Some gun related questions for liberals:

It will be interesting to see how they define what they want to ban. Pelosi keeps talking about banning "assault style" weapons, whatever that means.

 

Speaking as a gun owner and former Republican, kudos!

 

Gun licenses aren't unconstitutional.

Firearms should be radioactive to felons, gang members and people who don't have a gun license.

 

How could they not have done it on purpose?

 

Lawful gun owners are 0.0% of the gun murders, illegally armed felons account for nearly all of them. Come back when you have something that actually deals with the illegally armed felons and not lawfully armed citizens.

 

Until they are.

 

Yes it ill. Last time it was pretty much any weapon Sen. Feinstein didn't like the looks of. I have no idea what the difference is between assault and assault style other than assault style sounds more slippery.

 

The point of the licenses is to make firearms radioactive for people who shouldn't have them, not deny licenses to average folks. Children, senile elderly, gang members, persons guilty of domestic violence, mentally ill persons, etc. would be denied permits. Children should be granted separate, limited permits.

Police should be able to easily identify people without criminal records who may be a threat to the safety of others.

Licenses tied to an electronic database that could be verified with a smartphone would do away with licensing of firearms and allow permit holders to buy and sell weapons easily.

 

1a. The framers did not know anything about radio, TV, or internet either. Does this negate the 1st amendment?

4a. Nobody I know thinks the 2nd amendment can't be changed. But anyone believing in a constitutional republic thinks it absolutely cannot be ignored or violated for any reason, the rub coming from what actually violates the infringement clause.

2. You might not feel violated, but if gun ownership is a privilege only bestowed by government then it is a clear and absolute violation of the Constitution. The significant difference between licensing drivers and licensing gun owners is one is explicit in the Constitution while the other is not. Although a case could be made that driving is an inherent right, but wasn't included in the Constitution because it has nothing to do with government versus the people, and, like TV, the framers had no clue what a car was.

3. Many teachers willingly have guns at school in states where it is permitted (and in school districts that allow it). One a few years back even stopped a potential mass shooting at his school by taking out the assailant before any damage could be done, though that was back in the zero tolerance days and he got into a lot of trouble for his unauthorized gun. It takes only one shot from a hand gun to stop a guy with 2 or 3 AK-47sxs and 20 clips of ammo.

4b. Any psychiatrist or psychologist worth his salt will tell you it is one thin hair away from impossible to predetermine a potential mass murderer. To come within a ballpark every person would require two to four years of counseling and observation. However that is not the real reason this line is pursued because the ultimate aim is not to save anybody's life but to get the guns.

 

How on earth would they be able to do that??? A psychiatrist couldn't do that with even a modicum of certainty with 2 or 3 years of consultation.

 

I was joking about the Hillary sticker. When you drive a Prius, you don't need the sticker; everyone knows already. As more liberals are buying guns, I noticed an increase in unsafe handling of firearms at the range. While I encourage gun ownership, I simply ask that they learn basic firearm safety. Ignorance is dangerous.

 

Rights do not emanate from the state; thus the the state has no standing to issue, much less require, a license for the basic exercise of a right.

 

That last part is where folks that really want a fusion of interests with broad appeal will concentrate. Making it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain and carry throughout the 50 states is something they most definitely want and a valuable point in any negotiation with them.

Also, increasing concealed carry is associated with a reduction in crime rates, and concealed carry permit holders are among the most law abiding groups in society, so, there are benefits to expanding this. Concealed carry does generally require some screening, licensing and cost, so all good points in your favor.

Where I'm concerned that you might run into difficulty is constitutionality. Here is a link to the executive summary of the ruling in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943). The Court found "that it is unconstitutional for a state to levy a tax on people who want to sell religious merchandise." "A municipal ordinance which, as construed and applied, requires religious colporteurs to pay a license tax as a condition to the pursuit of their activities, is invalid under the Federal Constitution as a denial of freedom of speech, press and religion. The mere fact that the religious literature is 'sold', rather than 'donated' does not transform the activities of the colporteur into a commercial enterprise."

"What does this have to do with fees to obtain a license to own or purchase a firearm? The USSC also found, "A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. This means the entire Bill of Rights as opposed to just the First Amendment."

"It is similarly unconstitutional to charge a fee to exercise the right to vote, AKA a poll tax." I'm sure you have noticed that "states with voter ID laws provide free identification cards to qualified residents who do not have driver's licenses, as shown by Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. "The law's universally applicable requirements are eminently reasonable because the burden of acquiring, possessing, and showing a free photo identification is not a significant increase over the usual voting burdens, and the State's stated interests are sufficient to sustain that minimal burden." States can charge fees for driver's licenses because driving is a privilege, but voting is a right" as is carry firearms.

Gun Licensing Fees Has Disparate Impact:
"The racist nature of many gun licensing schemes is meanwhile underscored by an amicus curiae brief filed by the African-American Gun Association (AAGA) against California. "African Americans have been the target of some of the oldest and most odious attempts at forced disarmament. ... NAAGA has a strong interest in this case because taxes and fees imposed on the right to keep and bear arms disproportionately affect African Americans, due to the average lower income and higher rate of poverty in the African-American community." White supremacists once argued openly that this was their intention."

"The same applies to laws that require gun-owners to buy expensive liability insurance that might be affordable by people of the middle and upper classes, but not by low-paid workers among whom are many black Americans."

An Illinois Court Questioned the FOID Card Requirement (Firearm Owner ID)
The brief's citation of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and the phrase "across constitutional rights, the courts have consistently forbidden the use of special fees and taxes on constitutionally protected conduct to generate general revenue."

"Even Illinois's own courts appear to be finding issues with the Firearm Owner Identification Card per Illinois v. Brown. "The circuit court was correct that the FOID card requirement impermissibly infringes on law- abiding persons' rights to bear long arms-in their own homes for self-defense." The court filing also argues that the FOID card fee violates not just the U.S. Constitution, but also Illinois's own laws: "a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution. Thus, Brown, who was merely exercising her right to keep a long gun in her own home for self-defense, cannot be made to purchase a card or obtain a license to exercise this fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution."

https://foac-pac.org/Us-Supreme-Court:-Gun-Licensing-Fees-Are-Unconstitutional/Legal-News-Item/1293

I'm of mixed mind here. The basis for compromise might be in your point of unburdening the rights of law abiding citizens to carry and so obtaining a willingness for your suggested licensing, fees and screening, and an equal concern that the more new regulations are attempted, the more often gun regulations will end up before the Court and the risk you are taking of having decisions that render a great deal of these fines and licenses unconstitutional burdens on a guaranteed listed constitutional right.

https://www.outdoorlife.com › blogs › gun-shots › 2013 › 03 › how-much-does-it-cost-own-firearm-state-state-breakdown
The Costs of Owning a Gun: A State-by-State Permit Breakdown
"Costs for a first-time applicant to receive a concealed weapons permit or license to carry, including background check, can vary from zero in Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont—where concealed carry is legal without a permit—to $250 in Providence, R.I, to almost $450 in New York City and up to $480 in some California counties."

 

So every gun owner you know is opposed to crime prevention. Even more reason to outlaw the damn AR15

 

What about the Ar9, Ar10, the AK, and the 10/22? Why ban things, has that worked for drugs yet?

 

I've already stated twice that I support banning the AR15 for a generation because it has become a fetish weapon. As for your twisted logic, you must support murder too because outlawing it hasn't "worked"

 

Why do you think the USSC will uphold such a ban?

 

Not really. So I don't think for a moment that an ar ban is going to happen, but I guess people can build a 9 and a 10 and an ak instead? Just because I understand that prohibition was a failure doesn't mean I support murder, I'm just not a total idiot.

 

Non seq.
Laws against murder were not enacted with the intent to prevent murder -- they were enacted as a means to punish murderers.
As such, those laws work.

 

They upheld the assault weapons ban and this would be more narrowly tailored.

 

It did?
In what case?.

The 2nd protects the right of the people to keep and bear all "bearable arms" - that is, those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.
Why is it necessary, and how is it effective, to remove the AR15 from that protection?

 

Which is why gun ownership should be a privilege, not a right, and regulated like we do driver's licenses.

 

Looks like you need to amend the constitution, eh?

You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car, or keep a car on your property.
You don't need a license to operate a car on private property - in fact you only need a license to operate a car on public property.
If you break the law with your car you usually get to keep your car; in any case you get to keep all your other cars, and can by more.

 

The kid who shot up Uvalde was a lawful gun owner - until he shot up Uvalde.
The person who shot up the store in Buffalo was a lawful gun owner - until he shot up the store in Buffalo.
Would you care to rework that percentage you quoted?

 

Women are law-abiding citizens until they turn tricks. Treat all women like whores. Got it.