Constitutional Basics

[davidsog]

The fallacy of the anti-gun argument about the right to keep and bear is thinking it ONLY applies to militia service. The 2nd Amendment explains one reason, and only one reason why the Government should not restrict our arms. There are other reasons. Personal reasons. Reasons described as "natural rights", not constitutional right.

Good point. It is a shame so many people today do seem to understand the origin of Governmental power and rights.

They think Washington DC has granted us some rights out of the goodness of their little beltway hearts!!!

[rickyrick]

You’re right, davidsog, the main body of the constitution outlines the framework of the federal government and I see the Bill of Rights as a list of rights the government has no business in interfering with.
The government grants me no rights.

[davidsog]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is the 10th Amendment.

Something else that struck me as interesting....

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice the language does not say "the United States", "Government", or any specific administrative entity formed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is very specific and is not ambiguous about who has what power.

It simply says " a free State".

[davidsog]

https://conventionofstates.com/take_action/volunteer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVQH...ature=youtu.be

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Brownstone322

But, sure, I guess I knew where the thread might lead. I offer my thanks to those who stayed more or less around the topic. As for those now prepared to barricade themselves in their homes with 5,000 rounds of .223, I just dunno ...

Yeah, 5,000 rounds isn't nearly enough. IMHO we should be thinking at least 20,000 rounds as a starting point ...

[44 AMP]

Why would you talk to gun control groups... If presented with incivility respond with civil, rational, discourse and do not let emotion get the better of you.

The point is to be seen talking to gun control groups, displaying our open mindedness to those who have not already put themselves in one camp or the other. We need to be seen as the calm, rational ones, respectful of others, and NOT wild eyed slogan spouting wackos who are dangerous because we have guns.

The wild eyed slogan spouting wackos on the other side don't seem dangerous to the undecided, as they don't have guns! (though many actually do, either personally owned, or hired with their users)

It's irritating, its frustrating, but if we don't at least appear to have the MORAL high ground even though we have the legal high ground (for now) we could lose that position through simply majority rule.

Because simply put, together there are more under informed, misguided and deliberately mislead voters on gun issues than there are of us. Added to the votes of the "true believers" we are unlikely to be a numerical majority.

Why are the fanatics on the other side working so hard to paint the NRA, and all gun owners as bad guys? There's a simple answer. Because if we AREN'T then we must be the good guys and THEY are the bad guys...

which, I've always thought they were...

[davidsog]

The point is to be seen talking to gun control groups, displaying our open mindedness to those who have not already put themselves in one camp or the other. We need to be seen as the calm, rational ones, respectful of others, and NOT wild eyed slogan spouting wackos who are dangerous because we have guns.

The wild eyed slogan spouting wackos on the other side don't seem dangerous to the undecided, as they don't have guns! (though many actually do, either personally owned, or hired with their users)

It's irritating, its frustrating, but if we don't at least appear to have the MORAL high ground even though we have the legal high ground (for now) we could lose that position through simply majority rule.

Because simply put, together there are more under informed, misguided and deliberately mislead voters on gun issues than there are of us. Added to the votes of the "true believers" we are unlikely to be a numerical majority.

Why are the fanatics on the other side working so hard to paint the NRA, and all gun owners as bad guys? There's a simple answer. Because if we AREN'T then we must be the good guys and THEY are the bad guys...

which, I've always thought they were...

Bingo!

Why that is a great idea, Mr El Salvadorian Infantry Platoon Leader!

[davidsog]

at least 20,000 rounds

That is already distributed on the line with more in the bunker.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

I happen to agree with you but as gun owners we need a better response than:

In order to fight back.

Things like measurable metrics and facts. Not just parroting an opinion.

One might then ask, if there are 20,000 existing gun laws on the books (a number I see cited often, with no substantiation. Let's just go with it, for argument), how can one compile "measurable metrics" if 19,997 of those 20,000 laws are never enforced? The only way to come up with a meaningful (as opposed to measurable) metric would be to analyze every criminal act that involves a firearm against all potentially applicable state and federal firearms laws, and then compile statistics on how many laws were actually violated in the incident compared to how many violations were actually charged, prosecuted, and convicted. It would, I suspect, be a Herculean task, but that's the kind of statistics that are needed to demonstrate the folly of trying to solve every problem by just creating a new law rather than enforcing the laws already on the books.

This is a slight detour, but I'll cite it as an example: Many years ago, when I was still in my second marriage and living in a New England state that still had on the books a number of old "blue laws," a couple of nice, "New Age" young women who ran a New Age book shop in a small town decided to host a psychic fair. The local police saw the advertising and paid the young women a visit, warning that if they went ahead with the event they would be arrested. The problem was that there was a law on the books that said it was illegal to (a) advertise fortune-telling services, and (b) to "fraudulently" predict the future for money.

The psychic fair was cancelled. Meanwhile, in another town in the same state, a woman was arrested and prosecuted under this law. She did not advertise -- her business was a sideline, her clientele all came to her by word of mouth, and the police called her for an appointment in a sting operation; she didn't reach them by advertising. Two cops posing as a couple went to her home, had a reading, handed her some money ... and slapped the cuffs on her.

At trial, the prosecutor dutifully brought in both cops to testify that they had made an appointment, had gone to the house, had obtained a reading, and had paid money. Done. The prosecution rested. The judge called the defense, whereupon the defense attorney did NOT put on any defense. Instead, he moved for dismissal. Everyone in the room looked at him as if he was crazy. The judge asked why he should dismiss.

"Because, your Honor, the law under which my client is charged prohibits two things: advertising to tell the future, and fraudulently claiming to foretell the future for money. The prosecution has not presented any evidence that my client did either of these things. The officers' testimony established that there was no advertising. The prosecution made no attempt to demonstrate that anything my client did was fraudulent by intent. Therefore, I move to dismiss."

The judge considered this for about a minute, re-read the statute, and said, "Case dismissed."

In the next session of the legislature, that statute was repealed. Not "revised," but "repealed." In testimony during the hearing on the bill to repeal it, it was documented that the law had been on the books for eighty-eight (88) years, and the ONLY case in which it was taken to trial was the one that was dismissed because neither the police nor the prosecution even understood what it said.

How many of those existing 20,000 (or so) gun laws are like this? How many have been on the books since forever but have never even been used to charge someone? Or have been on the books forever and are routinely ignored by the police? I could cite examples of that, too, but this is a post, not a textbook, so I'll skip that.

How can we begin compiling a body of statistics showing how many existing gun laws are NOT enforced, even when they could be cited in incidents involving firearms?

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

Just for info.
Quote:
Gun Laws Signed By Obama Expanded Rights
During his first term Obama didn't call for any major new restriction on guns or gun owners. Instead he urged authorities to enforce the state and federal laws already on the books. In fact, Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners.

One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of car that enter national parks.

Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
This when Obama and congress were democrat majority.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

I just don't think it's as 'black or white' as you say. There are plenty pf GOP who favor gun control measures and plenty of Dems who are for pro gun rights..Not at 'civil war' stage quite yet, IMHO, of course.

That's all just crazy talk. Hell, everyone knows that the only guns Obama didn't take away were the ones he left for Hillary to seize.

[davidsog]

One might then ask, if there are 20,000 existing gun laws on the books (a number I see cited often, with no substantiation. Let's just go with it, for argument), how can one compile "measurable metrics" if 19,997 of those 20,000 laws are never enforced?

Absolutely. There are plenty of gun laws and most of them are not enforced when they should be enforced.

First of all we have to know the facts ourselves. That is key. Secondly but just as important, we have to shift the narrative from "Critical Race Theory" style valuing storying telling over to fact and result.

https://uniteyouthdublin.files.wordp...okfi-org-1.pdf

Know who you are dealing with.

Fact is on our side. However, It is very much a principle of Resistance.org and others on the left that storying telling and emotion is far more important than fact. Yes, a Harvard Law professor came up with that...well, actually propaganda has been since man walked upright...but he wrapped it in an acceptable package with a nice pedigree. It comes down to the "ends justify the means" so fact is not as important as emotion. Well, the ends do not justify the means in the long run and that is a very dark path we do not want our society to take of emotion over law, obviously.

Here is a good start....very very dry but worth obtaining a copy.

https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Les.../dp/0226493660

When it comes to mass shooting, that is a people problem not a gun problem.

Turn the conversation from controlling guns to methods of outreach/identification to solve the socio-economic conditions that create mass killers.

Answer the question:

What makes taking as many innocent lives as possible so appealing to these mass shooters?

Fame, revenge, justice, recognition of their power...


What benefit do they get from it?

They are famous and powerful for a moment. Rising far above what they could have achieved in their mediocre existence.

Why are mass shootings a recent phenomenon? What was different about the preceding generations?

Outside of the fact these people are just plain mental this generation has not exactly inoculated itself against failure or identification of their peers who just have met their trigger point.

My thoughts, it is the first generation that was taught everyone's a winner and gets a trophy. Unfortunately many of them have never been equipped with the real tools to be successful. They cannot fail and have never had to be "the loser". They have not demonstrate the character to congratulate the winner, to pick themselves up, figure out a new plan of attack, and not give up. When they do win, it was expected. There is no graciousness or demonstration of strength of character to turn around and help those who did not win to be successful.

They have grown up expecting success and praise. Their self image is grounded in a much larger fiction than it should be. They feel justified in re-establishing themselves as force to be reckoned with when reality gets in the way of the fiction. Fight or Flight....their ID is at risk.

The interpersonal skills are stunted leaving them more isolated within that self image fiction. That is why they get so involved in "friends", "unfriended" and all the other online stuff other generations see little importance in. Online others are treated with so little regard for their worth as a human being it is easy to dehumanize others when you lack interpersonal skills in the first place. This is also one reason why you see so much inappropriate offense stemming from the latest generation. It is also why their ability to reach out and help or even identify those at risk is stunted.

Their enjoyment and entertainment involves killing human being shaped electrons. The more you kill, the bigger you win. Their entertainment involves watching a movie with a hero that picks up a gun, kills everyone who causes him problems, and is adored by the world. The ultimate justification and moral foundation that it is right to take a human life.

All the ingredients are present that are required to break down the barriers of normal human instinct to not kill other human beings but band together, hunt mammoth, and fight off the sabre tooth tigers for mutual survival.

Not meant to be comprehensive or definitive but rather once we have the answers to those questions we can then answer How to identify and reach out to prevent. The answer is we created an environment that is much easier for a warped mind to established the psychological conditions necessary for human beings to take another human beings life.

Say you are in a Mass Shooting, what should the response be?

The gun grabbers answer to all of that is get rid of the guns. We know that is simplistic and will not stop those determined to prey upon others.

[Aguila Blanca]

Killers gotta kill.

I'll just mention, once again, that the worst school massacre in the history of the United States was Bath Consolidated School in Lansing, Michigan, in 1927. 44 killed, 58 injured. Weapon of choice: dynamite.

The only reason the death toll wasn't significantly higher was that the school had two wings. The perp mined both wings, but one side didn't go off.

[44 AMP]

While it sounds plausible, the fact is that for every one of those "disturbed children" that becomes a human time bomb, there are literally millions exposed to the same social conditions and pressures that do not.

Nature or Nurture? an old and strongly debated question. The classic example is two brothers, raised the same, one becoming a priest and the other a criminal...

Personally I think free will plays as much a part as anything, and more than many environmental or hereditary factors.
But we are far from the OP now.

one point to be remembered, every law is valid, and "constitutional" until, and unless a court with the proper authority rules it isn't. No matter how stupid it seems, if it is passed as a law, it is a valid law until it isn't.

[davidsog]

Nearly 50 percent of homicide perpetrators gave some type of warning signal, such as making a threat or leaving a note, before the event.1

MMmmmmmm..................

More Awareness, more reporting, more action to get help to those who need it before violence occurs???

Firearms used in school-associated homicides and suicides came primarily from the perpetrator’s home or from friends or relatives.3

Starts at home?? What are your children doing??? Status of your guns?

More Awareness, more reporting, more action???

Most school-associated violent deaths occur during transition times – immediately before and after the school day and during lunch. 1

Ohh...Armed teachers and Security?

https://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventi...ence/SAVD.html

Much more effective than any gun ban....

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by WyMark

That's all just crazy talk. Hell, everyone knows that the only guns Obama didn't take away were the ones he left for Hillary to seize.

Hillary who?

[davidsog]

How many of those existing 20,000 (or so) gun laws are like this? How many have been on the books since forever but have never even been used to charge someone? Or have been on the books forever and are routinely ignored by the police?

I think you are absolutely right. There are probably a staggering amount of such laws.

How can we begin compiling a body of statistics showing how many existing gun laws are NOT enforced, even when they could be cited in incidents involving firearms?

It starts at the local and state level. Be familiar with your town, city, and state laws. You do not have to know the entire country...just where you live.

In my state, the City, County, and State each has a section for Alcohol and another for firearms. You think we are all a bunch of drunks shooting things up.

[davidsog]

In my city, you cannot have blanks or any provisions to fire blanks unless they are .22 caliber crimped blanks or tear gas cartridges.

So, no CAP guns for Christmas and no blank adaptors allowed.

You cannot shoot BB guns without permission of the Chief of Police either.

No Red Ryder for Ralphie here!!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

It starts at the local and state level. Be familiar with your town, city, and state laws. You do not have to know the entire country...just where you live.

I respectfully disagree. Local and state statistics are fragments. What we need is a coordinated, national effort. The statistics should list incidents, and then include an exhaustive examination of what federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, and regulations applied that were NOT cited, charged, and prosecuted.

Simple example: Until a few years ago, two cities in Connecticut (New Britain and New London, specifically) had ordinances in their city codes that prohibited the concealed carry of firearms. Friends who are NRA instructors in Connecticut have told me that, at that time, the state's Board of Firearms Examiners and the State police were promulgating an information pamphlet that informed permit holders (incorrectly) that a Connecticut permit allowed ONLY concealed carry. (Incorrect.)

The state's pro-2A advocacy group informed both municipalities that their ordinances were in direct conflict with state law and with what the applicable state agencies were saying. The two ordinances were subsequently repealed.

In my home town, until a few years ago there was an ordinance that said no one could possess a loaded firearm on any town-owned property. There was no exception for licensed carry on public [town] roads, and there was no exception for police officers on or off duty. After I threatened to sue the town under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (the same law the NJ Association sued under in the case cited above), they revised the ordinance to exempt the police and to include an exception for carry on public roads pursuant to a state license to carry. But -- the old version had been on the books for 20 or 30 years, and had never been used because the police department considered it to be unenforceable.

Your statement is a recognition of the fragmented patchwork of gun laws across the U.S. If we're going to attack that on a national level on the basis of logic and statistics, the statistics can't be fragmented; they must be comprehensive, and compiled and presented in a way that uses the number to demonstrate how unworkable the existing, fragmented system is.

[davidsog]

What we need is a coordinated, national effort. The statistics should list incidents, and then include an exhaustive examination of what federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, and regulations applied that were NOT cited, charged, and prosecuted.

I think this is something the NRA could compile and it might be very useful. Simply ask for volunteers at the local NRA shooting clubs to look up local ordinances and go down to the courthouse for a records check.

The local clubs submit the information and it is sent to the NRA corporate.

[davidsog]

I am sure there are cases backed up in my city with all the children's BB guns and cap gun violations awaiting prosecution....



Future SOTIC grads...

[Bartholomew Roberts]

LOL indeed...

[rwilson452]

I was wondering how many times a gun charge is dropped by a DA in exchange for a guilty plea on another offense. I can't always blame the DA for it, as in most districts they are under stress to end a case as cheaply as possible.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by rwilson452

I was wondering how many times a gun charge is dropped by a DA in exchange for a guilty plea on another offense. I can't always blame the DA for it, as in most districts they are under stress to end a case as cheaply as possible.

Probably very often. And to me, that suggests that a lot of these obscure gun laws are not regarded as primary offenses, which means that the police don't know or care about them and they aren't enforced in their own right. Instead, they are used as a bludgeon by the prosecution, added on top of a primary charge or two when the prosecution wants to "throw the book at" someone as a tactic to coerce a plea bargain.

I have commented previously that my great-grandfather was a professor of law (grandfather met grandmother as a result of having taken one of GG's classes). I was brought up with the belief that laws which are enforced rarely, arbitrarily and capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because they create disrespect for the rule of law.

[44 AMP]

There are literally thousands of laws still on the books (at all levels) that are no longer enforced. They are almost never repealed or removed, they are just ignored.

There is a state that still has a law on its books that in order to operate a motor vehicle it must be preceeded by a man on foot carrying a red lantern 50 feet in front of the vehicle.

Another one I've heard of is a state with a law on its books that it is illegal to have sex with a virgin. (I suppose they expect newlyweds to honeymoon out of state?? )

Lots and lots of laws on the books that aren't (and in some cases, never were) enforced.

The idea of legislators passing a law that they never intend to be really used, in order to be seen as "doing something" is not new in our Republic.

[davidsog]

I have commented previously that my great-grandfather was a professor of law (grandfather met grandmother as a result of having taken one of GG's classes). I was brought up with the belief that laws which are enforced rarely, arbitrarily and capriciously are worse than no laws at all, because they create disrespect for the rule of law.

That is the preferred tactic of today. Look at Mueller's "investigation". No collusion found but let's prosecute anything we possibly can and hope it leads to bigger crime against the real political target.