I don’t care. How many times does it need be said. The vast majority want licensed gun owners and background checks for everyone possessing a firearm. That hand guns can also be registered to even carry them in your own home, is a bonus. Ha ha.
Many who support greater firearm-related restrictions call for the registration of all firearms, and all firearm owners to be licensed and required to obtain permits to make their acquisition, ownership, and use of firearms legal. Many believe that would be a victory to achieve. In truth if such would simply not be the case, and instead would simply serve to destroy their own base argument. Observe. In the Heller ruling by the united state supreme court, the court stated it was not going to address the licensing and registration requirements in place in the district, simply because the plaintiff did not challenge such requirements due to the total handgun prohibition taking legal precedent at the time. However the court did note the requirements were not objectionable, so long as they were not enforced in an arbitrary or capricious fashion. This could be taken as a statement that for any firearm-related restriction to pass constitutional muster, it can be neither arbitrary nor capricious in terms of either execution or content. Operating on the assumption the above holds true, even if licensing and registration requirements could be mandated at the federal level, it would ultimately prove to be anything but a victory for advocates of greater firearm-related restrictions. For licensing requirements to be found as neither arbitrary nor capricious, those tasked with issuing a license would have to issue licenses to absolutely anyone and everyone who applies and qualifies. This would ultimately mean shall-issue would have to be the legally required standard, not may-issue or discretionary. And if one notes how background checks on potential renters is discriminatory, and identification requirements for voting is discriminatory, a higher standard for those seeking firearm licenses and permits could not legally be held to a different standard. This would ultimately mean that a license would have to be issued to absolutely anyone and everyone who can pass the required background check when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. This would ultimately mean the only individuals who could be denied a firearm permit are those who already possess a disqualifying criminal record, thus meaning the licensing process does nothing that the already existing system does not do. If George Zimmerman applied for a firearms license, even he would have to be issued a license since he has no criminal record. This would mean the licensing process is ultimately redundant and serving no role in existing, and those who support the process would be obligated to justify and defend the existence of a redundant system that is no more beneficial than the background check system. It cannot even be argued that those who are issuing the licenses would find pertinent information the background check system is lacking, as the licensing would be done at the federal level rather than the local level. Even if the matter could be exported to the individual states, it would then become a question of why the individual states have failed to comply with federal requirements of forwarding said pertinent information to the federal government for inclusion in the national instant check system. On top of the matter of redundancy is the matter of fees that would need to be paid. The united state supreme court has already held that poll taxes are unconstitutional, and as no one would be able to legally own a firearm without obtaining a permit, meaning there are no circumstances for legally exercising a constitutional right without first applying to government, any fee that would be charged for the paperwork would constitute a poll tax. No matter what fee might be proposed, no matter how high or how low it may be, it would ultimately be challenged for being arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory against the economically disadvantaged. For the licensing requirement to pass constitutional muster, the paperwork would have to be processed for free, with the cost being footed exclusively by the federal government. In addition to the aforementioned matters, there is the simple fact the licensing requirement would not serve to prevent any firearm-related homicides from occurring. Since the licenses would have to be issued to anyone who applies and can pass a background check, it would mean that every future mass shooter was a licensed firearms owner, which would demonstrate that licensing requirements do not fulfill the promise upon which they are sold, that being that they serve to prevent mass killings from being committed. It will merely confirm that there is no way of knowing just who may become a mass shooter, why they made the decision, or when they will follow through with their plans. Even if the public demands that those tasked with issuing the licenses be provided the authority to discriminate against applicants, such could still not legally be allowed, as per the Heller ruling by the united state supreme court. In addition there is the matter of enforcement of the licensing and registration requirements, and for that it is necessary to turn to the so-called "war on drugs" for further discussion. Such statutes are drafted in a manner that is color blind, but when it comes to matters of actual enforcement, the statutes are charged as being discriminatory against minorities, simply because law enforcement officers are more likely to suspect minority individuals of a crime than white individuals by comparison. With licenses having to be issued for free to anyone without a criminal record, such would ultimately mean the only individuals who would not have a license would be those with a disqualifying criminal record, the majority of which are minority individuals, largely due to institutionalized bias on the part of law enforcement. Even if firearm licensing and registration requirements are implemented at the national level, law enforcement will still be more likely to suspect minority individuals of carrying an unregistered firearm without a license than they would a white individual, and the arrest and prosecution records will show such as being the case. This would ultimately put supporters of firearm-related restrictions in a unique bind. Do they support the prosecution of minority individuals for the federal crime of unlicensed possession of a firearm? Or do they oppose the prosecution of these individuals due to the supposedly discriminatory enforcement just as they do when it comes to the matter of illicit narcotic substances? Which standard do they support, and which do they oppose, when both standards are ultimately their own? They cannot oppose the requirement of unlicensed firearms possession being prosecuted on the basis of more offenders being minority individuals without admitting that their policy has nothing to do with public safety. Yet at the same time they cannot support doing away with the licensing requirement on the basis of it being discriminatory due to institutionalized bias on the part of law enforcement. In simple, uncomplicated, easy to understand terms, if licensing and registration requirements were implemented with regard to firearms, those who supported the measure would stand to lose far more in the matter than those who are opposed to greater firearm-related restrictions would stand to lose in comparison.
And yet felons continue to illegally possess firearms in the district of columbia, thus proving the licensing and registration requirement is not actually working as intended. Therefore it is not being successful, since those who should not have firearms are still successfully acquiring them regardless.
You’re not very well informed. That’s why we need stronger federal laws. So criminal buyers can’t buy guns from your friends.
How will such federal laws serve to prevent such from happening? Explain such. Demonstrate the manner in which such will work, not merely in a hypothetical sense, but in an actual sense.
Except for the fact that such an inflammatory comment cannot actually be proven on the part of yourself. Get to demonstrating how the claim on the part of yourself is factually correct, or be reported for violating the established forum guidelines.
Its not inflammatory. It’s fact. Our country has more guns and more gun violence then anyone, and with your support, the nra promotes secondary gun sales to any walking humanoid including criminals, terrorists and any malcontent . Congrats, own it.
Then remove said criminals, terrorists, and malcontents from society, and do not allow them to freely roam where they pose the greatest threat to public safety. Either confine them to an appropriate facility for the duration of their natural lives, or execute them outright for being undesirables that have no place in a civilized world.
That is a politically unrealistic solution. Many have criticized the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (which resulted in significantly more people being imprisoned), but your proposal is much more extreme.
Extreme problems require extreme solutions that address the actual problem, not half-measures that cast the illusion of safety while offering nothing whatsoever. These are the individuals who are committing the majority of all violent crime in the united states, be it with firearms or without. These are individuals who are devoid of a legitimate reason to be left free in society where they pose the greatest risk of harm, especially the supposedly known terrorists. If the united states cannot even remove known terrorists from its society, then it has far bigger problems in need of address than the minuscule matter of the availability of certain firearms on the private market. As a supposed first world developed nation, the united states owes it to its citizenry to protect the public from those who are bent on harming others for their own benefit. If it must take extreme measures to do such in order to remove the known problematic individuals from society, then such is what ultimately must be done. As it is there is no legitimate excuse for allowing known and confirmed terrorists to walk free in public.
Oh very true. I think that if you would read the OP in this thread I discuss this. I also quote where the Court pointedly refused to decide whether the registration/license scheme was constitutional. As I said in the OP, Heller was a very limited ruling—limited by the exact issue raised in the case—the total handgun ban. SCOTUS’ Constitutional authority is limited to deciding only the specific issues raised, and it cannot rule on the constitutionality of laws that are not specifically challenged. Heller’s ruling did not violate this limitation. To decide the handgun ban SCOTUS had to address several issues. Is the RKBA an individual right? Yes. Is it restricted to militia functions or militia participation? No. Is it an off-shoot of the common law right of self-defense and defense of others? Yes. Are all bearable arms protected by this right? Presumptively so, but long accepted restrictions (like bans on “dangerous or unusual” weapons—however that is defined…) are accepted. Are handguns a subset of the “class” of protected arms? Yes. Based on this, does the handgun ban affecting a private citizen who is not a militia member but wants to keep a handgun in his home for the purpose of self-defense unconstitutional? Yes. Beyond that, the Court recognized this was the first real case to involve the right, and as with other rights over time other cases will allow the Court to explain the full scope of the protected right: “JUSTICE BREYER chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 720-721. But since this case represents this Court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.” District Of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (200 The question I have, for anyone willing to have an honest discussion, is what other gun laws might survive a challenge? For example, would D.C.’s registration and permit system survive an actual challenge? Is there anyone out there who honestly wants to discuss this?
Some how you think what ? You do know when they refuse to make rulings, it’s neither for or against and it’s an affirmation that the status quo remains in tact.
Well what I think is your latest post is your affirmation of your retreat from the D.C.’s laws are written with the “advice” and “consent” of SCOTUS argument you previously made. I am happy we have gotten past that and you agree that SCOTUS made no ruling whatsoever on the constitutionality of D.C.’s licensing laws. I just want to make sure you understood why SCOTUS refused to decide that issue, and that its refusal to rule on the licensing requirement was not a judicial wink and a nudge to D.C that the laws were ok. Now that we are past that, my question is simple: Are you willing to discuss the constitutionality of other laws—like D.C.’s licensing scheme—which SCOTUS “did not address” in Heller? It’s your choice to decide whether or not you want to, and it’s OK if you don’t want to. Everyone is free to talk about what they wish, and to refuse to talk about things they don’t want to talk about. No one can credibly call you a coward if you say “I’m not interested in having that discussion.” I certainly won’t. I don’t come here often, but I did with this thread because I’m just looking for someone camped on the other side of the hill in the overall gun debate who is willing to have a discussion. So if you say yes, then I’ll gladly have that discussion with you. If you say no, then we can leave it at that and I will move on to see if someone else will.
No I don't think it would be uninteresting. It might become boring due to the lag time in my ability to reply as quickly as I would like, but I think sharing ideas is a good thing. I would like to have someone from the other side of the hill to challenge what I think and make me critically evaluate my own positions, hopefully with some insight I have not considered. I have enjoyed those discussion when they happen, and there used to be pro-gun control bloggers here who would do that. But I'll discuss these issues with anyone. It's always easier to attack someone else's position rather than make your own and defend it from assault, and so even if we are largely in agreement I suspect we would see some sniping from the other side of the hill by those who are unwilling to get drawn into a discussion that requires them to them to defend their ideas. And if they do, then I will simply ask them to stake their position and tell me why they are right and I am wrong. It is still possible in this world to disagree without having to be disagreeable.
Any law that the Supreme Court refuses to rule on, remains in full force. You do get that don’t you ?
And the united state supreme court also ruled current firearm-related restrictions are presumptively lawful for the time being. Presumptively lawful is a long way from being the same thing as constitutional. It simply means they are existing on borrowed time for the moment.
The most ridiculous statement about the SC we’ve ever heard. , No court rules restrictions are lawful “ for the time being”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html "26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive." Such is precisely what the phrase "presumptively lawful" means. That the restriction is assumed to be legal and lawful until such time it is subject to constitutional review.
Do you have anything else to do but make things upon. Presumably.....definition, used to convey that what is asserted is very likely though not known for certain. It is presently, constitutional and is LIKELY true.
Factually incorrect. The status of constitutional can only be applied by the united state supreme court. Legislation is not deemed constitutional by the mere fact it is signed into law. No piece of legislation is constitutional from the moment it is implemented. It simply does not work that way. As a citizen of the united states, you are devoid of a legitimate reason for not being aware of such a fact.
