The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 17, 2009, 07:31 PM   #76
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
A closer look and a touch of a price barrier to the causal purchaser.

Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned? Is there a continuum or no.
It sounds like a good compromise and a worthy goal. We seek to get the '86 ban lifted and the '34 rules remain in place. That way we can bring on board those who are concerned that FA weapons may fall into the wrong hands.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old February 18, 2009, 06:39 AM   #77
longrifles, Inc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2009
Location: Sturgis, South Dakota
Posts: 152
I've said this a number of different ways now on various forums when subjects like this pop up.


We all listened to politicians rally around the cause with catch phrases during the aftermath of 9-11-2001 as they described America and its citizens as "hard working, patriotic, dedicated, honorable, moral, family loving, yada, yada, yada. . ."

A dark plume from the odor of eagle **** and apple pie lingered over DC for weeks as they went on and on about it like a Sunday morning evangelist.

But yet we can't buy a machine gun or any other destructive device the way we buy cigarettes and booze because we aren't trustworthy. (***??) Since the government thrives on statistics lets compare tobacco, alcohol, and firearms deaths and see where that leads us.

Kind of a mixed message I think.

There are so many laws on the books for dealing with criminals already, why the redundant math? Life in prison vs 140 year sentence is still life unless your Jesus or a superhero and I feel pretty good about saying neither of the two are going to be doing liquor store hold ups with an illegally modified Uzi anytime soon.

These people (elected officials) that perpetuate this crap are windsocks and opportunists. They need to be shown the door.

Know why silencers became a controlled item? It was right after the depression and "they" were worried about people poaching. That's how it was sold folks and now you are taxed an additional $200 bucks and fingerprinted for the privilege. Name another amendment dealing with personal rights subject to taxation and fingerprints?

All this just so you don't go bugging the neighbors or needing to wear ear plugs when you shoot your gun.

I think these kinds of laws go against the very grain on which this country was founded and they should be abolished.

Last edited by longrifles, Inc; February 18, 2009 at 06:45 AM.
longrifles, Inc is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 08:55 AM   #78
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Or do we remember my suggestion that we sell anthrax at the gun show - why should that be banned?
If you can obtain anthrax bacteria elsewhere, why a particular concern involved in obtaining it at a gunshow?

Quote:
WildimbummedAlaska
No one wants that!

Quote:
really...so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?
MS13 is a continuing criminal enterprise, so its member is arguably excluded from the law abiding population even if not yet arrested. Presumably, you would have a "problem" selling that sort of person a single shot rifle, so the question doesn't bear particularly on the FA issue.

Your question goes to whether you regard ownership and possession of arms as a right, or whether is a privilege only to be extended to the sort of people you like. If it is the latter, your analytical framework is precisely the same as Sarah Brady's, but your conclusion is more liberal and less restrictive.

I have "problems" with the way some people use their right to vote, but I wouldn't consider abridging the right for that reason a good exercise of law.


Longrifles, I am not personally invested in the full-auto issue (I just do not find them interesting), but I have a more visceral reaction to taxing or prohibiting sound suppression units. Hearing loss is a real danger; shouldn't a safety nanny mandate that all new arms be sold with a safety lock AND suppressor?

Last edited by zukiphile; February 18, 2009 at 09:30 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 02:22 PM   #79
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by alloy
a member of MS13 is most likely viewed similar to an OMG member by the feds where simple membership gives that person a different legal status than either A or B above, as they try to apply rico...rendering the actions of a Cali member, to a criminal organization, which renders a member in Conn guilty by association.
Are you saying that by merely being a member of MS13 puts you in the same category as a convicted felon? No trial or conviction needed just association? Does the FBI enter MS13 members who have not been convicted of a crime into NICS and therefore prohibit them from legally buying firearms? Doesn't seem constitutional to my laymen's mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
So if you think there is some line - where should it be? Full auto seems to be a reasonable bright line for some. No way - or - should it be a bright line that has some allowed - like Socrates.
So where is the line? I don't think too many have answered that one.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 02:30 PM   #80
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
MS13 is a continuing criminal enterprise, so its member is arguably excluded from the law abiding population even if not yet arrested. Presumably, you would have a "problem" selling that sort of person a single shot rifle, so the question doesn't bear particularly on the FA issue.
So associations count?

WildanswercarefullyAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 02:42 PM   #81
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
It is what it is...but to not speculate on my part Tennessee Gentleman....

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/gangtecc/
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 02:44 PM   #82
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Today MS13, tomorrow, GOA!

WildipsofactoAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 02:46 PM   #83
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
and... http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/ngic/violent_gangs.htm
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 06:43 PM   #84
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
alloy,

Maybe I am not reading this well but I see nothing in either of those links that say mere membership in any gang makes it illegal for those members to purchase firearms or lose any other civil rights. Maybe you could quote where it says that. I know that LE Agencies target gangs but until they break the law they are not felons and can legally buy firearms if they are old enough.

So, back to Ken's original question:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildalaska
so you would have no problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?
since we have not shown that mere membership in MS13 is a disqualifier to legally purchasing firearms.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 07:31 PM   #85
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
are you asking if gang membership makes it illegal to purchase a gun? i wouldn't know. will it stop a purchase on a background check? i wouldnt know that either. would the atf know that a person is a member, simply because they keep files on members, and yet allow the sale to go thru is something i couldnt answer, i have never had a seat behind the mans computer, or seen how info is collated or used internally by a government agency like the atf. maybe they will let the sale of ma duece go right on thru even someone is on file as a member. are you suspecting that they will?
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 08:18 PM   #86
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Stop spinning and answer the question:

Would you have any problems with a law abiding (ie never been arrested) member of MS13 walking into Joes Guns and walking out with Ma Deuce and 1000 rounds on links?

WildsimplequestionAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 08:29 PM   #87
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
The cost of freedom. So what? If they want machine guns, they are going to get them from somewhere.
Quote:
Are you saying that by merely being a member of MS13 puts you in the same category as a convicted felon? No trial or conviction needed just association? Does the FBI enter MS13 members who have not been convicted of a crime into NICS and therefore prohibit them from legally buying firearms? Doesn't seem constitutional to my laymen's mind.
This is a typical strawman that is used by the Brady Bunch, and their ilk, to limit our freedoms. This is how we start down the slope...

And, since I'm not likely to be one of their targets, I want to be able to walk in, buy a Barett and a Ma Duece, and, have it set up ready if they do come a calling.

During the Rodney King riots, the LAPD and Fire pulled out, and left people to their own devices. The rich folks setup blockades around their neighborhoods and used armed guards to limit access to the areas. In such situations, I'd love to be able to bring out a Ma Duece to stop a caravan of cars from entering a blockaded area.

Last edited by Socrates; February 18, 2009 at 08:34 PM.
Socrates is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 08:37 PM   #88
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
there you go again calling law abiding, and never been arrested the same thing. where i live, law abiding means you dont break the law. never been arrested means you either havent been caught or you dont break the law. i really dont think being arrested is even a consideration, i thought it was the actual CONVICTION that was the criteria. misdemeaner convictions with applicable sentences(that have or havent been applied) or...a felonious conviction. you seem to think folks that havent been caught, equal folks that abide by the law and to top it off, members of known criminal organizations somehow belong to both groups or either or neither, depending on which way the wind blows.

if it would be best, we can all go around picking and choosing who does, and doesnt get a gun based on what ifs and hunches and personal preference if you think we should.

learn the difference, and ill stop spinning. but the answer is: law abiding, means LAW ABIDING. so its fine with me, sell it to him. he is law abiding, right? so whats the worry? he has broke no laws in the past and has no intention to break any in the future*. but its your hypothetical person, his hypothetical moral status, and hypothetical machine gun, not mine, and its all based on his hypothetical intentions(based on association), right? and like every other customer that buys a firearm from Joe tomorrow...his paperwork is all in order.
*law abiding.

you see...this is your moral dilemma as a purveyor of fine instruments of precision, not mine to worry about. if not selling to someone in particular makes you feel better, go for it. if you dont want to sell him a barrett, ok. my worry is that you might eventually want to carry the safety net over to others that dont fit a mold, or the gun just isnt right, once the FA option is off the table. who, or what...will be next position on the totem pole of the unsafe? there is always a next.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; February 18, 2009 at 10:14 PM.
alloy is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 10:13 PM   #89
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
alloy,
I think what Ken is saying is that lacking a conviction on their record a member of MS13 or any other gang can legally buy a gun. So, if all FA weapons are unrestricted (requiring only a NICS check) then such a person might walk into Walmart and buy one.

Right now it would be a bit more difficult for that to happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alloy
maybe they will let the sale of ma duece go right on thru even someone is on file as a member. are you suspecting that they will?
Under current law I think the answer is yes. I don't think NICS lists members of gangs and it is not to my knowledge a prohibited class.

Don't know for sure but I don't think many gangs have .50 M2 Machine guns. They are difficult to get even legally but would not be if the NFA were repealed. That is the issue.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 10:27 PM   #90
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
i consider it irrelevant. the pointing of the weapon is the crime to avoid and/or punish. i dont care if its a derringer in my gut, a mossberg pump from across the room, or a barrett from 1/2 mile away. and that includes a brand new post ban 2009 civilian FA squad automatic weapon. they are all the same to me, and the reduction of the right of ownership of any of them or continued prohibition, is a loss. personally i dont want one, or i would have bought one already, but i still cant make those distinctions for others who might want to own one.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 10:39 PM   #91
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,134
guilty until proven innocent

Sure, we all don't want to see obvious criminal types buying guns, but as the "law abiding" citizens we pride ourselves on being, we must follow the law.

And the law says, not prohibited unless convicted. So, as to the question about the MS13 member (with no conviction), and ther M2, you might prefer to refuse the sale because of personal reasons (where legal), or because he isn't wearing a shirt, or because he doesn't have valid ID, or any number of valid legal reasons. But if they haven't been convicted, the law doesn't deny them, or us.

So, while selling to an apparent "shady" character doesn't give me a warm fuzzy, if they meet the legal requirements, who are we to judge them guilty when the law does not?

My personal feelings on the matter are that anyone who has not been convicted should be able to buy anything, without other restrictions. If/when they commit a crime (with the weapon), then they should, upon conviction, be speedily put to death. For aggravated circumstances, a painful, slow death.

But that is not the law of our land. So, until I am King, I am going to follow what is the law, even if I disagree or are uncomfortable with parts of it.

Doesn't mean I'm not going to try and get the existing law changed, if I can. But until changed, we are stuck with what we have.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 10:40 PM   #92
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Well, if the NFA went away I think it might become relevant. Nevertheless, I repeat Ken's & Glenn's question: Where would you draw the line? At what point would you say certain types of arms should be regulated or banned?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old February 18, 2009, 10:49 PM   #93
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
respectfully, i already answered that many posts ago. the toothpaste is out of the tube and regulations should allow legit civilians to possess a weaponry to adequately put down the threat, be it MS13 or an invading XYZ. whatever the writers saw as the intended scope of protected civilian weaponry...having been thru a revolution...i am confident that they meant weapons at least equal to the threat. otherwise they meant toothpicks and lead pipes. FA is in the hands of whomever you choose to example, and that was not my doing...it was a step by step, forseeable, logical progression of their intent. but my right to protect or bear(if its truely a right...as opposed to priviledge)...has to equal the aggression its designed to counteract or it is nothing. i believe this was particularily fresh in the founders thoughts.
now the courts can, and have, and will, decide something differently and tell me that i am wrong and i have no problem with the law of the land....it will change frequently to and fro, but to me thats just legal wrangling down the slippery slope away from the intent, and i dont have to vote for it, or approve. only compliance is mandatory.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; February 18, 2009 at 11:29 PM.
alloy is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 07:46 AM   #94
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
frankly...the fact that a rancher in laredo cant get a new operable weapon and some training for a reasonable cost, seems slightly less than adequate, unless we are to assume los zetas is becoming pacifistic or the government has it all firmly under control. yes, i would give him a SAW if my vote had that power.
in all seriousness tho...enjoy the day deciding his hypothetical fate, the ice has melted and so its back to chucky cheese for some more greasy fries!
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 11:04 AM   #95
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,550
Is the brightline something like when the offensive, mass casuality utility of the weapon exceeds the reasonable scenario defensive capability of the weapon? Is this a view you accept or are all weapons acceptable.

So, I see myself as a reasonable person being well served by up to and including my semi-auto AR. I don't see a reasonable probability of needing the M2 for defensive use - although it would be fun to have (couldn't afford to run it). So if I have such - then its ease of purchase would be restricted under the NFA rules with an altered provision for new manufacture or post '86 (is that the right year) guns.

I do, as I said above and some like Ken have argued, see a higher probability that easy access to fully auto weapons will lead to a short time to crime period before they show up in gang killings and rampages.

Thus, the semiauto AR-ish bright line. Note this is accepting that 'rights' are subject to limitations. We accept such on other rights. The right to publish kiddie **** made with real kids is not accepted, etc. If you are absolutist on the word 'arms' - then Colt should sell anthrax sprayers at the gun show?

You have limits or you don't.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 12:18 PM   #96
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
You have limits or you don't.
Glenn, this doesn't seem an apt summary of the issue.

If the limit placed on a right is not articulated, reasoned and plausible, it is fair to question whether the limitation is principled.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 01:16 PM   #97
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
If the limit placed on a right is not articulated, reasoned and plausible, it is fair to question whether the limitation is principled.
Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?

WildgoodcommentglennAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 01:50 PM   #98
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,610
Quote:
Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms ...
That is an interesting construction. Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?

Quote:
Are you contending that the curtailment of the purported right to keep and bear arms is not a limitation that is reasoned, plausible and articulated?
I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.

Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. We know that the services also use semi-automatic weapons.

Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.

But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.


If the limitation you propose reduces to I would prefer the right not be extended to someone because I have no confidence they would exercise it prudently, then you have not described a principled limitation on a right, and have treated it not as a right, but a privilege to be extended politically to those who can muster the votes. In that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.
zukiphile is offline  
Old February 19, 2009, 02:14 PM   #99
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
If the limitation you propose reduces to I would prefer the right not be extended to someone because I have no confidence they would exercise it prudently, then you have not described a principled limitation on a right, and have treated it not as a right, but a privilege to be extended politically to those who can muster the votes.
I can't wait to see what bit of logic and reason is used to try and refute this brilliant statement.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is online now  
Old February 19, 2009, 02:35 PM   #100
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Did you include the word "purported" because you do not believe the 2d Am. descibes a right?
Fair question, but you are not considering the context of the discussion. If you do so, the question need not be asked and is irrelevant anyway to the issue at hand.

Quote:
I am observing that not every proposed curtailment, infringement, abrogation or abridgement is based on an articulated, reasoned and plausible principle.
Thats begs the issue of what we are discussing.

Focus in terms of the NFA.

But to address your points:

Quote:
Military weapons are full auto, and I don't trust civilians to have military weapons is not a principled objection to civilian possession of FA rifles. .
really? Military members receive training and a background check. Thier use of such arms is strictly controlled. They are not entitled to possess said arms except in course of their official duties. Therefore, unless civilians have the same restraints, that objection is principled

Quote:
Civilians shouldn't have FA arms because in a civilian circumstance one is responsible for where each round lands can't be reconciled with civilian possession of shotguns, or with the fact that a fully automatic firing mechanism doesn't rob an arm of it ability to be aimed.
LOL. Surely you are not contending that a belt fed is less lethal than a shotgun are you? Somehow I don't recall massed remington 870s on the Somme instead of Maxim 08s.

In point of fact, the increased lethality of the FA weapon makes an objection to same reasonable.

Quote:
But someone I don't like might try to buy one is not a basis for principled restriction of FA arms, since we aren't happy when someone we dislike obtains any kind of weapon.
Reductio ad absurdum

Quote:
n that respect, the analysis does not differ from Brady's, even where the conclusion does.
I hereby set forth the new construct of Godwins Law, to be herein called WAs Rule of Gun Board Debate:

"As a gunboard politics discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Brady approaches one"

Reductio ad Brady. You lose.

WildsoemoneneedstogetmeintowikpediasoihavesomelegacyAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14910 seconds with 7 queries