's Guns, buys a [inserttypeofNFAof1934weaponhere] and then walks into your church and guns down your wife and a few other people. You're fine with the charge being murder only?

By the way, you weren't there to stop him because you were at an Appleseed Shoot and no one in the church was armed because church board chose to keep their church campus weapon free.

The problem is your first clause. If he's so likely to do something like that, why is he walking around free in the first place?

And in that case, I would make the murder a capital crime. What point, then to "add" any "gun charges"? You can only execute him once.

And if, by some freak of fate, my wife got religion and decided to start attending a church, said church being "weapons free" would be a good reason to go elsewhere. There's a reason that most of the mass shootings, and the great majority of the body count from such, has occured in "gun free" zones. When was the last time there was a mass shooting at a gun range?

As for the person being able to buy that gun, well, you might want to consider the 5th, which says in part, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" (emphasis added). It doesn't get any more "due process" than a properly executed felony conviction. So having the liberty of exercising RKBA to be restricted as the result of a felony conviction is Constitutional (where I differ from many on that is in that I don't think it's any more proper to expect the individual gun store to enforce any such restriction any more than it is the travel agent's to enforce any "do not leave the area" provisions of parole/probation terms). Oh, and before you ask who I think should be responsible for such enforcement, consider that if you can restrict exercise of 2nd Amendment rights, you can also restrict other right, like, say, 4th Amendment rights. How difficult would it be to enforce a restriction on possession of weapons when the police could search the felon, his property, and his dwelling at any time for any reason, including no reason at all?

Flip side of that, is that if we accept government restrictiong 2nd Amendment right for some nebulous "greater good," then what other rights going to get restricted for that same "greater good" and where does it stop?

 

[slow1911s]

The problem is your first clause. If he's so likely to do something like that, why is he walking around free in the first place?

He fooled the parole board.

And in that case, I would make the murder a capital crime. What point, then to "add" any "gun charges"? You can only execute him once.

He wasn't guilty of murder. He was a school bus driver, corrected a unruly student physically, couldn't afford a good lawyer and got 3yrs for assault and battery.

And if, by some freak of fate, my wife got religion and decided to start attending a church, said church being "weapons free" would be a good reason to go elsewhere.

Don't crawfish on me. She's there for whatever reason - a funeral. It's still a weapon free campus. No one there is armed.

As for the person being able to buy that gun, well, you might want to consider the 5th, which says in part, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law" (emphasis added). It doesn't get any more "due process" than a properly executed felony conviction. So having the liberty of exercising RKBA to be restricted as the result of a felony conviction is Constitutional

I thought it was said "no laws, no regulations." That's the premise. And, as long as we're making this up, I'm making up the rules - no gun laws or regulations. But, it looks like laws for certain folks are ok.

You want individual liberty, well here it is in a pretty no nonsense form. Whoever can buy whatever they want whenever they want - deal with them when when they actually commit a crime with the weapon.

 

[dburkhead]

He fooled the parole board.

Easy solution to that. Releasing a prisoner early who then goes on to commit serous crimes makes one an accessory before the fact. Now, having "reasonable cause" to believe that the person has reformed can be a defense, but like in other "affirmative defenses" (for example, an insanity plea) one has to prove the defense (the prosecution doesn't have to prove that someone pleading insanity is sane--the defense has to prove they were insane per legal standards). You'll find that parole boards get really reluctant to release folk early without really compelling evidence that the person has changed his ways.

He wasn't guilty of murder. He was a school bus driver, corrected a unruly student physically, couldn't afford a good lawyer and got 3yrs for assault and battery.

Non sequitor. Your statement was "should the only charge be murder." My response was effectively "in the case you proposed--gun downs a church full of people--murder is plenty since you can only execute him once." What he did before was not to what I was responding.

And, don't those goal posts get heavy moving them around like that? After all, is someone who's previous "crime" consisted of simply "physically correcting an unruly student" going to be that much more likely than anyone else to go postal as you described?

And would you feel better if, instead of getting a machine gun, rocket launcher, what have you, he'd gotten some common household chemicals and gassed everyone, or blown them sky high? "Louis the Fart passes gas one last time."

Don't crawfish on me. She's there for whatever reason - a funeral. It's still a weapon free campus. No one there is armed.

You see, that's the nice thing about Indiana. I, or my wife, can choose whether or not to abide by any such restriction. And if nobody there is armed, then he really doesn't need an NFA firearm to rack up a body count. Why, he could probably rack up just as high a body count in slow fire from a 1911. Maybe even higher since auto fire is notoriously inaccurate (after the first couple of rounds tends to go way high). References: Texas A&M, Luby's Cafeteria, the LIRR shooting, Virginia Tech, Columbine, etc.

Your example fails on multiple levels.

I thought it was said "no laws, no regulations." That's the premise. And, as long as we're making this up, I'm making up the rules - no gun laws or regulations. But, it looks like laws for certain folks are ok.

Do you want to make up that the sky is green too? There is a term for "making up the rules" which don't match the other side's position just so you can shoot them down. It's called a Straw Man argument and it's a logical fallacy.

You want individual liberty, well here it is in a pretty no nonsense form. Whoever can buy whatever they want whenever they want - deal with them when when they actually commit a crime with the weapon.

Ah, but part of the "deal with them when they commit a crime" is the penalties for committing the crime. And one of those penalties is the loss of that liberty. You've already postulated that a person who has been convicted of a crime can lose liberty (which is what incarceration is). I simply point out that most, if not all, of the "gun crime problem" can be dealt with using that existing mechanism, at least as well as through any other proposed mechanism, and certainly better than the track record "gun control" has.

 

[cordex]

slow1911s,

One could always make up a scenario where a law would have failed, or would have helped. Keep in mind that in your hypothetical example, the convicted felon could - under our current laws - illegally purchase a weapon to accomplish the same goals. All else being equal, the outcome would be identical.

As dburkhead has pointed out, similar or worse destruction could be wrought using noxious chemicals or fire, yet you haven't indicated support for FBI background checks and $200 taxes for bleach or matches.

It is disheartening to note how deeply the conditioning against guns goes, even among people who claim to be pro-gun.

 

[NFANut]

It is disheartening to note how deeply the conditioning against guns goes, even among people who claim to be pro-gun.

Well said.

 

[slow1911s]

Folks,

I asked if there should be no laws or regs regarding firearms. The answer was "yes." So, in I establish a hypothetical situation where someone who can't buy guns today can and then uses said gun to do harm. Murder is murder and there are clear penalties. I was trying (and failed) to ascertain whether or not having zero laws regarding firearms was a reality we were prepared for. I misunderstood. No laws means no laws for me.

Do I think gun contol laws work? No. Do we need more? No. Do we need fewer? Yes. Do I think it is a good idea to at least check and see if somone has a criminal history that might make a firearm purchase questionable? Probably. Should the Class III process be this complicated? Not any more so than standard gun purchases.

 

[dburkhead]

Folks,

I asked if there should be no laws or regs regarding firearms. The answer was "yes." So, in I establish a hypothetical situation where someone who can't buy guns today can and then uses said gun to do harm. Murder is murder and there are clear penalties. I was trying (and failed) to ascertain whether or not having zero laws regarding firearms was a reality we were prepared for. I misunderstood. No laws means no laws for me.

The question is no laws on what. Should a person be able to buy, say, a bus ticket any time they want with essentially no restrictions? I think so. There exist, however, certain classes of persons who are legally limited in their travel: people on parole/probation, people under other court orders restricting travel, fugitives, etc. Should laws be placed on the purchase of bus tickets because of these people in these classes? Of course not. Should travel agents and other folk who sell transportation tickets have to call into a government office for a background check every time somebody wants to buy a ticket out of town? Don't be absurd.

The restriction isn't on the bus ticket. It's on the individual who had the liberty restricted via "due process." That is an important distinction.

My position, for instance, has been the distinction between "prior restraint" and "penalties for harm caused." Your "example"--which was put in a reply to my post and, therefore gave at least the appearance of being directed at me and my position--fails because once a person is convicted of a violent felony it is no longer prior restraint.

Do I think gun contol laws work? No. Do we need more? No. Do we need fewer? Yes. Do I think it is a good idea to at least check and see if somone has a criminal history that might make a firearm purchase questionable? Probably. Should the Class III process be this complicated? Not any more so than standard gun purchases.

Do you recall just how recent criminal background checks for gun purchases are? The "Brady "Bill" became law back in November of 1993, a bit over 15 years ago. Before that there were no required background checks. At first it involved a five day waiting period and only applied to handguns. In 1998 the waiting period sunsetted and the background check provisions were expanded to all firearms.

In that time it has had no discernible effect on crime. None. Since it has had no effect on crime, how is it even possibly, let alone probably, a good idea?

 

[kludge]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was validated in the 1939 case of United States vs. Miller.

No, it was remanded, since there was no evidence presented that sawed off shotgun served a militia purpose, they remanded back to the state to find out. Well, the state never pursued the issue.

Interesting case, in that it concerned itself with a sawed-off side-by-side shotgun. The lawyers for the US basically argued that the Second Amendment protected only the ownership of military-type weapons, and a sawed-off shotgun was not such.

Since neither the defendants nor their lawyers were present during the Supreme Court proceedings, there was nobody to tell the judges that this was in fact not true, that short-barrelled shotguns had in fact been used by the US Army. NFA'34 was judged constitutional and remained law.

Miller was DEAD, without a paying client, what lawyer would show up?

Sometimes it seems to me like I'm the only one that sees something wrong here. This legal maneuvering is disgusting. And don't even get me started on the interstate commerce clause..

Especially since GCA1934 was never upheld.

+1 to the interstate commerce clause.

 

[kludge]

Also, the issue of machine guns came up again in Heller... If it had been answered in Miller, then why would the Justices have asked the question during Heller?

 

[slow1911s]

slow1911s,
It is disheartening to note how deeply the conditioning against guns goes, even among people who claim to be pro-gun.

Was this directed at me?

My position, for instance, has been the distinction between "prior restraint" and "penalties for harm caused." Your "example"--which was put in a reply to my post and, therefore gave at least the appearance of being directed at me and my position--fails because once a person is convicted of a violent felony it is no longer prior restraint.

Can you find any legal cites that refer to and debate prior restraint other than first ammendment? I understand the concept and your intent in this discussion, but I'm not sure you're putting up a valid legal argument, at least in terms of published law review.

In that time it has had no discernible effect on crime. None. Since it has had no effect on crime, how is it even possibly, let alone probably, a good idea?

You're exactly right. So, we go back and get rid of that - no background checks. How would Bob Cheek know that the man or woman on the other side of the counter is a convicted felon?

I want to be absolutely clear - I think all of the gun laws are bunk. Drop them now. For the responsible, law-abiding citizen they are of no value or purpose for their purchases and activities. However, I am not sure that the US is, on the whole, mature enough to deal with such a reality.

 

[VN Vet]

I was in the US Post Office this morning. They have their No Firearm Allowed notice posted. I almost wanted to call the police and have them come over to protect me and the others while we were waiting to be served. With the history of Postal Workers, I was a little concerned for my and the others safety.

Given that many gangsters can't or don't read, what are we to do when they arrive packed, loaded and ticked off? Do I recite the Laws to them? I think not. It's too late.