4th Circuit panel rules federal law requiring handgun buyers to be 21 or older is unconstitutional

While maybe they can, it is less likely that they will, than that they will remove a weapon not in a safe, or otherwise secured so that it takes significantly more time, effort, & tools, to get to it.

After all, if a locked home were that impenetrably secure, there would be no reason for those who own guns for protection, to leave a gun in the house when they went out, as it would only be when they were out of the home, that they would be at any risk.

Also, though this varies from owner to owner, there is the circumstance of, if there is ever an underaged person in the residence, their having access to it.

But, as I implied in my answer, these are all just possible arguments that could be made. Ultimately, the subjective opinions of what you or I consider to be secure, are not predictive of what a court will rule.

 

I'm more interested in what the legislature(s) will try to define as secure.

 

so you think there's a conspiracy by some powerful elites to subvert the will of the people?

If you understood the assault weapons band you would never point to that as a success. It did not ban a single firearm. It wasn't about a firearm it was about what kind of accessories that really make no difference to its deadliness you could have on a firearm.

The provision for pistols in the assault weapons band Only affected one model. A model by the way that was perfectly legal to own and that was used in the Columbine massacre.

If these ads work and yes it is by public support. Unless you think people are just too stupid to know what they want. I don't think the pittance that the NRA uses in lobbying makes a hill of beans worth a difference. It's only ever like a couple million. Or as I like to call it a Washington penny.

Gun manufacturers always do better when Democrats are in office or taking office because it causes a spike in sales. Also manufacturers don't really support Second Amendment rights. There's quite a few firms I won't buy because of the company's anti Second Amendment stance.

Again the anti-gun types lack knowledge on the subject.

 

Again, you offer no substantiation of any of your claims, a lot of subjective assessments (opinions, which are often gestated in ignorance), and a bunch of bull.

 

I will amend my earlier response, slightly, in which I said that the call that resonates with a large majority of the population is for universal background checks, not, "more rigorous background checks." And what I said is true. And what you said, I still believe, was meant as a deception. Otherwise, it was a very-poorly made contention.

Regardless of what you had actually meant by your words, I will grant you that another proposed, popular modification of gun rights, is to prevent people who have psychological disorders that contraindicate their possessing & using firearms in a safe, responsible way (e.g., paranoid schizophrenia)-- as determined by court proceedings that make this finding-- from buying guns. Though how this would be accomplished, is not typically covered, it seems logical that this information might be added to the NICS database. That does not make your claim, however, about requiring an, "overhauling," of the NICS system, any less misleading; and downright false, as far as the implication that merely adding more data to their system would require shutting it down. New info is continually being uploaded, while that system operates. This would be no different, though it would require a bit of time. All that means, however, is that the data, at first, would be very incomplete. But there is no reason to believe that it couldn't be done, or would be overly problemmatic. And eventually, records would get caught up to the current day. So, if you had been attempting to make some point, it is not apparent, what it was.

 

I don't feel the need to substantiate anything. You haven't challenged my position at all.

Only you've really done is saying the right does things too which I agreed with.

I'm okay if you need to think I'm ignorant I know better.

 

Way to not speak so as to make your meaning understood. Unless one already HAS defined that he is talking specifically about DEM. POLITICIANS, this is by no means the standard assumption, if someone mentions, "the Left." Rather, unless context suggests otherwise, the terms Left and Right mean all the people on that side of the political spectrum.

With that explained, the unaddressed remainder of your post was nothing but a reiteration of your greatest hits, still with nothing backing them up (so, we could say, a capella).

Not only is there a disagreeing point of view, on that matter, but yours is the decidedly minority view. Therefore, common sense would dictate that you would try to prove your fringe opinion. Your failure to even attempt this, indicates a lack of any data to buttress your argument; or a lack of any common sense, to not realize the need for corroboration.

OK. Since you say so. What more evidence could one ask of a paranoid fantasy?

 

In the 2010 report "Summary of Select Firearms Violence Prevention Strategies" the DOJ noted that “universal” background checks can’t be effective without a reduction in the illegal sources of guns to criminals and can’t be enforced without comprehensive firearm registration.
In "Source and Use of Firearms Involved in Crimes: Survey of Prison Inmates, 2016", the DOJ reported in Table 5 where criminals get their guns. We see that vast majority of guns in the hands of criminals come from straw purchases, family transfers, theft and the underground market (Illegal sources of firearms that include markets for stolen goods, middlemen for stolen goods, criminals or criminal enterprises, or individuals or groups involved in sales of illegal drug). A total of 0.8% come from gun shows. Purchases from "good guys" in private sales don't even show up.
What does a UBC do to prevent criminals from getting guns?

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
https://health.ucdavis.edu/health-n...micide-or-suicide-rates-in-california/2018/11

In HR.8, the current "universal" background check bill, the law states:

Give a gun to your brother, no background check needed.
Loan a gun to your brother, no background check needed.
Sell a gun to your bother, it's a crime if there isn't a background check.
Can you point out the "common sense" part?

 

Let me help.
If you understood the assault weapons band you would never point to that as a success. It did not ban a single firearm.

First of all, 'assault weapon' bans, universally, do not require the confiscation of existing weapons - thus, the weapons in private hands at the advent of such bans are still "on the street".
Second, 'assault weapon' bans only apply to weapons with a certain number of specific parts or attachments; the manufacture and sale weapons with an identical functions, but not with that specific combination of attachments are not banned.

For example:


And so, while the manufacture and sale of the top rifle was banned, you can see that there was no -actual- ban on the weapon in question.
As such, the 'assault weapon' bans, universally, did not do anything to take these weapons 'off the streets' and certainly did not reduce the availability of new weapons to the buying public.

And so, not only did the AWB not ban a single firearm, it did not - because it could not - have any the effect on any sort of crime it was enacted to address.

 

Well thanks for at least trying to make sense of Poly-D's claims. But the two pictures you show, are less than a fulsome explanation. Even if no existing guns were affected, there certainly were many new sales which were prohibited. Your point seems to be that it could be got around, to buy parts to get essentially the same weapon as was banned. Even taking your word for that, you must understand, what was possible and what was actually done are importantly different things.

If your contention is true, that this did not reduce the number of semi-automatic rifles, of the type banned, that were sold in the U.S. during that period, there should be clear proof of this, in the sales totals of the guns which replaced the banned guns. That is, their sales should have equalled the prior year's sales of both the still-legal, and the banned guns. Likewise, at the end of the ban, the sales of the once-again available models should have been reflected in sales losses, for the "work-around," models. Does that not make sense to you?

I do not spend nearly the time or energy, admittedly, as you or your fellow enthusiasts do, studying & analyzing gun-related data; nevertheless, I will just mention that it is my impression that mass shootings, of the type that are now commonplace, were very rare during the time covered by the ban. Perhaps you could show data that shootings using assault-weapon style guns, did not dip during the ban, nor surge after it.
This would make for a highly-convincing case, one which would be difficult to argue against.

 

The 1994 AWB left all existing "assault weapons" and "large capacity magazines" in citizens' hands, allowed them to be bought and sold, and perfectly functional AR-15s were legal to make and sell throughout the decade of the ban.
How did it affect anything?

Using Mother Jones mass shooting data, in the decade prior to the 1994 ban, there were 14 mass shootings, 4 with weapons that would later be defined as "assault weapons". In the decade of the ban, there were 13 mass shootings, two of which were committed with firearms defined by law as "mass shootings".

We owned AR-15s for 48 years before the first civilian ever used one in a mass shooting.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/

 

Because the number of guns in the U.S. is always RISING. If the numbers of a certain type of gun, especially-effective at quickly taking out human targets, was kept nearly static for a decade, that is a big reduction from the number that would have been in the country, without the ban. How can you not see that? For comparison, how much did that number swell, in the decade after the ban ended?

That data supports the idea that the ban did have at least some effect on mass shootings, using assault weapons (which tend to result in higher casualty & death-counts, than other types of guns typically used). But what most catches my attention is what is not included in your stats; because these mass-shootings have been trending ever-upward, what are Mother Jones's totals for the decade AFTER the assault weapons ban ended?

Well I guess those can be now thought of as, "the good ol' days." This is, obviously, a different world we're living in.

Though-- I guess it was mostly prior to those 48 years?-- we did have criminals in some of the Old Days, using Tommy guns, in street shoot-outs, with the police.

 

You make some very good arguments on this issue.

The one thing I want to throw out there is (and, I haven't read every post so I don't know if this has been mentioned) gun shop owners are running a business. They want to sell as many weapons as they can and while they may have to jump through some hoops to be compliant with the law, it is just as easy for them to overlook some "danger" signs from prospective customers. It's not fair to punish them if a previous owner goes rogue but this is a huge gap in the procurement of deadly weapons.

 

I cleared it up. This extemporaneous nonsense you posted here has no value.

I still don't feel the need to. But I posted is public information.

not only is it the majority of you I'm pretty sure a majority of Democrat voters share my opinion if they didn't why can't they get anything past?

it's not a fringe opinion just because you say it is it's really been the majority opinion for 250 years if it wasn't then we would have had background checks and all this other nonsense that you think the majority wants. There isn't this couple of people holding back the electorate.

this doesn't work on me if you think I have nothing you're free to think whatever you like.

this is why I don't provide you with evidence you've already made up your mind that it's a paranoid fantasy but you're the one who thinks the NRA is out to get you. And that there's this cabal of evil people that control the government that's a conspiracy theory.

The majority of people do not want it therefore we do not have it.

 

posturing bores me

lack of knowledge makes people ignorant you lack knowledge on the subject there's nothing wrong with that quit being so defensive quit being so sensitive and learn.

Democrat politicians never get anything done because they are ignorant and too stubborn to learn.

if you are insulted by lacking knowledge about something you haven't researched that is you. I take no responsibility for your butt hurt.

Cry a river build the bridge and get over it.

Waaaa Waaaa Waaaa.

If you don't like talking to me and accepting the reality that I don't do this go find evidence to prove you wrong nonsense. Then go away, you don't have to read my posts I don't do that you're not going to get me to do it by screeching if you don't want to believe me I'm okay with that. Go on living in your bliss who am I to disrupt it.

I take no responsibility for controlling you if you want to talk about the subject that you want to talk about and not what I brought up then go talk about that. You can cry your little eyeballs out to your heart's delight I will never be sorry.

You don't have to talk to me.

 

The number didn't stay static. "Post ban" AR-15s were manufactured and sold legally throughout the ban (the rifle used at Sandy Hook wasn't legally an "assault weapon").

From 2004 to the first half of 2012, an AR-15 wasn't used in a single mass shooting by a civilian, and that includes 2008-2009 where because of the Obama candidacy and election sales of AR-15s went through the roof. Civilians have owned semiautomatic rifles since 1905. The government sold millions of semiautomatic rifles to civilians after WWII. The semiautomatic AR-15 was first sold to civilians in 1964, and it took 48 years for a civilian to use one in a mass shooting. According to Mother Jones, an AR-15 has been used in a mass shooting about 20 times, and the average annual death toll from those mass shootings since the end of the 1994 AWB is about 16 per year.

We own 20-25 million AR-15s based on ATF industry records. Any ban will grandfather all of them. Every day there is a chance that one of those AR-15s could be used in a mass murder yet it's only happened 20 times.

The highest death toll in a mass shooting through the decade after the end of the 1994 AWB was 32, in a shooting committed with handguns, one of which was a .22.

I gave you the link. Why didn't you look it up yourself?

From 2004 to 2014 there were three mass shootings by a civilian using an AR-15, and that's after the numbers owned jumped by millions during 2008-2009. There were two other mass shootings with AK-47 replicas.

The total number of deaths in mass shootings from a civilian using an AR-15 for the last 57 years is about 300, for an average of less than 6 per year. 300 people die every single year from falling out of chairs.

John Dillinger stole his from police stations. Clyde Barrow stole his from National Guard Armories. Machine Gun Kelly never actually killed anyone.

 

It proves his point sufficiently- the fact the upper gun was banned and the lower was not - and understanding that this example applies to any number of other guns - illustrates that in every practical way, no guns were banned.

You fail to take into account that many gun manufacturers are/were privately held and do not need to publicly report their sales -- as such, there's no definitive way to know.
From personal experience, I can tell you that new manufacture '(non) assault weapons' were widely available for sale pretty much everywhere - I. myself, bought two.

Post hoc fallacy.
Even if the numbers dropped during the ban and the numbers when up after the ban, it does not in any way create a sound argument that the ban had anything to do with it.

 

It wasn't.
The gun manufacturers created 'post ban' rifles and kept selling them.

Correlation does not prove causation.
And you fail to take into account the number of mass shootings perpetrated with guns that were not banned in 1994 also went up after the ban.

 

I'm not sure if I understand your meanings for, "overlook some 'danger' signs," and, "goes rogue." Could you be more specific?

 

Sure. Gun owners are in the business of selling guns. That's their objective.

Prospective gun buyers are looking to buy guns and ammo. So, they are inclined to say anything that will get the transaction approved. Most recently, I read about a guy that killed his family and then himself. He posted some of his plans on FaceBook and added that he thought obtaining a gun was way too easy. According to him, all he had to do was lie about his mental health history.

The above formula clearly isn't working well because unstable people have been able to get weapons when they want them. IIRC, I think Rittenhouse did something shady to get his weapons. Many people don't seem to be too upset about what he did because he killed people they felt were beneath them anyway. I have no doubt that would have swung in the other direction had the shooter's and his victims' races were the opposite.

So, the question is "How do you stop unstable people from buying weapons and allow stable people to have access to them?" I just think there should be something more than a questionnaire and background check. EVERY killer started out as "not a killer" so the checks only weed out the people that already have some kind of criminal history, incarceration for violent crimes and/or some major mental health crisis resulting in involuntary admission to a psychiatric hospital.

How do we go about flagging all the ones that won't trip the background check?

 

Their transaction is approved by the NICS; what the person says doe snot matter, and someone who might not be able to buy a gun best serves himself by saying nothing,.

Unless you have been adjudicated mentally infirm or involuntarily committed to a mental hospital, your "mental health history", even if wildly public, is not a legal barrier to your purchase of a gun.

Demonstrate your rational basis for this.

Orders of magnitude more people don't seem to be too upset about what he did because he killed people in self-defense.

 

First, overturn HIPAA restrictions. Second, increase the number of mental health professionals. We have 100 million gun owners. There are over 20 million background checks for gun purchases processed every year. We have about 30,000 board certified psychiatrists (half of whom are within ten years of retirement age) and 100,000 license psychologists. Very few of these have sufficient room in their schedules to accept new patients. Not all of them are qualified to screen gun buyers for disqualifying mental health issues, and we'd need more than one person's opinion to make it even close to fair. Not all of them would even see new patients for the sole purpose of allowing them to buy guns, as they are anti-gun ownership. We can't make them see the patients, either.

Then make it mandatory to get approval from a mental health professional to buy/own a gun. Somehow account for false positives and false negatives - would a mental health professional be responsible legally or financially for "passing" someone who later turned into a mass killer"

Minority Report technology.

 

Thanks for the reply. I didn't take your full quote, because I don't have time now, for a full answer. But I never suggested that it was the responsibility of gun shop owners to make psychological appraisals of their customers (within reason). I had merely been mentioning some of the proposals from "the Left," which had broad appeal, one of which being that the mentally unstable be prevented from having firearms, as circumstances warrant (i.e., either temporarily, or essentially permanently, as long as their affliction was a concern). I am the first to be wary of the state accessing one's medical records for anything like this. Crucially, the proposals specify that the person would need to be deemed a hazard to themself or others in a court proceeding. This would mean, as a court document, it would be appropriate to include this info with criminal records, in the NICS system, which is the basis for background checks. So, just as it is not left to a questionnaire, or a shop owner's judgement, whether or not a person is a criminal, that will be the case regarding that patron's soundness of mind. I'll just add, for now, that specific medical information could be blacked out; the only necessary data would be the length of the court prohibition.

 

DEF, I didn't take your post as you suggesting gun owners make psychological appraisals of their customers. I was stating MY concerns about the current process.

Like you, I am VERY hesitant about opening up people's medical records. I'm pondering if this is something that can be fleshed out at the HS counselor level. We need a way for people in the "risk groups" to feel safe enough to talk to a school counselor or their pediatrician/PCP but ping something for closer evaluation. I know that many people are struggling with ongoing child abuse including sexual abuse because they are afraid to tell anyone for fear the kids would be taken from them. There is just so much gray area in all this. I wish I had some magical answers but I don't.

 

Correction: the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about gun storage, one way or the other. What you quoted was one judge's interpretation of the Constitution. Hopefully, this discussion is beyond the need to point out that not all judges interpret everything the same way (meaning, in the minds of many gun rights advocates, all those America-hating, Commie pinko judges; but, of course, when the pro-gun crowd criticizes rulings, their, "opinion to the contrary means nothing"). In fact you were negligent, in your citing, to not identify the judge authoring the opinion, or the Court issuing it. Was this a Supreme Court ruling? Circuit Court? Court of Appeals?

Lastly, perhaps you just left this out of your quote, but the quote does not mention safes or the like, only trigger locks (& disassembling).