Go Back   Fratching! > General > Social Woes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes

  #11  
Old 10-04-2017, 10:13 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,178
Default

It seems like one of the big issues seems to revolve around wording of 2A. It reads, in full:

Quote:
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.
In the full context, what does "the right of the people" mean?

Remember, 1A, which says this:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This also mentions "the right of the people".

So are we looking at two different definitions?

"The right of the people" is also mentioned in 4A, 5A (but in a singular sense, and it separates "person" from "militia") 10A in a way.

The rest generally refer to "citizens".

So I suppose the question, again, is one of wording.
Reply With Quote

  #12  
Old 10-04-2017, 10:48 AM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanasi View Post
If a FFL holder knowingly sells or bypasses the law they are already liable according to current law. Licensed dealers that regularly "forget" to dot the Is and cross the Ts risk their license at the least and prison and/or fines at worst. There many rules and laws the licensed dealers must follow just on the federal level, then add on state, local and insurance carrier regulations.
Except their records are paper. It's really hard to track infractions if you have to wade through physical reams of paper in audits. In many states however gun lobbyists have managed to get it made illegal to computerize records. If a gun store wanted to digitize their records of gun sales and the paperwork that goes along with them they would be in violation of laws designed specifically to make reinforcing current laws more difficult.
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #13  
Old 10-04-2017, 11:34 AM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,203
Default

I actually also suspect that the Second Andendment was never intended to be as broad as it is currently interpreted.

A little history lesson here: up until sometime in the 19th century, it was actually a legal requirement in the UK to keep certain weapons in the house. (the specific weapons varied by your income) and I suspect it is that- those weapons were intended for use if necessary to defend the country- that the Founders had in mind- that people could be called up to defend the country at need, possibly instead of having a standing army.

Also, remember that this was the era when judicial duels were legal- even if they fell out of favour fairly soon afterwards. Killing someone over a matter of private honour is also no longer acceptable- however, there was a time when the right to issue a challenge was considered a fundamental right - because it was seen as some insults deserving death at the hands of the insulted. As such, I do believe that a conversation is needed about if the Second Amendment should be repealed or not. (however, for obvious reasons, it should not be disregarded in the meantime)
Reply With Quote

  #14  
Old 10-04-2017, 10:46 PM
Greenday's Avatar
Greenday Greenday is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,014
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cia View Post
The store owners can also sell to a person legally w/o knowing it's actually a straw purchase. A straw purchase is when a person who can legally purchase guns does so with the intent on selling them to people who cannot legally purchase guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanasi View Post
Should a store or person that in good faith the followed the laws regarding the product be held responsible when the product is used outside the law?
When does the responsibility end?
How many in this thread have actually bought a firearm or ammo?
What I'm saying (And it happens plenty according to what few studies have been done) is that stores who sell to Person A KNOWING they are going to turn around and give it to Person B are not getting punished. Because of laws protecting stores from being sued when someone buys a gun from the store and commits a crime with it, these stores knowingly aiding straw purchases don't get punished.

And I'm in the process of applying for my license to purchase.
__________________
Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst. - Starship Troopers
Reply With Quote

  #15  
Old 10-04-2017, 10:52 PM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackfaire View Post
Except their records are paper. It's really hard to track infractions if you have to wade through physical reams of paper in audits. In many states however gun lobbyists have managed to get it made illegal to computerize records. If a gun store wanted to digitize their records of gun sales and the paperwork that goes along with them they would be in violation of laws designed specifically to make reinforcing current laws more difficult.
Dealers are required by the BATFE to only use approved Bound books to record their firearms transactions. I'm not sure if it was ever approved but some software developers were testing an electronic version. I keep a bound book and with my C&R license my book is subject to an annual inspection and believe me they check for removed pages. The pages are numbered and you'd better have one hell of a good reason for removing the page because you could get 5 to 10 years at club fed and $250K fines.
The computerization of purchase has to do with the BATFE of scanning and storing bound books that have been turned into the BATFE. Also the FBI isn't allowed to retain records of NICs checks I think for longer than 90 days. A big stink came about in he 90's because the FBI was indefinitely retaining those records when the law specifically says they can't.
The fear is that the "government" will start a list of gun owners and what they own. Some will say that owners are being paranoid but both NYC and CA registration lists have been used for confiscation purposes. Speaking for myself it's no ones business what I own nor is it my business what you own. Everything I have I acquired within the law, I have been offered "deals" that I thought were too good that I passed on after I asked for it to be NIC checked (stolen.)
__________________
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!
Reply With Quote

  #16  
Old 10-05-2017, 06:54 PM
s_stabeler s_stabeler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,203
Default

I wondered if this would come up. If I may be blunt, if the government wanted to confiscate all guns, then they would be more likely to send people door-to-door searching. (yes, I am aware of the 4th amendment. However, pro-gun supporters already allege they have the right to own guns due to the 2nd amendment- so, if they are right, the government would be breaking two amendments, rather than one. not unrealistic. If they are wrong, the government could ban guns, then get search warrants.) If you used your guns to try to stop them, then that is not going to go well for you.
Reply With Quote

  #17  
Old 10-06-2017, 12:49 AM
Tanasi Tanasi is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 756
Default

If the government decides to go door to door searching for guns the a LOT of folks will die with a warrant or not.
Who do think the government will get to do these searches and confiscations?
__________________
Cry Havoc and let slip the marsupials of war!!!
Reply With Quote

  #18  
Old 10-06-2017, 01:26 AM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tanasi View Post
If the government decides to go door to door searching for guns the a LOT of folks will die with a warrant or not.
Who do think the government will get to do these searches and confiscations?

I think that was their point. The fact that no one would and it would never happen. Yet it's the basis for the argument against any sane laws preventing people from getting the weapons they need to do things like Vegas.

The first response to any "let's figure out why this happens and how to stop it" is "no you can't because then they'll try to take all of our guns"
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote

  #19  
Old 10-06-2017, 10:05 AM
mjr mjr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 1,178
Default

As far as is known, the shooter acquired the firearms legally.

And if a statistic I heard is correct, there are approximately 1.45 firearms for every person in the United States. That's approximately 464 million firearms.

Additionally, again, I bring up what I wrote earlier regarding 2A. What does "the right of the people" mean? And does it mean something different in 2A than it does in, say, 1A, 4A, and 5A?

And we must also ask ourselves how far we're willing to let our Constitutional rights be restricted.

Are you willing to let your 1A, 4A, and 5A rights be restricted further? If so, how much further?
Reply With Quote

  #20  
Old 10-06-2017, 10:20 AM
jackfaire's Avatar
jackfaire jackfaire is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver WA
Posts: 3,550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjr View Post
Are you willing to let your 1A, 4A, and 5A rights be restricted further? If so, how much further?
Before the Supreme Court agreed with gun manufacturers most of the public didn't feel that the 2nd amendment gave an individual the right to have the same kind of armament as the Army or a Militia that the individuals right to a firearm was limited to a reasonable amount.

Then they lobbied and sued until now a private citizen can outfit themselves as well as any combat ready military team and everyone else is just supposed to be okay with it.

Also it would help if congress can't have the gun control conversation if we could have the mental health one. Unfortunately those two things that often seem to go hand in hand during situations like these are both Verboten topics in today's congress.
__________________
Jack Faire
Friend
Father
Smartass
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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. The time now is 04:08 AM.


vBulletin skins developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.