The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 4, 2016, 02:24 PM   #76
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
This is best addressed with a full recap....

The question was "How to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys". I have taken this to mean "How to reduce gun crime". I reject that notion as lazy politics and propose instead trying to reduce crime as a whole.
I concur. "Crime" is (or should be) the operative term in "gun crime".

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
I have explained that, IMO, achieving that aim is better done through education rather than incarceration, given the choice. I have explained why and given numbers to further support my reasoning.

The question was never how is it best to punish people. Nor can I help it if punishment is the only viable means that others can fathom or are willing to contemplate.
I believe you did raise that issue. Some of your stated opposition to incarceration is that it is a poor disincentive:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
It has some deterrent value but it is not an efficient one.
If incarceration is not an efficient deterrent, which disincentive is more efficient?

EDIT - Let me acknowledge that you supplemented your response after I opened this window, and that on the prior page you made a partial response to that last question.

It would be nice if imprisonment involved an effective therapy for turning even violent felons into productive members of society. That discussion can involve carrots and sticks, but not all sticks will be available within the american political and legal context.

Similarly we have some political limits to reform of the state educational apparatus.

Last edited by zukiphile; May 4, 2016 at 02:33 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 4, 2016, 03:37 PM   #77
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
which disincentive is more efficient?
As I've explained, IMO, educating and empowering people before they reach the stage of choosing a life of criminal behaviour so that they are less inclined to choose it.

I'd rather see crime rejected from the outset, instead of having people try to turn their backs on it once it's already pulled them in.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 4, 2016, 03:45 PM   #78
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,113
Part of this discussion also has to hinge on exactly who is "the bad guy". I argued early on that the diagnosed and non-medicated schizophrenic should not have access to a firearm. I believe that statement holds validity.

However it was pointed out as to who I am willing to accept that diagnosis from? Does a single psychiatrist have that authority. To further that question what about the individual with treated ADHD? What if the individual states "I am following the will of God" and is diagnosed as schizophrenic? While disallowing certain individuals with mental illness to own firearms seems incredibly reasonable on the face of it the implementation of doing so runs the risk of trampling individual rights.

Further who exactly is a criminal? Many of us have plead guilty to certain civil infractions such as speeding. Some of us have probably failed to renew our car plates on time. At what does the person who fails to follow every single law (which may be impossible for most of us anyways) every moment be deemed unfit to own a firearm?

I am convinced that there are people who should not be permitted to own firearms. While I can point to certain circumstances at the extremes I do have a hard time defining the line exactly.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old May 4, 2016, 03:47 PM   #79
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
Quote:
which disincentive is more efficient?
As I've explained, IMO, educating and empowering people before they reach the stage of choosing a life of criminal behaviour so that they are less inclined to choose it.

I'd rather see crime rejected from the outset, instead of having people try to turn their backs on it once it's already pulled them in.
What you've explained isn't responsive to the question.

Q: Which disincentive [to criminal behavior] is more efficient [than incarceration]?

A: I'd rather see crime rejected from the outset...


I prefer that people reject crime too. Our preference isn't a disincentive to others. That's why I re-framed the question.

If your objection to incarceration is that it isn't an efficient disincentive, but you don't see any of the other disincentives as more efficient, your objection isn't with the inefficiency of incarceration as a disincentive, but with the idea of disincentives for criminal behavior.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 4, 2016, 04:00 PM   #80
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
How is consciously rejecting something not proof of being disincentivised toward it?!

If choosing not to do something because of unpleasant consequences is being disincentivised, then so is choosing not to do it because you perceive it as unwise or undesirable.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 4, 2016, 06:01 PM   #81
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
How is consciously rejecting something not proof of being disincentivised toward it?!
Because that is not a product of a disincentive imposed by criminal law, like incarceration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
If choosing not to do something because of unpleasant consequences is being disincentivised, then so is choosing not to do it because you perceive it as unwise or undesirable.
The process of weighing the risk of incurring a disincentive, a punishment, imposed by criminal law (hanging, beheading, caning, imprisonment or a speeding ticket) is distinguishable from an internalised wisdom that leads one to prefer desirable behaviors.

You may decide that it is prudent to drive no more than 100kph, no matter what the law is or the risk of criminal penalty. I may limit my speed to 100kph only when I suspect the police are watching, because I don't want the ticket. We are clearly distinguishable.

In that scenario, speed limits and penalties for transgression aren't written to disincentivise you; they are aimed at me to get me to re-weigh the relative risks of going faster than the law allows.


Human nature means that some people will always need the prospect of a looming punishment to keep them from speeding, or robbing a bank or killing their mothers-in-law. Where you critique incarceration as an inefficient criminal sanction, it is natural to ask which criminal sanction you consider more efficient.

Wishing that people would be better isn't a criminal sanction.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 4, 2016, 06:31 PM   #82
Mainah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 9, 2007
Posts: 876
How to keep guns out of bad guys hands? You can't, not unless you want to accept big restrictions on your rights even though you may be a good guy. It's easy to support heavy government actions like stop and frisk when you don't think their outcomes will apply to you. But they will eventually apply to you.
Mainah is offline  
Old May 4, 2016, 08:51 PM   #83
RaySendero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 746
Quote:
SailingOnBy wrote:

I've been following the politics, debates and discussions of guns for a while now and have seen the extreme ends of both sides. IMO with most cases the extreme views are the ones that are holding back good, productive dialogue though.

My question is:

Trying to keep in mind what is reasonable... what does this community feel are the best (or even workable) policies to ensure 2A rights, while keeping guns out of the hands of "bad guys"? Not taking into consideration illegal gun buying/trading. Are the current laws, in your opinion working? Not effective enough? Too weak or too strong?

You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control will control "bad guys" !!!

Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"
Bad guy control is the answer to "bad guys".


Your barking up the wrong tree.
__________________
Ray
RaySendero is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 01:52 AM   #84
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
Because that is not a product of a disincentive imposed by criminal law, like incarceration.
Who says disincentives are limited to criminal law?
The dictionary didn't.
In fact, the only specific punishment referenced where the use was typically (but not exclusively) applied was of a financial nature.
Synonyms include discourage, restrain, deter, inhibit....

If you have chosen to view that word through strict parameters, then I guess that is your choice, but I am not obliged to.

Quote:
Human nature means that some people will always need the prospect of a looming punishment to keep them from speeding, or robbing a bank or killing their mothers-in-law. Where you critique incarceration as an inefficient criminal sanction, it is natural to ask which criminal sanction you consider more efficient.
I've never said that I want to ban imprisonment outright. I've never said that we should abolish it tomorrow. In fact I've already explained that some people need to be there. Why do you seek to limit it to one sanction? Since when is that an effective approach?

Yet it is the only real option we have right now and "one-size fits all" is not great, is it? It's like only having amoxicillin whether you have pneumonia, depression or a broken leg. Great for pneumonia, but not the others.
The approach I've suggested is essential completely over-looked.

And as I've said: look at the numbers.

Your question seems geared to get me to say that imprisonment is great and the only answer and is framed as a catch-all statement. As you clearly know that the world is quite varied in its inhabitants...

Perhaps you should tell me if you see the current situation as a sign of something that works well...

Perhaps you should also account for societies that have neither US levels of incarceration nor US levels of crime, if imprisonment is the only viable disincentive.

And finally, perhaps you can explain why you dismiss my suggestion. You have not explored it one jot. You've only pursued my view that imprisonment is inefficient.

I look back where this thread has gone and TBH, I've explained (and IMO, justified) my position repeatedly. It is relevant to the OP.
Now, if it is not clear by now or if you don't agree with it as a means of reducing crime, or you just don't like it, that is fine.

Frankly, I think all those who think the current system is great and actually needs to be even more severe, can rest assured:
Right now the prison system is all there is and I think my ideas are a political pipe-dream and I see prisons continuing to be used and achieving the same fabulous results we've been enjoying so far.

What I don't see is how going over all of this again and again is adding any new dimensions or clarity.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; May 5, 2016 at 03:13 AM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 02:04 AM   #85
SailingOnBy
Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2016
Location: Western Washington
Posts: 28
Quote:
You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control will control "bad guys" !!!

Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"
Bad guy control is the answer to "bad guys".

Your barking up the wrong tree.
So, what is your solution? If you could draft and pass federal and/or state legislation (including revoking current laws?) right now on this subject, what would it be?

Last edited by SailingOnBy; May 5, 2016 at 02:11 AM.
SailingOnBy is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 04:32 AM   #86
Brit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2005
Location: Orlando FL
Posts: 1,682
A good friend of mine, a past student, is a prison Officer in Ontario, Canada.

She explained to me, years ago, that there are prisoner's in the prison system, who are kept permanently drugged, and segregated.

What is the solution there?
Brit is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 05:48 AM   #87
RaySendero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2010
Location: US South
Posts: 746
Quote:
SailingOnBy asked again:

So, what is your solution? If you could draft and pass federal and/or state legislation (including revoking current laws?) right now on this subject, what would it be?
You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control.

Again - Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"

,,,
__________________
Ray
RaySendero is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 06:21 AM   #88
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,091
Returning to a question I had to leave unanswered yesterday, . . . I could not have answered it more eloquently than zukiphile already did. Accordingly, I'll simply quote him and hope for his indulgence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
Quote:
Originally Posted by SailingOnBy
Which constitutional rights have you already surrendered?
The sphere of freedom pertaining to arms has constricted over the prior century.

Prior to the NFA, one could mail order or buy from a store what ever the small arms market had to offer. Following the NFA, one needed a tolerance for paper work and money for the government stamp.

Prior to the GCA, one could buy a firearm at the hardware or department store the same way he could buy a chainsaw or a snow blower. After the the GCA that market was federalised and regulated so that a buyer could only purchase a new arm from a federal licensee.

For a decade, there were a number of products available in the rifle market that could no longer be purchased new under the AWB.

Those are the big ones, but there are a number of other state imposed restrictions like waiting periods, ammunition restrictions, state lists of approved arms and effective prohibitions (DC) and legal prohibitions (Morton Grove).

Each of these was a step in the political drive toward restriction. Except for DC and Morton Grove, each time that political process was set forth as a compromise position, a solution that would preserve a vestige of the prior freedom of behavior.

By their nature, these political compromises aren't solutions, but reflect the state of politics in the moment of their creation. Each step gets us a bit more used the idea that each new silly regulation is something to which we must adjust, and confirms a habit of adjustment to silly restrictions. In that sort of regulatory stew, people ask questions like "Why do you need X?" "Who should be allowed to have X?" as if they weren't absurd questions to pose about a constitutional right.

The sphere of freedom can become so constricted that a constitutional right can be very heavily regulated and the market quite limited so that the right itself comes to be seen as describing such a small amount of freedom that a person could know all of the above and still ask, "Which constitutional rights have you already surrendered?"
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 06:51 AM   #89
boatdoc173
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2015
Location: southern Ct
Posts: 194
I feel that the BEST way to accomplish saving our rights and reducing gun violence is 3 pronged

#1+2 clean the streets of career thugs and their money and illegal guns. The Israelis have a way of doing this. The imprison the terrorists, take their stuff and destroy their homes to show others what happens if you mess with legit citizens--in other words, a thug has NO rights at all. They get punished for being a thug--it might discourage some thugs--might not

then we need to increase security and inspections of imports into t his country--over 85% of all gun crimes are committed with black market guns smuggled into our country. Focus on intercepting those black market smuggled guns and watch the result

#3 better mental health care and much better screening and reporting of same--change the laws to allow a physician to report a potentially violent psych patient---and provide proof of their claims of course

it is not a perfect plan but it would do some good. After all 99% of us who legally own guns do nothing wring YET we are to ones who our "leaders": target not the thugs-- how bizarre. I guess the law enforcement industry lobby is stronger than ours. Otherwise going after thugs would be priority #1

JMHO
boatdoc173 is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 06:58 AM   #90
Pond, James Pond
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 5,835
Quote:
over 85% of all gun crimes are committed with black market guns smuggled into our country. Focus on intercepting those black market smuggled guns and watch the result
Can I ask where you got that information?

I can imagine it is true in Europe, but in the world's largest and least regulated (excluding the likes of Mogadishu's weapon's market) domestic firearms market?
It's a little surprising.
Where are they smuggling them from?

Quote:
You'll never find an answer to your question because your thinking that gun control.

Again - Gun control doesn't work on "bad guys"
Right or wrong tree, the fact is the anti-gun lobby are thinking in those terms and I personally think it wise to do the same and, in doing so, find alternatives to theirs.

Otherwise you're forever singing to their tune and jumping to their beat.
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Karma. Another word for revolver: because what goes around, comes around!

Last edited by Pond, James Pond; May 5, 2016 at 12:06 PM.
Pond, James Pond is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 07:20 AM   #91
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 941
An anti gun person offers a compromise:

He demands that he sleep with your wife five times a week. When you protest he complains that you need to be reasonable. Then he offers a "reasonable" and "common sense" compromise. He will only sleep with your wife twice a week. You are relieved that the demand is reduced.

That is how the sphere of freedom is diminished by the controllers.
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 07:32 AM   #92
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
I feel that the BEST way to accomplish saving our rights and reducing gun violence is 3 pronged

#1+2 clean the streets of career thugs and their money and illegal guns. The Israelis have a way of doing this. The imprison the terrorists, take their stuff and destroy their homes to show others what happens if you mess with legit citizens--in other words, a thug has NO rights at all. They get punished for being a thug--it might discourage some thugs--might not
The issue I have with this is best framed around a slippery slope argument. It is likely that many of us, through some course of action or another, are not 100% in compliance with the law often on a daily basis. What exactly constitutes being a thug? Making internet purchases that evade the payment of sales tax on an item while failing to declare that on your state income tax? Driving over the speed limit? Mailing a piece of mail without adequate postage?

When you give the government excessive authority to use punitive means against individuals you are giving them the right to use those means against more than just the individuals you intended and possible yourself in the future.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 07:35 AM   #93
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Thanks, Spats. We write on these issues here hedonically, so the best we can do is explain and explore without irritating anyone. I may not have met that goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
Who says disincentives are limited to criminal law?
The dictionary didn't.
In fact, the only specific punishment referenced where the use was typically (but not exclusively) applied was of a financial nature.
Synonyms include discourage, restrain, deter, inhibit....

If you have chosen to view that word through strict parameters, then I guess that is your choice, but I am not obliged to.
I have addressed you within the context of this thread. Where we are discussing the law surrounding a civil right and criminal transgression of the law, the disincentives involved will be criminal penalties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
I've never said that I want to ban imprisonment outright. I've never said that we should abolish it tomorrow. In fact I've already explained that some people need to be there. Why do you seek to limit it to one sanction?
I have neither accused you of seeking an immediate or complete ban of incarceration, nor sought to limit criminal disincentives to a single sanction.

I have posed questions to you based on some of your comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
The approach I've suggested is essential completely over-looked.
Where your suggestion is more state spending on education, I can assure that the option hasn't been overlooked. In fact, it has been tried for decades.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
And finally, perhaps you can explain why you dismiss my suggestion. You have not explored it one jot. You've only pursued my view that imprisonment is inefficient.
That is incorrect. At post 59 I note the differences in population vis a vis scandinavia, your offered standard, and in post 76 some of the constraints on both criiminal law and educational reform in the US.

Far from dismissing what you've written, I have sought to afford you the courtesy of scrutiny. I believe this was ATN's goal as well.

Someone who asks you what you think isn't dismissing your offered idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PJP
Your question seems geared to get me to say that imprisonment is great and the only answer and is framed as a catch-all statement.
***
What I don't see is how going over all of this again and again is adding any new dimensions or clarity.
Contrary to your stated suspicion, my questions are geared to prompt you away from simple repetition and to get your responses to specific questions about how to approach criminal penalties.

Some may see a clarity in a disinclination to answer a question directly, but you've certainly no obligation to solve the world's problems and I imagine few of us are ready to set forth a comprehensive penal strategy. As noted above, we all do this for fun.

Last edited by zukiphile; May 5, 2016 at 08:40 AM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 09:33 AM   #94
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446
The thing about that story is that the gun purchase was legal. The retailer did nothing wrong. Even if he sensed "something" was wrong a retailer who refuses to sell a gun to someone because of a feeling is eventually going to run afoul of discrimination lawsuits.
Is this true?

I was under the impression that an FFL can refuse a sale for just about any reason and in fact must refuse a sale if they have a reasonable suspicion (A feeling) that the buyer is prohibited or dangerous.

Has there ever been a discrimination suit filed against an FFL due to a refusal based on his/her feelings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446
By the way Sally's parents actually taught her about guns. She is capable enough to use one to defend herself but has simply not purchased one before now. For the sake of the story let's assume its a .38 special revolver like her grandpa taught her to use. Sally is told to come back in seven days after the required waiting period.
A solution to this scenario is rather simple in my mind.

Remove the seven day waiting period. Sally would then be afforded the tools she desired to protect herself when she felt she needed them and not after she was attacked.
steve4102 is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 09:45 AM   #95
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
Is this true?

I was under the impression that an FFL can refuse a sale for just about any reason and in fact must refuse a sale if they have a reasonable suspicion (A feeling) that the buyer is prohibited or dangerous.

Has there ever been a discrimination suit filed against an FFL due to a refusal based on his/her feelings?
I would think, even in a private business, you better have a defensible reason that does not involve any of the protected classes (race, religion, sex, etc.) If the member you decline from purchasing based on a "feeling" is a member of one of those protected classes you may find yourself at the center of a media storm at best.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 10:02 AM   #96
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,905
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-mass-shooter/

The owner of Downs Bait and Guns is being praised for refusing a gun sale to a suspected mass shooter who passed an FBI background check for his firearm.

The alleged would-be mass shooter–James Howard–passed a background check on March 21, but the store owner suspected Howard had plans to “hurt himself or others,” so he refused to hand the gun to Howard. According to WGN News, store owner John Downs told Howard, “You know what, bud, I have a really bad feeling about this. I just can’t sell you the gun.” Howard is alleged to have left the store outraged, only to return a short time later.

When he returned, Downs loaded guns to use for self-defense, “told customers to hide,” and dialed 911. “Howard was later arrested at a nearby Walmart.”


So, "you would think" that Down Bait and Guns is now subject to civil discrimination law suits?

Link.
https://www.quora.com/In-the-US-if-a...efuse-the-sale
steve4102 is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 10:04 AM   #97
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 3,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve
I was under the impression that an FFL can refuse a sale for just about any reason and in fact must refuse a sale if they have a reasonable suspicion (A feeling) that the buyer is prohibited or dangerous.
I have heard licensees assert that as well. I took a quick look for discrimination cases against FFLs, and the same case kept popping up. The order dismissing the Complaint is linked below.

I found the order interesting in that it references no exemption from anti-discrimination laws for licensees. One would think that such a broad immunity would be argued by the defendant.

http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter....to-Dismiss.pdf
zukiphile is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 10:11 AM   #98
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,113
Quote:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...-mass-shooter/

The owner of Downs Bait and Guns is being praised for refusing a gun sale to a suspected mass shooter who passed an FBI background check for his firearm.

The alleged would-be mass shooter–James Howard–passed a background check on March 21, but the store owner suspected Howard had plans to “hurt himself or others,” so he refused to hand the gun to Howard. According to WGN News, store owner John Downs told Howard, “You know what, bud, I have a really bad feeling about this. I just can’t sell you the gun.” Howard is alleged to have left the store outraged, only to return a short time later.

When he returned, Downs loaded guns to use for self-defense, “told customers to hide,” and dialed 911. “Howard was later arrested at a nearby Walmart.”

So, "you would think" that Down Bait and Guns is now subject to civil discrimination law suits?
No because there actions are, based on the actions of the person they defended against, defensible. They have a reason and that reason was validated.

I get the idea. Don't sell a gun to someone you have a bad feeling about. Great concept. But what about when that person argues you had a bed feeling not because of the actions of that individual but because that person was part of a protected class?

That legal conclusion is, as noted, interesting but it basically argued that no damage was done so there were no grounds for redress.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old May 5, 2016, 10:14 AM   #99
TomNJVA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 187
How to Keep Guns out of "Bad Guy" Hands? It's simple - get a time machine, go back to 1787, and convince the drafters of the constitution to rewrite the second amendment to say "The people shall have no right to keep and bear arms".

Barring that, I'm afraid you are too late. Now 229 years later there are over 300,000,000 guns in circulation. There have and always will be Bad Guys, and Bad Guys have and will always find guns.

Some things are just out of our control, and all we can do is defend ourselves against them.

TomNJVA
__________________
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 May 5, 2016, 10:22 AM   #100
steve4102
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 2,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lohman446
No because there actions are, based on the actions of the person they defended against, defensible. They have a reason and that reason was validated.

I get the idea. Don't sell a gun to someone you have a bad feeling about. Great concept. But what about when that person argues you had a bed feeling not because of the actions of that individual but because that person was part of a protected class?

That legal conclusion is, as noted, interesting but it basically argued that no damage was done so there were no grounds for redress.
Do you have any cases to back up your opinion?

The one posted above seems clear to me.

...and this from ATF form 4473, Questions 21,22,23.

https://www.atf.gov/file/61446/download
steve4102 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11311 seconds with 8 queries