Biden’s Gun Policies In His Own Words

[Double Naught Spy]

This isn't TEOTWAWKI and no one has mentioned zombies (Except you) and so this is not a flight of fancy. A real sea change may be coming if (name omitted) loses and the Senate goes blue. Isn't that worth discussion now?

This isn't exactly new information, Biden's views on guns.

So what is it that you want to discuss?

I think that horse has left the barn? https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/# and then https://democrats.org/where-we-stand...-gun-violence/.

Those aren't bills proposed that AB was talking about and at best are reflection of political positions on the topic, nothing more.

You said this isn't TEOTWAWKI, so what do you want to do now? Nothing stated by Biden or the gun violence folks actionable at this point except voting. Pretty much everyone here is going to vote Republican, so that isn't much for a discussion.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

Those aren't bills proposed that AB was talking about and at best are reflection of political positions on the topic, nothing more.

So you don't think some of those are going to become bills probably signed into law? That is if (Name Omitted) is elected and we have a Blue Congress?

Originally Posted by Double Naught Spy

So what is it that you want to discuss?

Which ones might actually get passed. How will we in the gun community respond?
For instance, will you sell your AR-15 to the gubmint? Will you register it as an NFA weapon along with all your mags? Which of those proposals that are adopted (if we get the blue tsunami) will pass SCOTUS muster? How will the gubmint enforce such measures. Will there be widespread push back from our tribe? Maybe you have some good questions too.

Me thinks with the election and the recent NRA follies that the winds they are a changing. Maybe I'm wrong so encourage me.

Or I guess we could just wait a while longer and see. You guys call (if the mods allow it) meanwhile we could debate 9mm vs .45?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I think that horse has left the barn? https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/# and then https://democrats.org/where-we-stand...-gun-violence/.

I must have missed something. What are the bill numbers, and where can I read the text of the proposed legislation?

[Thomas Clarke]

It is always good to worry about cries to restrict the Second Amendment. It is appropriate to get excited about every effort at Gun Control. Remember that all that legislation has already passed the House and is sitting in the Senate. Even if those all are passed into law, the result will be the same. There will be immediate challenges to them. These measures will all go directly through the Federal Court system. The Supreme Court is soundly on the side of the angels here with the Second Amendment. We should be efforting at doing what we can to stop bad actors within our own ranks to ensure that we only tolerate responsible gun ownership and responsible gun usage.

[44 AMP]

It is appropriate to get excited about every effort at Gun Control.

I think its only appropriate to get excited about credible efforts at gun control. For instance, virtually every session a bill is proposed to eliminate the 2nd Amendment. it never goes anywhere never gets out of committee, never sees a floor vote. The next session it is proposed again, by the same folks for the same reason, not that they have a chance of it ever being law, but so they can tell their hardcore anti gun supporters that they tried....

Remember that all that legislation has already passed the House and is sitting in the Senate.

Also remember that whatever is not passed into law goes away with the end of the Congressional session.

Gone, done, overwith.

The same thing can be reintroduced the next session, but it has to start all over again at the beginning of the process. It does NOT pick up where it left off last session.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Thomas Clarke

The Supreme Court is soundly on the side of the angels here with the Second Amendment. We should be efforting at doing what we can to stop bad actors within our own ranks to ensure that we only tolerate responsible gun ownership and responsible gun usage.

The U S. Supreme Court barely (5-4) recognized the 2nd Amendment as a right in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. And what exactly is responsible gun ownership and usage?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

The U S. Supreme Court barely (5-4) recognized the 2nd Amendment as a right in the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. And what exactly is responsible gun ownership and usage?

Are you referring to Heller? The SCOTUS didn't "barely recognize[d] the 2nd Amendment as a right." The question wasn't whether or not the 2nd Amendment is a right, the question was whether or not the D.C. regulation that firearms in the home could not be operable was an unconstitutional infringement on the right. The decision of the SCOTUS was that the regulation was unconstitutional. On top of that -- the icing on the cake, for us -- the SCOTUS also ruled that the RKBA is an individual right rather than a collective right, and that the RKBA is not tied to service in the militia.

So Heller didn't narrowly recognize the right, Heller helped to [partially] define the extent of the right.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

So you don't think some of those are going to become bills probably signed into law?

That's the issue I see.

Bad ideas may manifest themselves most concretely in state power, but they are born much earlier and are provided an on-ramp into the law by the people who propose that they should be laws. It isn't merely speculation to foresee that a fellow who runs for office saying he will have government do "X", and is elected by people who want government to do "X", may get the votes to make "X" into law.

Red Flag Laws and Universal Background Checks were bad ideas before they were bad laws, and even people here don't always see why those might be bad ideas initially.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blance

On top of that -- the icing on the cake, for us -- the SCOTUS also ruled that the RKBA is an individual right rather than a collective right, and that the RKBA is not tied to service in the militia.

I don't know how it can still surprise me that some people don't see this recognition of an individual right as a big deal. The other, pre-Heller, position was that the 2d Am. was the constitutional equivalent of an appendix, and the country needed an appendectomy.

I'd like to see Heller re-affirmed 9-0.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Are you referring to Heller? The SCOTUS didn't "barely recognize[d] the 2nd Amendment as a right." The question wasn't whether or not the 2nd Amendment is a right, the question was whether or not the D.C. regulation that firearms in the home could not be operable was an unconstitutional infringement on the right. The decision of the SCOTUS was that the regulation was unconstitutional. On top of that -- the icing on the cake, for us -- the SCOTUS also ruled that the RKBA is an individual right rather than a collective right, and that the RKBA is not tied to service in the militia.

So Heller didn't narrowly recognize the right, Heller helped to [partially] define the extent of the right.

Ok. The ruling said you could have an operable firearm in your house and that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. If those two things weren't in effect, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be too much of a right.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I don't know how it can still surprise me that some people don't see this recognition of an individual right as a big deal. The other, pre-Heller, position was that the 2d Am. was the constitutional equivalent of an appendix, and the country needed an appendectomy.

What exactly is a "collective" right? Is that just a way of saying you recognize individual rights while at the same time denying those rights?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by ATN

What exactly is a "collective" right? Is that just a way of saying you recognize individual rights while at the same time denying those rights?

Since I share your conclusion in response to the latter question, I may not be the ideal source on the former question.

I'd say that the argument for a right that I don't have to assert against the state isn't a right as the term is used in constitutional law. The idea of a "collective right" to freedom of speech, religion, travel, marriage, freedom from unreasonable searches or seizures, or a "collective right" to vote wouldn't pass a laugh test.

That some people have public policy positions and goals to which the Commerce Clause and the 1st, 2d, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments are an obstacle shouldn't reduce those parts of our laws to roadkill left on our journey through history.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ATN082268

What exactly is a "collective" right? Is that just a way of saying you recognize individual rights while at the same time denying those rights?

A collective right is a right that you enjoy as long as you are acting as part of and on behalf of the populace, rather than acting as an individual for your own benefit.

As an example, I'll use the state constitution analogs to the Second Amendment:

Pennsylvania:

Article I, Section 21.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

So Pennsylvania guarantees citizens the right to bear arms for individual, personal self-defense.


Massachusetts (1780 version):

Part 1, Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

That language in the Massachusetts state constitution apparently has not been revised since it was adopted in 1780. It is noteworthy because, unlike the state constitutions of Pennsylvania and several of the other 13 original colonies/states, it guarantees the right to keep and bear arms only for the common defense. (At least one of the others says "for the defense of the state.") This is a "collective" right -- you don't count as an individual, but you are allowed to protect society as a whole.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

What are the bill numbers, and where can I read the text of the proposed legislation?

With a blue House and Senate and POTUS please review my earlier statement about the barn door.

However, that's your call to not think about it until it is reality because if the blue tsunami that's predicted happens then your reality will be there right quick.

However, as a board policy maybe others should be allowed to discuss? Curious what the other mods think. Anyway, it sometimes kinda dead in here so couldn't we use the mental exercise? It doesn't HAVE to be 2008.

[Aguila Blanca]

If we see the blue tsunami the media are trying to generate, whether or not we discuss anything here won't matter because we'll be powerless to prevent it. (Whatever "it" is.) I've found that the verbiage of actual bills (proposed laws) is often different from what the legislators involved promoted in their campaign verbiage, which is why I prefer to wait until there is actual legislation proposed. Then we have something concrete to which we can respond.

Unless, of course, the proposed bill is so long and confusing that "We'll just have to pass it to see what's in it."

[Mike38]

Rangerrich99 wrote:
You're trying to be specific for some reason.

The reason I'm trying to be specific is because I'm growing tired of the misinformation on the internet, especially this forum, on Illinois gun laws.

While Illinois is certainty not the most gun friendly state, it's not as bad as most people believe it to be. Chicago, yes, it absolutely sucks, outside the city limits it's not that bad. Chicago doesn't cover the entire state. It's 234 square miles and less than 40% of the population, compared to 58,000 square miles of the rest of the state.

Just for fun, I think I'll go clean my dozens of 30 round magazines that most people outside of Illinois think I can't own. I can, they are perfectly legal.

[raimius]

I always thought the concept of a collective right was awkward. It is a right that the group possesses, but no member of the group can assert.

If no one in the group can claim the right, how can the group claim it? Groups are collections of individuals. You cannot seriously claim the public has freedom of speech, if none of the people that make up "the public" has freedom of speech.

[ATN082268]

Originally Posted by raimius

I always thought the concept of a collective right was awkward. It is a right that the group possesses, but no member of the group can assert.

If no one in the group can claim the right, how can the group claim it? Groups are collections of individuals. You cannot seriously claim the public has freedom of speech, if none of the people that make up "the public" has freedom of speech.

Is there any historical evidence to support the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are group rights? Also, isn't it illogical to claim the 1st Amendment is an individual right but the 2nd Amendment is a group right?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ATN082258

Is there any historical evidence to support the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are group rights? Also, isn't it illogical to claim the 1st Amendment is an individual right but the 2nd Amendment is a group right?

On a federal level, no. And the Heller decision, as well as a 1982 Senate report on the Second Amendment and a 2004 Department of Justice report on the Second Amendment all confirm that the RKBA in the Second Amendment is an individual right.

That said, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has, in the past, ruled that their state constitution protects only a collective right. That's how they justify some of their arbitrary and draconian gun laws and, so far, nobody has challenged any of them to the point of getting them before the SCOTUS.

[44 AMP]

At the risk of derailing an otherwise interesting argument, I will again point out that the Bill of Rights grants NO rights. (and, I think, deliberately so)

It is a list of restrictions on the government action in regard to certain enumerated rights which exist as a result of the human condition, not any document made by man.

And it also contains the language that there more rights than just those enumerated in the BOR and to whom they respectively belong.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

At the risk of derailing an otherwise interesting argument, I will again point out that the Bill of Rights grants NO rights. (and, I think, deliberately so)

It is a list of restrictions on the government action in regard to certain enumerated rights which exist as a result of the human condition, not any document made by man.

I don't believe that derails the argument, but raises the issue of how we should construe constitutional language bearing on rights.

1. Do we construe language in favor of a government power? An example might be interstate commerce in which distant or aggregate effect are enough to empower the government to act.

2. Do we construe language against a government power? An example might be the establishment clause where a prohibition on Congressional establishment of a government religion develops into a sense that religiously informed expression at public events could be a problem.

The collective right theory expressed by the Heller minority appears to me to construe the language in favor of the government power. It requires a special definition of "the people" to conclude that while some kind of right must exist because it has a number and a sentence in the document, it's the only one an individual can't have. That's a sort of three card monte with the substance of the right.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I don't believe that derails the argument, but raises the issue of how we should construe constitutional language bearing on rights.

1. Do we construe language in favor of a government power? An example might be interstate commerce in which distant or aggregate effect are enough to empower the government to act.

There are many who think the Congress has gone much too far in applying the Interstate Commerce Act to things it was never intended to cover. The notion that something made, sold, purchased, and used entirely within one state could be subject to the Interstate Commerce Act because by being made, sold, bought, and used within one state it AFFECTS interstate commerce by not making it necessary for the buyer to engage in Interstate commerce is a mind bender of the first order.

2. Do we construe language against a government power? An example might be the establishment clause where a prohibition on Congressional establishment of a government religion develops into a sense that religiously informed expression at public events could be a problem.

The entire Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal government's powers. It clearly states that the powers (any and all powers, presumably) not specifically assigned to the feral [sic] government are reserved to the states, and to the People. To me, that's a strong hint that we should construe language against government (at least federal) power.

The collective right theory expressed by the Heller minority appears to me to construe the language in favor of the government power. It requires a special definition of "the people" to conclude that while some kind of right must exist because it has a number and a sentence in the document, it's the only one an individual can't have. That's a sort of three card monte with the substance of the right.

Agreed. Fortunately, that was a minority, dissenting opinion.

[pete2]

Folks, the democrat platform is to eliminate private ownership of guns...............Under a communist/socialist regime civilians do not legally own firearms. Armed citizens are very hard to control. Do you think Hitler could have loaded the Jews into boxcars if they had been armed?????

[44 AMP]

.... into boxcars if they had been armed?????

Of course they could have. It would have taken more effort but considering they defeated the armed might of entire nations, I don't see a small number of armed people winning. Which is, however quite aside from the point.

We've drifted a long way from Biden's announced policies and I think we've covered the OP fairly well and tolerated a lot of thread drift, but i don't see anything further on topic to discuss.

Time to close this one, I think.