The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 29, 2018, 11:34 AM   #26
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
Combine these two concepts with a thorough but reasonable vetting process, and you have the makings of a straightforward, effective system for keeping the most lethal class of weapons out of the hands of bad actors, while simultaneously lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.
There are just so many things wrong with just this statement, let alone the rest of his writings.

"thorough and reasonable vetting process"???
Not with our government involved.

Nothing our government gets involved with stays "simple, thorough, straightforward, or reasonable, if it even was to begin with.

Quote:
lifting the burden of arbitrary weapon bans and federal red tape from law-abiding gun owners.
this is the icing on the cake, and the cherry on top. Adding another layer of arbitrary weapons bans and federal red tape on law abiding gun owners does not lift any burden from us. Quite the opposite.

All I'm seeing here is someone telling me that if I put on his handcuffs (and blindfold) then (and only then) will I truly be free...

I'm not getting in his van, nor handing him that roll of duct tape, either...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 12:01 PM   #27
Danoobie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 27, 2017
Posts: 351
Another big issue here is the segment of the market semi-auto entails. Any legislation
to that effect includes, to say the very least, the lion's share of the market, solely thru
the mention of this one design feature.
Danoobie is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 12:25 PM   #28
stonewall50
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 14, 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...license-218072



This is an interesting piece that attempts to bridge the gaps between both sides of the debate. It proposes a Federal license for semis as follows:







It has features that might seem problematic to both sides and gives a pro and con view from both side.



It is interesting to discuss. I strongly caution to discuss it rationally and without just posting a single line of cliches, insults or rants. If you want to post, let's have some legit analyses.


When one can easily pass the license...what relevance does it have? The parkland shooter was reported how many times? The issue isn’t with gun control. The left (or rather authoritarian view because sadly there are some nincompoops on the right who agree with them) will keep screeching about how we need gun control. They will talk about how we can’t own “nuclear weapons” as if it makes a difference. They will keep pushing the agenda farther demanding more and more. And just like the Clinton ban? It won’t be enough. It won’t stop columbines or anything else.

It reminds me of how politicians blamed the weapons and technology for the First World War. And then severely limited every nation’s standing military to prevent another major war. And it worked so well...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
stonewall50 is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 12:37 PM   #29
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
It is interesting to discuss. I strongly caution to discuss it rationally and without just posting a single line of cliches, insults or rants. If you want to post, let's have some legit analyses.
Glenn, I understand your motive in posting the above but ... what if the concept proposed is (as has been comprehensively discussed already) fundamentally so flawed that it's not worthy of serious discussion, only of ridicule and derision? I think Spats dissected it rather thoroughly and I greatly appreciate his insights from a legal perspective. That said, ultimately I didn't truly need the legal analysis to grasp that the proposal is ... to be kind ... nuts. You don't want cliches, but most of the cliches were made just for proposals like this.
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old April 29, 2018, 01:18 PM   #30
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Even if adopted and sponsored 'as is' in Congress, what he proposes, vs. what is likely to pass, are likely 2 very different things.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 01:56 PM   #31
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
I don’t doubt the author is well-meaning. I think the basic problem is he assumes the people driving the gun control debate are well-meaning but poorly informed. I think that is probably the majority of support for gun control; but I don’t think they are the ones driving gun control policy.

I believe the people driving gun control policy will never be satisfied and their core support is unlikely to inform themselves better. So, I don’t see this as a workable solution. It just adds a new restriction and since it won’t prevent another tragedy, we’ll be right back at having our rights narrowed in short order.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 02:24 PM   #32
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 6,285
Quote:
I don’t doubt the author is well-meaning. I think the basic problem is he assumes the people driving the gun control debate are well-meaning but poorly informed. I think that is probably the majority of support for gun control; but I don’t think they are the ones driving gun control policy.
Good point. The author is showing how poorly informed he is. The issue is not and never has been the ability of these weapons to shoot up innocent people. The issue is these weapons can and are used throughout the world to stop authoritarian governments. The mear free ownership and use blocks authoritarian actions. The issue is that the gun policy makers want an end of private gun ownership. That is their problem to solve. It has nothing to do with violence, shooting, etc. Those are vehicles to develop support from the masses. Look, they have Jon on board. They have many lesser educated on board.

When have you seen Bloomberg, Pelosi, Clinton when they were not surrounded by guns? If it was such a good idea, they would ban guns in congress first.

Don't misunderstand their intelligence. These are smart people. Often college and graduate school educated. They are working on a strategy with multiple levels of manipulation to control who owns guns....they are ok with guns in the hands of criminals. Look they are doing nothing about that in Chicago. Their fear is controlling the other educated gun owners who may not like some envisioned authoritarian strategies.....you know like raising gas prices in the name of green to put us in buses and save the road for those who can buy there way on it? Or maybe we need to push the suburbanites into the city to improve city tax bases?Maybe force little farms to become corporate farms to feed the people better in the capitals.
Nathan is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 02:37 PM   #33
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 4,700
"Carefully vet".? What other rights are subject to "careful vetting" ?
SIGSHR is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 03:27 PM   #34
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
Don’t forget it only takes 1 ill-willed Congressional staffer to add a “not”, “less than” or “local approval” words to subvert any legislation (that the congress doesn’t read before voting on)
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 06:58 PM   #35
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
AqB - the reason to post it as that it appeared in a fairly major modern political website and
what is the Internet except of having discussion. My caution is that the progun world might just respond with ridicule and not reasoned responses (like some we have seen here).

Too many times if a proposal has surface validity (as this may have to someone who is not in the choir), the gun world responds with rants and just ridicule.

That is not useful, even if it makes a denizen of the gun world feel "OH, BOY, WE TOLD THEM OFF"

If a legislature proposed this and your 'free state' or the Congress decided it was a good idea - might you want more that derision and cliches. Thus, discussing this particular proposal is worthwhile as we see in some of the reasoned responses. Or it is better just to have a Wayne rant?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 07:17 PM   #36
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
" Shall not be infringed" the only limits should be my bank account.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.
tony pasley is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 08:28 PM   #37
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Too many times if a proposal has surface validity (as this may have to someone who is not in the choir), the gun world responds with rants and just ridicule.

That is not useful, even if it makes a denizen of the gun world feel "OH, BOY, WE TOLD THEM OFF"

If a legislature proposed this and your 'free state' or the Congress decided it was a good idea - might you want more that derision and cliches. Thus, discussing this particular proposal is worthwhile as we see in some of the reasoned responses. Or it is better just to have a Wayne rant?
Valid points, Glenn. I dunno -- maybe I'm different from most other folks. (No, that's untrue -- I know I'm different from most other folks.) The way I might comment about such a proposal here, to other "members of the choir," is quite different from the way I would address it if writing to an elected representative to shoot holes in the proposal. In the latter instance, I would likely spend at least a couple of hours researching the history of the Second Amendment, unearthing quotations from the Founders regarding the sanctity of the RKBA, and doing my non-lawyerly best to dedge up court precedents that would (one hopes) demonstrate that this proposal does not pass constitutional muster.

I just don't have the time to do that level of research to discuss it among like-minded people. I do see the value of having someone do that, though, and that's why I appreciate comments from those who have more patience than I (especially Spats' informative post).
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old April 29, 2018, 08:55 PM   #38
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
Quote:
" Shall not be infringed" the only limits should be my bank account.
Should be. I agree. Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in anymore (if it ever was...)

Prior to 1934, the only Federal gun law decisions I am aware of had to do with whether or not (former) slaves had a legal right to arms. Turns out, they did...

In 1934, the Federal government restricted (not banned, restricted) ownership of full auto firearms, set min/max size restrictions on guns, and restricted "silencers" (any device intended to reduce the report of a firearm - whether it actually did, or not).

In 1968 the government added a huge list of new restrictions and outright prohibitions that had never existed before.

In 1986, a law that was intended to ease some of the most burdensome aspect of the 1968 law passed, but with an amendment that prohibited any new additions to the federal full auto registry. Essentially the number of full auto firearms legal for civilians to own was fixed at those the govt. already had in its registry.

Since then, every few years, the Fed government has added new gun laws and new restrictions. Background checks, assault weapon "bans", etc. Each and every time, we were told that the law would "fix" a certain problem. More recently, we're told the new law is a "needed first step".

The problem(s) we were told would be fixed by these laws have not been fixed. If you listen to the news, the problems have gotten WORSE!!!

Now here is a proposal for yet another law, to fix the same unfixed problems.

a popular saying these days is..
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.

People, we are THERE, now. Proposing yet another law, with the (at least implied) promise it will fix things isn't just foolish, or stupid, its barking CRAZY!!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 09:58 PM   #39
riffraff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 21, 2016
Posts: 629
Quote from the article:


"There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license"


My issue - personally I'd trust the state of NH I know and love today to come up with a fair reasonable way to do this. The federal government? I do not trust them to perform this task - look at how they implement NICS appeals for instance (complete lack of accountability and timeliness).

I also generally would be concerned this would be license to re-evaluate what constitutes a legal gun owner. That 25 year old DWI conviction you have might have been a violation and $75 fine at the time, but today it's a felony in some states barring gun ownership for life - how will the fed government treat that with such a permit?

One federal process I'm aware of is what it takes to hold a captains license (which I do not have since there's no need for me, but lots of those I fish with do). It includes judgement calls by the local CG regarding what background or health issues may disqualify a person (ie blood pressure medication even), entering a random drug testing program, as well as installments of various training requirements, paperwork, & fees to keep the license up.

My other issue is there is no end to the push for increased gun regulation - you can create such a permit that initially is designed to allow wide open gun ownership for those who meet the criteria, but that does not bar further regulations.

Compromise were made with background checks for all FFL transfers, now everyone assumes that is not up for debate, that it's a given, and they push for different restrictions - anti gun groups call this "progress" - I don't know what the end means for such people but I guarantee a widely-granted permit is not going to make them feel their work is done, they will continue to contest what guns we can own with the permit.

Maybe this guy is a hell of a gun owner and a hell of an American, but overall this idea just sounds like another half baked gun control idea. Sure potentially better than an AWB but so would a lot of things, it does not make them good ideas.

Last edited by riffraff; April 29, 2018 at 10:05 PM.
riffraff is offline  
Old April 29, 2018, 10:24 PM   #40
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
"There are a lot of important details to be worked out, like the status of pump-action and lever-action guns, or the specific requirements for getting a license and keeping it current, or due process requirements for restoring a revoked license"
I think there are more than "details" to be worked out. When the proposal starts off by calling for licenses for semi-automatic firearms, and correctly defines semi-automatic firearms as those that automatically load the next round and cock the firearm for the next shot ... what details remain to be worked out regarding pump action and lever action firearms? By definition, they are not semi-automatic, so they would not be subject to the proposed licensing requirement.

You're facing a tough sell when you don't even understand what it is you're proposing. (Although it worked for Obamacare.)
Aguila Blanca is online now  
Old April 30, 2018, 03:17 AM   #41
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
Licence every semi-auto firearm huh?

How much is the licence going to be?
A dollar or two to begin and then climb to a few hundred every year?

That's the same method they used to get people to quit smoking.

The health scare part didn't work, so, they just raised the prices until people said "enough is enough, I give up".
Hal is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 07:28 AM   #42
turkeestalker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
More recently, we’re told that the new law is a “needed first step”.
That’s true.
First step toward what end?
Maybe what it would take is for those doing the telling to answer that question honestly, (though I don’t see that ever happening or really even working), for everyone in our ranks to realize what is at truly stake.

The goal Is not reasonable regulation, nor is it compromise in anyway shape or form.
It is complete disarmament of law abiding citizens, and they aren’t the problem that said law is the first step toward fixing.

Enough is enough.
If we wish for our children and grandchildren live under the blanket of freedom that our flag has provided all of us, we’d better wake up to just what end any proposed new law is a needed first step toward.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter!
turkeestalker is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 09:04 AM   #43
Jim Watson
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,486
And furthermore, one session of Congress cannot bind a later one.
The most "reasonable" or even favorable law is only good until the next election.
Jim Watson is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 09:46 AM   #44
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
That's a good point and even well taken for a SCOTUS decision. One might give us a positive gun spin and after a cycle of replacements, it could be overturned.

Major social issues have gone that way in decisions. Heller is a candidate for such or to be interpreted in an even more detrimental manner for some gun types.

The real battle is the in the social and cultural environment such that the general populace supports a position. The courts and Congress follow.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 09:51 AM   #45
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
I agree that the no-compromise folks of both sides would make discussion difficult.
Maybe because

Quote:
In 1934, the Federal government restricted (not banned, restricted) ownership of full auto firearms, set min/max size restrictions on guns, and restricted "silencers" (any device intended to reduce the report of a firearm - whether it actually did, or not).

In 1968 the government added a huge list of new restrictions and outright prohibitions that had never existed before.

In 1986, a law that was intended to ease some of the most burdensome aspect of the 1968 law passed, but with an amendment that prohibited any new additions to the federal full auto registry. Essentially the number of full auto firearms legal for civilians to own was fixed at those the govt. already had in its registry.

Since then, every few years, the Fed government has added new gun laws and new restrictions. Background checks, assault weapon "bans", etc. Each and every time, we were told that the law would "fix" a certain problem. More recently, we're told the new law is a "needed first step".

The problem(s) we were told would be fixed by these laws have not been fixed. If you listen to the news, the problems have gotten WORSE!!!

Now here is a proposal for yet another law, to fix the same unfixed problems.

a popular saying these days is..
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting a different result.
Gun owners are tired of being played like Lucy plays Charlie Brown with the football, EVERY SINGLE TIME. When will we ever learn? You can NOT negotiate with the Progressives, as today's compromise is just the starting point for tomorrow's ..... a Long March into giving up what were ostensibly "Inalienable Rights". I don't know who this "Jon Stokes" and don't care, as I'm done talking to people that use words like "reasonable first steps" and "sensible compromise". I'll save my breath for people willing to discuss what they are offering to do to expand rights of gun owners...... I'll start there..... until then, forget it.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 10:12 AM   #46
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
I can't believe anyone here would seriously consider such a license.
Ha! Gun Rights, to some people, means "Anything that doesn't curtail what I'm doing right now is Okey-Dokey."

"Do it to Julia!" indeed. Such people are worse, in my book, than the useful idiots on the other side that honestly just want to "do it for the Children!" ......
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 10:21 AM   #47
jimbob86
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 8,722
Quote:
What I'm hoping for is an overreach; pass some draconian law, and gun owners collectively give the government the middle finger. It should end in a standoff, and *everybody* loses respect for laws in general.
You are hoping for Anarchy? Be careful what you wish for.......
jimbob86 is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 10:25 AM   #48
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 241
The basic problem with this proposal is the same basic problem with all new proposed gun laws, and that is that laws only affect law abiding people, and they are not the problem.

The problem lies with bad people; evil people, sick people, drug dealers, gangs, criminals, terrorists, robbers, rapists, etc. This proposal has no effect on these people. Everyone seems to believe that reducing the availability of guns will reduce crime while ignoring the fact that there are over 300 million guns already in circulation in the USA. Bad people have always had guns and will always be able to obtain them, the vast majority of which are already illegal. The proposal fails to address how to keep guns from falling into wrong hands.

There are a lot of other aspects to the proposal that make its implementation impractical as others here have noted, but at its core it simply fails to address the root causes of violence, and fails to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. We are not made safer by restricting gun ownership among good people while leaving the bad people fully armed - in fact just the opposite.

If you want to reduce "gun violence", go to where the violence is. The majority of murders committed with guns take place in America's inner cities. This is a good place to start, with a focus on removing weapons from bad hands, perhaps through more severe punishment when caught with an illegal gun. Education and social programs just don't seem to work with evil people. Likewise a focus on identifying and providing help for sick and suicidal people, as well as a vigorous effort to track potential terrorists. None of this will prevent violence, but could be more effective at curbing it than restricting or disarming the good citizens.

I'm not qualified to offer a good solution, but I can sure smell a bad one.
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed.
TomNJVA is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 12:26 PM   #49
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
Quote:
The basic problem with this proposal is the same basic problem with all new proposed gun laws, and that is that laws only affect law abiding people, and they are not the problem.
On the contrary, law abiding gun owners are exactly the "problem" the banners are trying to solve. Those are the people who must be disarmed or made into criminals.
Anything they say about crime or school shootings is just a rationalization for it, and mostly a smokescreen.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth
zxcvbob is offline  
Old April 30, 2018, 01:35 PM   #50
Gary L. Griffiths
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 7, 2000
Location: AZ, WA
Posts: 1,466
Playing devil's advocate, though, the fact that only one registered machine gun has ever been used in a homicide since the 1934 NFA was passed is a powerful argument that registration works to prevent crime.

I abhor the idea, but pointing out that a registration database would be too expensive and unwieldy to establish or maintain may be a factually better argument against this notion.
__________________
Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and valorous feeling which believes that nothing is worth violence is much worse. Those who have nothing for which they are willing to fight; nothing they care about more than their own craven apathy; are miserable creatures who have no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the valor of those better than themselves. Gary L. Griffiths (Paraphrasing John Stuart Mill)
Gary L. Griffiths is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 07:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.14104 seconds with 8 queries