2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on October 02, 2013, 11:17:34 AM
-
I am curious to hear viewpoints from people on this forum about just how much or how little background checks and firearm restrictions should be in place.
Some want guns pretty much completely banned, but probably not anyone here.
Some want guns to be completely unregulated so anyone can buy them without question.
Where do you stand?
I will also describe my stance even though I am not fully decided on some issues.
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
-
.
-
I will also describe my stance even though I am not fully decided on some issues.
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
NO Absolutely no rationale for this. Besides, who has the $$ to go out and shoot full auto anyway?
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
Qualified "Maybe" I think this is too broad a brush. Depends on the Felony, some are just BS, some are serious crimes. Too arbitrary.
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
NO Without knowing what "certain" means and who decides?
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
Maybe, with very strict controls on time limits for checks.
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
NO Why? I am trained with them, though I have no real use for them, but I might some day.
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
No brainer
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
NO For the classical government reasons...........
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
OK
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
Why?
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
"Now, that will upset the badgelickers that see drunk cops carrying as just peachy keen."
[/i]
Why no mention of suppressors? I am all for them, but the idea drives liberals into a frothing rage.
-
.
-
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
I think background checks are reasonable
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable
I am against magazine capacity limit laws
I think the registration of firearms is reasonable.
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm
A person responsible enough to CC a firearm should be responsible enough to know when and where they should be carrying
-
I double Q's answers.
no
yes
depends on disorder
no
no mag limits
no registration
yes
-
Add once I pass, I buy and bring anything into state.
-
I am curious to hear viewpoints from people on this forum about just how much or how little background checks and firearm restrictions should be in place.
Some want guns pretty much completely banned, but probably not anyone here.
Some want guns to be completely unregulated so anyone can buy them without question.
Where do you stand?
I will also describe my stance even though I am not fully decided on some issues.
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Why? Why can I have a semi auto but not full auto?
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
Sure, but forever, idk
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
Okay, but who says what disorders qualify?
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
Yes
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
Destructive devices, okay
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
Yes
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
No. Registration leads to confiscation. Not anyone's business what I own.
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training So, so, should you need to prove anything to exercise a right?
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) Premit, yes, but not to specific firearm, what if I wanna change my carry gun?
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated Over the legal limit? Yes
-
After living in areas of high crime and actually being shot at in a drive-by I'm still on the fence on some of the issues. Gun registration seems like a terrible given the current totalitarian direction our government is headed but but it does discourage people from selling to criminals and dumb-asses.
People convicted of felonies can turn their lives around, but in my experience those convicted of violent crimes probably don't need the temptation.
There are so many different kinds of mental disorders out there that it would be ridiculous to go down a yes or no list and it's better left to individual review. If some people want to take themselves out of the gene pool in a manner that's quick and painless (if done properly) then who am I to tell them to risk agony/embarrassment by swinging from a rope, jumping off a cliff, popping pills or sucking on an exhaust pipe?
Explosives are fine if you need to take out a tree stump but have no business in an urban setting, high cap mags don't figure into crime statistics well enough to consider them a serious threat, and it would be nice to have people take a CC class to make sure they aren't more dangerous than an active shooter.
Select fire is where I'm very firm in my belief. The NRA really screwed the pooch when they caved on that one. It opened the door to banning weapons based on certain features rather than destructive capability, and in some ways it was good for them because now they have lots of money pouring in from frightened citizens every few years when the gun grabbers make it an issue again.
-
Everyone seems hesitant on the mental disorder issue and with good reason, it could potentially be used to deny most people firearms if to widely interpreted. I would be for very limited restrictions if someone had a serious mental disorder that was often associated with violence.
In light of the recent shootings people are up in arms about why these people with mental disorders were able to get guns to go kill people. Now if the gun community goes out and says we should not have any background checks and anyone should be able to purchase a firearm then that would include crazy people who want to go on a rampage. But on the other hand can you deny someone a right just because they have a dangerous diagnosed mental disorder even if they have done nothing wrong and show no signs of doing anything wrong? I am not a psychologist so I don't know exactly which disorders or combination of disorders I would want to draw the line at but I think a line does need to be drawn. I realize it would be hard to enforce though but a line should be drawn in my opinion.
As for silencers.... undecided.
We also have to have ID to vote. There are some reasonable limits to constitutional rights. (Yelling fire in a crowded place)
-
I am for background checks, but they should not take more than a day.
I am against waiting periods for guns.
I am for Concealed Carry in any location, unless drinking.
I am against magazine limits.
I think an ordinary citizen should be able to own any rifle or handgun that the military/police use (full auto or not).
Explosives I am not to sure about, but think they need training at least
Training should be a requirement to purchase guns, but no extra training for CC. A responsible adult should want training.
Mentaly ill should not have guns, but a one time diagnosis should not be permenant.
-
I am against all firearm restrictions, however, I would like stronger punishments for certain crimes.
Example:
1. Felon using a firearm in a certain crime = automatic 10 years
2. Using a full-auto in a certain crime = automatic death penalty
(any crimes adding to greater than 10 years = automatic death unless the criminal is able and willing to be in a work program to fund his own incarceration, officers' salaries, food, etc.)
Basically, give responsibility back to the people and make them live (or die) with the consequences of being irresponsible.
I know this sounds really weird, but I have a very different view from most people I meet, and this is my opinion.
-
People convicted of felonies can turn their lives around, but in my experience those convicted of violent crimes probably don't need the temptation.
There's the rub: far too many "felonies" these days have nothing to do with violence, but just crossed the line some liberal politician decided needed a more severe crime designation than misdemeanor.
It is scary how many things can get you busted on a felony rap. There was a news article in Georgia today about a HS senior arrested for a felony weapons charge for having his fishing tackle in his car at school. Horrors: he and a fishing knife in there! So this kid is automatically violent?
Killing the wrong critter can get you a felony in many places as well. What happens when the nanny state gets a head of steam up.
-
There's the rub: far too many "felonies" these days have nothing to do with violence, but just crossed the line some liberal politician decided needed a more severe crime designation than misdemeanor.
It is scary how many things can get you busted on a felony rap. There was a news article in Georgia today about a HS senior arrested for a felony weapons charge for having his fishing tackle in his car at school. Horrors: he and a fishing knife in there! So this kid is automatically violent?
Killing the wrong critter can get you a felony in many places as well. What happens when the nanny state gets a head of steam up.
Another example:
It's a felony to lie on your IRS Tax Return, BUT
it's only a misdemeanor to not file a return at all.
So, for what could potentially be a mistake on your income tax return (and with our tax code, that's really easy to do), you may lose the right to vote, to keep and bear arms for self defense, etc.
-
So, for what could potentially be a mistake on your income tax return (and with our tax code, that's really easy to do), you may lose the right to vote, to keep and bear arms for self defense, etc.
Call me a paranoid anti-government type (and, oh yeah, FU NSA! ) but I get the strong feeling that the creeping "felononializing" of just about any petty offense is quite deliberate. (new word?)
The why is left for the student to define.
It was noted by Ayn Rand, I believe, that it is impossible to go about daily life and not violate some law or other. I enthusiastically violate speed limits every time I drive.
-
[quote author=eyeeatingfish link=topic=11322.msg110107#msg110107 date=
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable. NO THEN WHY ALLOW SEMI-AUTOS AT ALL
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable. ABSOLUTELY
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable. PEOPLE ON SSRI's SHOULDN'T OWN GUNS
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people). JUST LIKE TEXAS, SHOW ID, RUN THROUGH SOMETHING CALLED THE INTERNET, BAM OFF YOU GO
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable. MMMMM. OK
I am against magazine capacity limit laws. AGREED BRING ON DRUMS
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable. TOTALLY UNNECESSARY
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements. STRICT CLASSES SHOULD BE TAKEN. THE CLASS SHOULD BE DIFFICULT, NOT EASY LIKE DRIVERS TEST.
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated YUP
[/quote]
-
Limiting the rights of the individual without due process of law?
Full auto should not be outright banned but rather a restricted use firearm. Restricted as in the sense of no carry, restricted to home storage, locked in a safe when owner is not at home and used only under life threatening circumstances at home or during practice at a gun range. Similar to existing Hawaii general firearms laws but with the addition of the safe when owners are not at home.
Felonies differ from State to State and thus a federal unilaterally applied law without uniform state legal standards regarding felonies would circumnavigate the equal privileges and immunities clause.
For example; Vehicular Manslaughter, DUI's etc all differ with regard to felony or misdemeanor charges state by state. A more Constitutional approach would be Federal Standards based on violent and predatory convictions where the Convicting Judge is responsible for mandating removal of the right to keep and bear arms on Federal Standards under strict appropriate conditions only. When the judiciary removal order has been entered, the right to keep and bear arms is then removed and the person placed on a no firearms list.
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable, Case by case basis and again under federal standards that a doctor is responsible for diagnosing and a definite prerequisite for being prescribed particular known to be dangerous prescription medications. Also such a gun rights removal should be subject to re-evaluation if sought through simple court procedures and medical clearance.
Also - No State, City, Municipality or privately owned open to public business may implement or adopt any local laws or rules regarding firearms. The federal standards should create uniformly applied laws throughout the 50 states and no individuals firearms rights will differ when traveling from one state to another.
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for those placed on the no firearms list)
I think heavy ordinances should be legally restricted and handled according to necessity usages.
I am against magazine capacity limit laws and any laws that limit the many available options for firearms.
Local registration for full automatic weapons only as a method to help local law enforcement in helping track down and find stolen firearms of this type.
Semi automatic and under should require no local registration aside form the basic background clearance check when the purchase is registered within a central data base and that data base should only be accessible for checking a person for clearance and or when one who has been entered on the no firearms list to see if they have previously purchased, what they have purchased etc. so law enforcement can track them down and remove the firearms they previously purchased.
I am for concealed and open carry for any firearm short of full auto firearms and this carry practice need no special clearances or permits.
I will admit the part with regard to full auto can be argued for or against but the rest is pretty much the proper approach rather than generalizing "felony" while inadvertently denying or approving people from differing states based on differing state felony classifications. That word felony is full of holes as is no contact order etc. All is subjective state by state and there needs to be uniform application, otherwise a state could start classifying a parking ticket as a felony to keep its citizens from owning firearms.
-
We have an entire generation (or more) of over-medicated former children diagnosed by school nurses and teachers as ADHD in need of medication.
Those decisions follow you through life. Many people on Ridilin as children have trouble getting a driver's license or jobs needing to be bonded or carry a firearm (security guards, etc.).
I wonder how many parents would have refused the prescription knowing the ramifications later in life?
-
We have an entire generation (or more) of over-medicated former children diagnosed by school nurses and teachers as ADHD in need of medication.
Those decisions follow you through life. Many people on Ridilin as children have trouble getting a driver's license or jobs needing to be bonded or carry a firearm (security guards, etc.).
I wonder how many parents would have refused the prescription knowing the ramifications later in life?
This is why I say such loss of firearms rights should be subject to reversal depending on the individual circumstances and again even before a prescription for these more dangerous drugs can be filled, there needs to be checks put in place that would require the removal of the persons firearms before allowing the prescription to be handed to the patient. There should also be additional laws put in place when a child is placed on these dangerous prescription medications whereby if the parent is a gun owner, the guns will have to be proven safely locked up and out of the reach of the child and the parent must concede to disallowing the child from ever holding or gaining access to the firearm. This would also be inclusive of children deemed mentally unfit to be in contact with firearms. I'm for stricter regulations but only if those regulations rise to a standard of self evident necessity. Arguing full auto, semi auto, magazine limits is all horse pucky, firearms ownership and use are among the many citizens rights of this nation, responsible firearms laws are not unreasonable expectations, silly and non-uniform firearms laws are unreasonable.
-
2. Using a full-auto in a certain crime = automatic death penalty
(any crimes adding to greater than 10 years = automatic death unless the criminal is able and willing to be in a work program to fund his own incarceration, officers' salaries, food, etc.)
Just FYI, the supreme court has said that the death penalty can never be an automatic sentence for any crime.
-
Just FYI, the supreme court has said that the death penalty can never be an automatic sentence for any crime.
I understand...just my view of "How Things Should Be," which is also subject to change.
-
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Full auto is not illegal Federally. Just incredibly expensive due to the NFA and subsequent decision to allow only those full auto firearms manufactured before 1986. Furthermore, their use in crime after the "gangster era" has been quite minimal. Only one instance and that was by an LEO.
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
Others have already commented but I'll add that I agree that it is too broad of a brush. For example, if you are walking in a forest and pick up a feather on the ground, and that feather is from a Bald Eagle, you have just committed a felony.
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
Again, a broad category that needs some defining before I'd agree. Subject, of course, to a judicial review that pinned the responsibility on the government to prove the case, not the other way around.
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
OK, with enforceable limits placed on the Federal agencies charged with effecting this.
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
Define "explosives." I believe gasoline is considered an explosive....
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
Yep.
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
Not reasonable and should be abolished and records destroyed where already in practice
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
What requirements? Defined and developed by whom? Allow the government to promulgate rules and regulations and they will do so to the effect of making it nearly impossible to obtain. Look to DC's recent laws just to purchase a firearm.
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
Again, who makes the requirements?
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
Nope. Constitutional carry....
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
Define "intoxicated." Is it one drink, or two? Or any alcohol? Why can I have a drink with dinner and drive my car, an instrument that kills far more folks than guns, but can't do the same if I carry my gun?
-
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
I disagree.
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
I agree.
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
I agree, but the disorders need to be very clear.
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
I agree, but the checks need to be very clear as to their goals and how far reaching they will be.
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
I think this needs to be further clarified. A cartridge could be classified as an "explosive," so can fireworks. How about components to explosives such as a certain type of fertilizer, or gunpowder? You can bet if this is legislated, then there will be people who want to expand the definition. Some thing goes for people who want to legislate bullets towards illegality.
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
I agree.
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
I disagree with registration. I do think it can help LEOs, however I am wary it can be used against citizens by overzealous government officials.
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
On a safety level I agree, however I do not think this should be a limiting factor. If this is a requirement, then I think the State must provide free classes and classes that are offered with enough regularity that it does not exclude citizens. Also I would say that it should not include a test.
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
I disagree. I see this as no different than making someone obtain permit to exercise any of their other Rights under the Constitution and Amendments
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
I disagree. For instance if you are at home and someone attacked you/family, you should not be prohibited from responding.
I will also add that suppressors should be 50 state & territory legal.
-
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Disagree, I would like to have an equal playing field. I would like to have access to the same weapons capabilities as the guy trying to shoot me.
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
I agree.
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
I agree to an extent. They need to clarify what is a go and no go.
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
I agree to an extent. They need to clarify what is a go and no go.
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
I agree to an extent. They need to clarify what is a go and no go. A friend of mine does cesspools. They sometimes use some sort of dynamite to blast through solid rocks during some excavations.
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
I agree.
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
I disagree. IMO they don't need to have a list of what I have/had/lost
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
I agree.
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
I agree.
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
I disagree. I would hate having to apply for a new permit every time I purchased a new firearm
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
I agree. Luckily I don't drink anymore. But everyone's own opinion on level of being intoxicated will differ.
I also agree on having the chance to own class 3 stuff like suppressors, SBR, full auto, etc... in this state.
-
Huge No to the mental disorders. That realm is full of dangers. If people accept such things as valid, it will not be long before the anti-gun politicians point to everyone who desires to own a firearm, and claim they have a mental disorder for being too violent or fearful.
I think past actions are all you can go by. If someone has been convicted of crimes of violence, then it is unlikely they would own a firearm responsibly. Outside of that, we have no right to subjectively assess the minds of people whom have never committed a crime, and claim that we think they will commit a crime in the future then deny them gun ownership.
-
I should be able to own these in Hawaii is my level of discomfort...
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/d24d96f1-1326-4dd1-b6f6-b9e72ec54dd6_zps49a27224.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/d24d96f1-1326-4dd1-b6f6-b9e72ec54dd6_zps49a27224.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/d6bb0a79-87fa-456b-834a-b2bbc9dd16e1_zps9724d28c.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/d6bb0a79-87fa-456b-834a-b2bbc9dd16e1_zps9724d28c.jpg.html)
(http://i1287.photobucket.com/albums/a632/Bunker9939/81cb67bf-d43c-438f-a51f-966bb73ad49e_zpscff6ed52.jpg) (http://s1287.photobucket.com/user/Bunker9939/media/81cb67bf-d43c-438f-a51f-966bb73ad49e_zpscff6ed52.jpg.html)
-
Hi guys!
This is a good thread! I agree with most of the current laws.
I think a cap on handgun mag capacities are kinda stupid.
I also do not like the current mental health statutes in place. This is where I know more than a lot of people. Because I am one of those who is prohibited to purchase or own a firearm. I am currently trying to reverse this issue. In the law it says that if you can get a note from your doctor saying you are no longer affected by the disorder they will allow me to get a permit to acquire. Easy enough huh? Haha nope. My current health care provider will not provide any document in relation to firearms. It's the company policy. (Kaiser). Strangely though, the lady in the records department told me that there have been people who HAVE gotten notes from their doctors. Private psychiatrists won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole. So, what's a guy to do? I have found a solution. I have met with my doctor and "talked" about my not being on meds anymore. I then request my records that have all of her notes. Which includes all the "talked" about stuff. Hopefully those records are good enough to get my permit. We'll see!
There is one thing that kinda peeves me about the way this law works. In my case the lady in the records department is the judge and jury. I have no criminal record. I only have 1 speeding ticket! lol. Unlike a lot of the mental health shooters that have been in the news, I have no previous run in with authority. This to me is like being a criminal without ever doing a crime. I'm not a full citizen even though I've never even remotely been in trouble. It's kinda like the movie minority report. lol.
Oh, I should mention that the disorder I suffered from is anxiety. In my opinion Anxiety based disorders are fundamentally different from mood and behavior disorders.
Is there anyone who is like me and been successful at obtaining a permit?
-
.
-
Hi guys!
This is a good thread! I agree with most of the current laws.
I think a cap on handgun mag capacities are kinda stupid.
I also do not like the current mental health statutes in place. This is where I know more than a lot of people. Because I am one of those who is prohibited to purchase or own a firearm. I am currently trying to reverse this issue. In the law it says that if you can get a note from your doctor saying you are no longer affected by the disorder they will allow me to get a permit to acquire. Easy enough huh? Haha nope. My current health care provider will not provide any document in relation to firearms. It's the company policy. (Kaiser). Strangely though, the lady in the records department told me that there have been people who HAVE gotten notes from their doctors. Private psychiatrists won't touch this subject with a ten foot pole. So, what's a guy to do? I have found a solution. I have met with my doctor and "talked" about my not being on meds anymore. I then request my records that have all of her notes. Which includes all the "talked" about stuff. Hopefully those records are good enough to get my permit. We'll see!
There is one thing that kinda peeves me about the way this law works. In my case the lady in the records department is the judge and jury. I have no criminal record. I only have 1 speeding ticket! lol. Unlike a lot of the mental health shooters that have been in the news, I have no previous run in with authority. This to me is like being a criminal without ever doing a crime. I'm not a full citizen even though I've never even remotely been in trouble. It's kinda like the movie minority report. lol.
Oh, I should mention that the disorder I suffered from is anxiety. In my opinion Anxiety based disorders are fundamentally different from mood and behavior disorders.
Is there anyone who is like me and been successful at obtaining a permit?
mauidood I think that's an important topic you should start a seperate thread about
-
[i agree
mauidood, start a new thread and maybe some people will share their experiences
quote author=dirsh link=topic=11322.msg112679#msg112679 date=1382392546]
mauidood I think that's an important topic you should start a seperate thread about
[/quote]
-
As per the lack of definition presented by Uncle Thomas and Uncle George,
I should be able to own one of these:
(http://ww2today.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/katyusha.jpg)
I say, if you can afford the ammo to feed it and find a place to shoot, why the hell not?
-
.
-
How about the same restrictions as the bad guys have - none. There, now the playing field is level.
-
.
-
LOL!!! Forgot about that rubber pellet claymore thing on Jack Ass. Would be nice to have some bouncing betties with rubber pellets as well to put around the perimeter.
-
Prohibiting Full auto - Agree. Full auto has no real life usage except war. Only makes accuracy plummet. Maybe heavily regulate this.
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree. Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree. I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree. Criminals never learn. Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit. Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree. Current law for this is satisfactory. Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree. Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed. As an American right, it shouldnt require registration. I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho. It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that. Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner. I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof. It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree. Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
Allow Open Carry - Disagree. Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs. Just causes unwanted public attention. I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID. I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me. Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree. Just because of the nature of their job.
Bottom line... I think capable and model citizens have the right to own firearms and protect themselves. which is why i support background checks. But those capable/model citizens should also be trained to some extent to help prevent certain incidents, as some people are naturally clumsy and irresponsible. Too bad they dont make it this hard to drive/own a car...
-
I disagree with about 98.8 percent of what 'Water' just said.
Please give me one good reason why a suppressor should be an NFA item.
-
Prohibiting Full auto - Agree. Full auto has no real life usage except war. Only makes accuracy plummet. Maybe heavily regulate this.
There is no real reason for owning a 600HP automobile except to race either, but they're not illegal. And, FYI, full auto is legal on the Federal level, just not our state. In states that allow full auto ownership, none are used in crimes....
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree. Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Why? The benefits, even if they don't make the firearm totally silent, it does reduce the decibel levels dramatically which could help with hearing loss. In some European countries, they are required for hunting so as not to disturb the other wildlife.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree. I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree. Criminals never learn. Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Do you agree with the Lautenberg Amendment that makes those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence ineligible to own firearms? Should non-violent felons be allowed to own firearms?
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Which ones?
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit. Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
What other core Constitutional rights do you advocate a permitting process for?
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree. Current law for this is satisfactory. Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Should that include reactive targets like Tannerite?
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree. Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Uhhh, no. You wake up in the middle of the night to noise in your house and grab your self-defense handgun. You are quickly confronted by three home invaders. I don't know about you, but I want maximum capacity in the magazine I have in that gun because the likelihood of me (or you) being able to grab additional magazines is pretty low....
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed. As an American right, it shouldnt require registration. I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho. It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that. Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner. I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
So what are the penalties for not reporting it and what time frame must you report it missing? As for the liability issue, why should the owners be responsible if a criminal breaks into their house and steals their gun and then uses it criminally? Does the car owner who has his car stolen get charged with a crime if he didn't have his vehicle in a secure and locked garage when it was stolen?
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
What would that training consist of? Who gets to decide? Does the legal training have to be by a lawyer? How long does the training have to be?
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof. It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
So you should have to show proficiency with any firearm you may want to carry? What if the gun you "tested with" breaks and you want to carry another one but haven't "tested out" on it yet? Can you do an "emergency" qualification so you don't have to be unarmed while you wait to schedule your proficiency test?
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree. Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
So I can have a few beers and still be legal to drive my car, which kills many more people each year than guns, but I cannot carry my firearm?
Allow Open Carry - Disagree. Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs. Just causes unwanted public attention. I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID. I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me. Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Speaking your mind on your proverbial soapbox on the corner of the street or in a park often draws unwanted public attention, should that be illegal? Loud preaching on a sidewalk is also bound to garner unwanted public attention, should that also be illegal? As for the felon, you're comfortable with him carrying concealed? You may not "like" open carry, or agree with it, but it is, especially where no permit is required, one of the purest means by which to express your Second Amendment rights.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree. Just because of the nature of their job.
Why? As any LEO will tell you, they automatically assume that anyone they stop is carrying. Try and find that video of the Ohio guy who was berated and threatened to be shot by the cop arresting him because he didn't tell the cop he was carrying "quick" enough. And that is the problem. If there is a mandatory disclosure to law enforcement, there will always be the ability of a "bad apple" making a case out of you not telling him "soon enough." And, is a disclosure mandatory on an non-consensual stop, or is it mandated for a consensual stop, meaning that anytime an LEO said anything to you, including "good morning" as you passed on the street, you'd be mandated to disclose you were carrying a firearm....
Bottom line... I think capable and model citizens have the right to own firearms and protect themselves. which is why i support background checks. But those capable/model citizens should also be trained to some extent to help prevent certain incidents, as some people are naturally clumsy and irresponsible. Too bad they dont make it this hard to drive/own a car...
Sorry man, I don't mean to bust your chops, and you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I just find your logic for supporting some of these restrictions confusing and contradictory. I mention them only to stimulate discussion and explore the basis for some of your conclusions.
-
Too bad they don't make it this hard to drive/own a car...
I'm guessing that's at least partly facetious, but based upon the rest of your answers... As it's said, "It's not about gun control, it's about control". Bloomberg and the nanny state/ police state are just one step behind you. I suppose you want to control what substances people consume in the privacy of their own homes, too? I suppose you saw (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/chris-dumm/23500-award-co-open-carry-wrongful-arrest/ (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/chris-dumm/23500-award-co-open-carry-wrongful-arrest/)) that the Colorado guy stopped and arrested for legally open carrying won a $23,500 settlement from the cops? Why should "unwanted public attention" from hoplophobes be a consideration, much less a criterion, for the legality of acting according to a Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental individual right?
-
Prohibiting Full auto - Agree. Full auto has no real life usage except war. Only makes accuracy plummet. Maybe heavily regulate this.
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree. Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree. I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree. Criminals never learn. Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit. Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree. Current law for this is satisfactory. Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree. Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed. As an American right, it shouldnt require registration. I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho. It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that. Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner. I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof. It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree. Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
Allow Open Carry - Disagree. Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs. Just causes unwanted public attention. I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID. I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me. Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree. Just because of the nature of their job.
Bottom line... I think capable and model citizens have the right to own firearms and protect themselves. which is why i support background checks. But those capable/model citizens should also be trained to some extent to help prevent certain incidents, as some people are naturally clumsy and irresponsible. Too bad they dont make it this hard to drive/own a car...
You sound a lot like your anti-gun in some of your respsonses ???
-
Here's that video of the Ohio LEO that at first tells the concealed carrier to not talk and then, when the officer finally gets to talking to him, the gun owner tries a couple of times to inform the officer he was carrying before the officer goes off the deep end....this is but one example of such behavior and is why some oppose notification laws....
Dash Cam: Canton PD "Notification" Arrest & Officer Goes Berserk / Threatens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc#ws)
In early 2012 that officer was fired after a "pattern" of abuse and misconduct were discovered on video of other traffic stops. In an unfortunate turn of events, an arbitration hearing apparently said the cop could return to work if he was medically cleared to do so.
-
The cop is a loose cannon. Not sure what medically cleared really is but IMO he shouldn't be a LEO.
-
He should be shoveling elephant poo at the local zoo.
-
Prohibiting Full auto - Agree. Full auto has no real life usage except war. Only makes accuracy plummet. Maybe heavily regulate this.
There is no real reason for owning a 600HP automobile except to race either, but they're not illegal. And, FYI, full auto is legal on the Federal level, just not our state. In states that allow full auto ownership, none are used in crimes....
Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers - Agree. Although they dont make a firearm completely silent in most cases.
Why? The benefits, even if they don't make the firearm totally silent, it does reduce the decibel levels dramatically which could help with hearing loss. In some European countries, they are required for hunting so as not to disturb the other wildlife.
Assault Weapons Ban - Disagree. I think most firearm related crimes involve handguns anyway.
Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms - Agree. Criminals never learn. Possibly even certain or specific number of drug convictions.
Do you agree with the Lautenberg Amendment that makes those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence ineligible to own firearms? Should non-violent felons be allowed to own firearms?
Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders - Agree.
Which ones?
Background Checks - Agree because you need this for criminal and mental disorder checks.
Permit to Purchase - Agree just because of the required checks that would be performed and this would show proof you are fit. Obtaining a permit should be more streamline and done in a timely manner
What other core Constitutional rights do you advocate a permitting process for?
Prohibiting Explosives. - Agree. Current law for this is satisfactory. Again, no real life situation to own explosives besides construction and war
Should that include reactive targets like Tannerite?
Limiting Magazine Capacity - Disagree. Getting around this is easy by carrying more magazines.
Uhhh, no. You wake up in the middle of the night to noise in your house and grab your self-defense handgun. You are quickly confronted by three home invaders. I don't know about you, but I want maximum capacity in the magazine I have in that gun because the likelihood of me (or you) being able to grab additional magazines is pretty low....
Registration of Firearms - I am mixed. As an American right, it shouldnt require registration. I can see registration being used against us in the the future tho. It should be required to report stolen a firearm tho registering would help enforce that. Registration should be done in a easier and more timely manner. I like the idea of holding gun owners liable for their firearms like locking it up when you arent home!
So what are the penalties for not reporting it and what time frame must you report it missing? As for the liability issue, why should the owners be responsible if a criminal breaks into their house and steals their gun and then uses it criminally? Does the car owner who has his car stolen get charged with a crime if he didn't have his vehicle in a secure and locked garage when it was stolen?
Allow Concealed Carry only after meeting certain requirements
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training - Agree
What would that training consist of? Who gets to decide? Does the legal training have to be by a lawyer? How long does the training have to be?
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it) - Agree just because if training is required, permit shows proof. It shouldnt matter what firearm you are allowed to carry unless the training class performs an accuracy proficiency on that particular firearm like how LEOs do.
So you should have to show proficiency with any firearm you may want to carry? What if the gun you "tested with" breaks and you want to carry another one but haven't "tested out" on it yet? Can you do an "emergency" qualification so you don't have to be unarmed while you wait to schedule your proficiency test?
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated - 100% agree. Maybe similar to a DUI tolerance
So I can have a few beers and still be legal to drive my car, which kills many more people each year than guns, but I cannot carry my firearm?
Allow Open Carry - Disagree. Open carry just doesnt make sense except for LEOs. Just causes unwanted public attention. I would only agree to open carry if you are required to have a permit and identify yourself with a government picture ID. I watch too much of those Oregon open carry youtube clips and it irritates me. Just think if a felon open carries and you arent required to identify yourself.
Speaking your mind on your proverbial soapbox on the corner of the street or in a park often draws unwanted public attention, should that be illegal? Loud preaching on a sidewalk is also bound to garner unwanted public attention, should that also be illegal? As for the felon, you're comfortable with him carrying concealed? You may not "like" open carry, or agree with it, but it is, especially where no permit is required, one of the purest means by which to express your Second Amendment rights.
Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped - Agree. Just because of the nature of their job.
Why? As any LEO will tell you, they automatically assume that anyone they stop is carrying. Try and find that video of the Ohio guy who was berated and threatened to be shot by the cop arresting him because he didn't tell the cop he was carrying "quick" enough. And that is the problem. If there is a mandatory disclosure to law enforcement, there will always be the ability of a "bad apple" making a case out of you not telling him "soon enough." And, is a disclosure mandatory on an non-consensual stop, or is it mandated for a consensual stop, meaning that anytime an LEO said anything to you, including "good morning" as you passed on the street, you'd be mandated to disclose you were carrying a firearm....
I just think current laws on full auto and suppressors are fine. Using full auto in a self defense situation could harm innocent bystanders very easily
Domestic violence just bc the prior nature of people living in such close quarters together can get ugly fast. Violent crimes just because of their way of thinking. Maybe 3 convictions or more then???
Mental disorders just because their thought process. Guess it really depends on the mental disorder like depression.
Maybe no permit to purchase necessary if it all can be done at a gun shop.
I also think current explosive laws are satisfactory. What exactly are you gonna use them for anyway?
Limiting Magazine capacity i dont support. Like i said... you could easily get around this by carrying more magazines so it negates this law. Maybe i worded it wrong but i support hi-cap mags
I suppose there is really no sense in registration but requiring to report stolen firearms i support. Keeping them out of reach of children is a must. Sorry i dont talk about firearm politics much.
Before you conceal carry, i think you should be trained in the use of force and other similar responsibility. Having a permit just bc it shows you took that training class. Being intoxicated and driving is dangerous so why should i allowed to be intoxicated and carry? People in general do a lot of dumb things when they are intoxicated.
Open carry... still against just because it causes alarm to the general public. Sorry
Stopped by LEOs... anytime you are being lawfully detained. Casual encounters no need.
I dunno do i sound anti-gun? sorry. i might be in limbo but more pro-gun... i just think there should be at least some limitations
-
I just think current laws on full auto and suppressors are fine. Using full auto in a self defense situation could harm innocent bystanders very easily
Who said anything about self defense? You stated an opinion that full auto guns should be illegal, as should suppressors, and you base that on self defense "needs." But what if I want one because it's cool, or because it was a memento form my father who brought back a war trophy from overseas? And, in the balance to fight tyranny, wouldn't a full auto, or select fire firearm be just the ticket to counter those armed by said tyrannical government? And what about suppressors? Why should they be illegal?
Domestic violence just bc the prior nature of people living in such close quarters together can get ugly fast. So, the guy who tossed his keys at her request (during a domestic argument) and when she misses them and they hit her in the chest, should be denied a basic Constitutional right (true story)? Why should you loose a core, fundamental right (if it involves firearms) over a misdemeanor, when you don't loose your First or Fourth Amendment rights even after a felony conviction?
Violent crimes just because of their way of thinking. Maybe 3 convictions or more then??? Violent felons should be in jail
Mental disorders just because their thought process. Guess it really depends on the mental disorder like depression. So please clarify: Which "mental disorders" should disallow you to exercise your fundamental Constitutional right? Depression? Bed wetting? Tourette's syndrome? Be specific because that is what you are asking "someone" else to do. Promulgate rules that would deprive certain individuals from exercising their rights. And, I know of two cases, where here in Hawaii individuals were denied a permit based on "mental disorders: one was a person with situational depression after the death of a loved one and the other a history of bedwetting as a child. Were those OK with you?
Maybe no permit to purchase necessary if it all can be done at a gun shop.
I also think current explosive laws are satisfactory. What exactly are you gonna use them for anyway? I asked you about reactive targets like Tannerite on my last post. Did you look it up? That's what I want it for and there are some moves by regulatory agencies to reclassify it as an explosive, which would mean it wouldn't be available to use for us "regular" citizens. And therein lays the problem, what exactly is classified as an explosive. Today it's dynamite and C4, tomorrow Tannerite, and the day after gun powder......
Here's a link to Tannerite: http://www.tannerite.com/ (http://www.tannerite.com/)
Limiting Magazine capacity i dont support. Like i said... you could easily get around this by carrying more magazines so it negates this law. Maybe i worded it wrong but i support hi-cap mags. No, you made yourself sound like an apologist saying you can easily get around this law by carrying more magazines. As someone who carries anytime I am legally can, I think the attitude that you can simply carry a couple extra magazines, especially in hot climates, is the "easy" way to get around the law, is not only misguided, but demonstrates your lack of familiarity with actually carrying a firearm.
I suppose there is really no sense in registration but requiring to report stolen firearms i support. Keeping them out of reach of children is a must. No one wants to see a child get hurt with a firearm, which is what I think you are trying to say. But as I tried to explain in my previous post with the analogy to the stolen car, why is the victim suddenly the bad guy. I support keeping your firearms secure to prevent them being used by kids, but if I, as someone who doesn't have kids decides to keep my firearm in my bedside drawer and someone breaks in and steals it. And then uses it it in a crime or accidentally injures themselves, why should a gun owner be any more responsible (or criminally liable) than the guy who locks up his car in the drive way and then has it stolen?
Sorry i dont talk about firearm politics much.
Before you conceal carry, i think you should be trained in the use of force and other similar responsibility. Having a permit just bc it shows you took that training class. You already said that but didn't answer my question: Who gets to decide the level of training? Do you have to undergo periodic retraining? Do you have to "test out" on every gun you may want to carry? How long should the class be? And, what other core, fundamental Constitutional right should you have to undergo training on before you exercise it? Voting? Writing an editorial or a blog?
Being intoxicated and driving is dangerous so why should i allowed to be intoxicated and carry? People in general do a lot of dumb things when they are intoxicated. No one, certainly not me, is going to argue that drinking and driving isn't dangerous. But, do you think it should be illegal to drive after you have had a glass of wine or a beer with your meal? If not, why would you think it proper to make carrying your gun (and exercising a fundamental right) illegal after having a glass of wine or a beer with dinner?
Open carry... still against just because it causes alarm to the general public. Sorry. Don't be sorry, defend your position with logic and rational thought. I provided you a number of examples where exercising your rights may cause alarm to the general public but I assume you don't have a problem with any of those. Why the different position on causing public alarm with one lawful activity but not another?
Stopped by LEOs... anytime you are being lawfully detained. Casual encounters no need. I'm walking down the street, doing nothing illegal, and a LEO stops me with a "Hey, how are you doing" and starts up a conversation. Is that an instance one that is "casual" and I need not disclose I have a firearm? What if he then asks me for my ID. Is it not a "not so casual encounter? The point is that the lines between what is a "casual" encounter (legally referred to as a consensual encounter) and a non-consensual encounter may be a bit blurred and may not be entirely obvious at the time of the stop. And just for the record, I tend to let LEO know when I'm carrying.
I dunno do i sound anti-gun? sorry. i might be in limbo but more pro-gun... i just think there should be at least some limitations
Once again, I'm not trying to beat up on you, but I do note that you are a bit of a newbie (at least here) and are espousing a lot of positions that may not be considered "pro-gun" and that seem to be based on a lot of anti-gun type talking points. Such as your full auto and suppressor stance. So, what I would suggest you do, and you can tell me to take a hike if you are so inclined, is to do a bit of research. It's fine if you want to take a particular stand on a gun issue, just make sure you can defend that position with credible facts rather than just saying "that's what I think." One of the biggest complaints from the pro-gun side of the argument is that the "antis" tend to use emotion and the all to frequent and baseless "common sense" meme. Oh, and the "if it saves one child" plea. That's why I ask you to expand and explain your position, like the mental health issue. It's all too easy to say that those with mental illnesses should have guns, but that is a very broad class of people so it must be narrowed down and fully explained as to what you mean. Because that's what you'd have to do if you were writing the laws, spell out completely and succinctly who gets guns and who doesn't, and the criteria to apply to make those decisions.
So again, do yourself a favor, research your position before making such bold and sweeping statements. It could be that you are basing your decisions of misinformation or an incomplete understanding of the many complicated issues surrounding "gun control."
And, welcome to the board and to the shooting community. Aloha.
-
*Prohibiting Full auto -
There is no need to prohibit full auto firearms. The current law imposes a $200 tax stamp and approximately 1 year wait to acquire full auto firearms.
Study after study prove that "full auto gun violence" is non existent. With those numbers, I'd want everybody to own full auto firearms.
*Prohibiting Suppressors/Silencers -
I would immediately repeal any laws that restrict the use of suppressors in any way.
The use of a sound suppressor makes everyone's life better.
The shooter does not suffer hearing loss and everyone around you is happier too.
Suppressors reduce noise pollution.
There is no practical use of sound suppressors for criminals.
There is absolutely no need to restrict them at all.
*Assault Weapons Ban -
This needs to be abolished as well.
There is no such thing as an "assault weapon"
By definition, any item you use to "assault" someone is an "assault weapon"
If you allow stupidity like this to become a law, you've opened the door for anything to be added to the list.
Automobiles kill more innocent people every year than all firearms combined.
D they make the list?
*Prohibiting Felons, Domestic Violence, Violent Criminals From Owning Firearms -
Domestic violence laws are complete BULLSHIT.
All some lying tramp has to do is claim that a man hit her. He didn't even have to be in the same city when her allegation happens and LEO's will immediately arrest him and confiscate any firearms he owns.
Most Felonies are bullshit too.
If some 18 year old kid steals $350 worth of food to feed his family and gets arrested, he becomes a convicted felon.
If some guy makes a mistake doing his taxes, he can be charged and convicted with tax evasion ( a felony )
If a man borrows his girlfriends car and she decides to get back at him for cheating on her, she calls the police and reports the car stolen, that man can be convicted of felony car theft.
The list goes on and on.
Bottom line is the current laws are idiotic when it comes to prohibiting "felons" from owning firearms.
*Prohibiting Certain Diagnosed Mental Disorders -
This I kind of agree with.
The problem here is who gets to decide which "mental disorder" fits in the criteria and how many "newly diagnosed disorders" will be implemented down the road.
Just so you know, overeating, watching pornography, drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, excessive gambling, excessive sex are considered mental disorders in some circles.
*Background Checks - NICS checks are sufficient
*Permit to Purchase - NOPE
*Prohibiting Explosives. - Already regulated.
*Limiting Magazine Capacity - This is the dumbest thing ever devised by an idiotic law maker. Repeal immediately.
*Registration of Firearms - Absolutely not. Open your eyes. The only purpose for registration is confiscation.
*Allow Concealed Carry- Yes.
*Allow Open Carry - Yes.
Again, countless studies show that the states that allow carrying of firearms are plagued by less violence than the states that flat out prohibit it.
*Required to Notify LEO you are Carrying Upon Being Stopped -
I don't think you should have to.
Police officers are people too. Complete with opinions and biases. If you're required to notify police when you are stopped, you can turn a simple traffic stop into one mans stand against anything he opposes.
-
HiCarry and Kingkeoni: Thank you for taking the time to present a rational analysis and using critical thinking skills to respond to someone who presents positions on "common sense gun safety" that are totally lacking in logical justification. At least, the person is unwilling to provide much logical support for their positions... almost like a "troll". I'll be curious to see if this person actually responds to the detailed questions raised about their positions taken, or if we get just another, "well, that's what I think" response.
When Schumer, Feinstein, Manchin, Biden, Obama, et. al. state that they "support the Second Amendment" (I really hate their new "talking points") and that they "only want common sense gun safety legislation" I see that as obvious code for "For all you low information voters out there who are too f***ing stupid or disinterested to bother to actually read the legislation and understand what it really does and means... here is our latest effort toward our eventual goal of total civilian disarmament." When I talk to most people about any aspect of these "common sense gun safety laws" that are proposed, 1. they don't have a clue about what is really in the legislation, and 2. they don't really care, because "people don't need those kinds of guns/"clips" anyway". So it's not really a big surprise that there is a certain, hopefully severely minority group within the firearm ownership community that has at least unthinkingly and uncritically tasted the kool-aid. Hopefully they can be inspired to become more educated on the issues at hand.
-
HiCarry and Kingkeoni: Thank you for taking the time to present a rational analysis and using critical thinking skills to respond to someone who presents positions on "common sense gun safety" that are totally lacking in logical justification. At least, the person is unwilling to provide much logical support for their positions... almost like a "troll". I'll be curious to see if this person actually responds to the detailed questions raised about their positions taken, or if we get just another, "well, that's what I think" response.
When Schumer, Feinstein, Manchin, Biden, Obama, et. al. state that they "support the Second Amendment" (I really hate their new "talking points") and that they "only want common sense gun safety legislation" I see that as obvious code for "For all you low information voters out there who are too f***ing stupid or disinterested to bother to actually read the legislation and understand what it really does and means... here is our latest effort toward our eventual goal of total civilian disarmament." When I talk to most people about any aspect of these "common sense gun safety laws" that are proposed, 1. they don't have a clue about what is really in the legislation, and 2. they don't really care, because "people don't need those kinds of guns/"clips" anyway". So it's not really a big surprise that there is a certain, hopefully severely minority group within the firearm ownership community that has at least unthinkingly and uncritically tasted the kool-aid. Hopefully they can be inspired to become more educated on the issues at hand.
just got this email from councilman stanley chang
Councilmember Chang Urges Federal Action to Reduce Gun Crime
President Obama signing the Now is the Time plan to reduce gun violence. Behind him are children who wrote letters to the White House with concerns about gun violence (image: ABC News)
Last month, Councilmember Chang introduced Resolution 13-280 urging the U.S. Congress to reduce gun related injuries and deaths by enacting legislation to help prevent gun violence from occurring.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), gun violence causes approximately 100,000 injuries and 30,000 deaths across our nation each year and in Hawaii 485 people died between 1999 and 2010 from guns. Each life is precious and losing one innocent life to gun violence is one too many.
Recent mass shooting incidents at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut; the Navy Yard in Washington D.C.; a crowded theater in Aurora, Colorado; and a school in Sparks, Nevada among many other tragic shootings illustrate the pressing need for stronger national laws to prevent gun violence.
"Hawaii is not immune to mass shooting incidents," said Councilmember Chang. "The Xerox shooting in the 1990s led to many changes in Hawaii state law to protect our islands from future mass shooting incidents, but that’s not the case in the rest of the country. I am pro-gun safety and anti-gun crime. We need stronger national laws to protect children and families from gun crime."
Specifically, Resolution 13-280 urges the U.S. Congress to enact legislation necessary to implement President Obama's "Now is the Time" plan to reduce gun violence.
President Obama’s plan calls for closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands, banning military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. To learn more about President Obama's plan to prevent gun violence, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gunviolence. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gunviolence.)
-
President Obama’s plan calls for closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands, banning military-style assault weapons and high capacity magazines, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. To learn more about President Obama's plan to prevent gun violence, visit http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gunviolence. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gunviolence.)
When i clicked on that link, here is what I saw: "Sorry, the page you're looking for can't be found." Why didn't that surprise me? Here is the working link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence (http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence)
It would take days to go line by line through that pile of crap and counter-argue each lie, so I will just target one of the favorite talking points: "If even one child’s life can be saved, then we need to act."
Very curious though, nowhere in the proposals did I see the legislation that would save far more children's lives than more "common sense gun safety legislation", to wit 1. lower the speed limit for all vehicles to 20 MPH, which would help, but if you REALLY CARE about even one life... 2. better yet, make motor vehicles illegal (motor vehicle accidents #1 cause of death), 3. ban all household herbicides, pesticides, cleaning products, bleach, etc. or any other substance that poisons children, 4. ban bathtubs and swimming pools (#2 cause of death), 5. require that all buildings, clothing, furniture, etc. be fully fireproof (#3 cause of death), 6. pass legislation making it impossible for children to suffocate (#4 cause of death), and finally, pass legislation making it illegal to commit homicide with a firearm on a child (somehow I think that might already exist). [By the way, I did NOT use the Brady Campaign, et. al. nomenclature that all people 25 and under, or 21 and under are "children"... i used a dictionary: see "infant, child, adolescent, adult".]
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.pdf (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_Deaths_2010-a.pdf)
So much for "doing something" to save just one life. [Expletive deleted... but you can probably guess...]
-
And what if that one child that is saved is by a parent or responsible adult (or maybe the kid themselves, i.e. the 15 year old that used his dad's AR to shoot a home invader thereby protecting himself and his 12 year old sister) who uses a gun to do so?
Funny how that argument never gains much traction with the "common sense" gun law, if it saves one life, crowd.....
And I'm willing to give "Water" the benefit of the doubt...for now. Mainly because I have seen far too many newbies who have bought the load of BS that the anti's push. So, if he's really just a new guy trying to get a handle on this, he just needs to do a little self-reflection about why he believes what he does and I am more than willing to cut him that slack....I think we all need to be aware that these issues are complicated, and that the legal basis for many of our assertions may not be well understood (for example the issue of "collective rights versus individual rights) by non-lawyers and those not exposed to the history and nuances of the Second Amendment. We should make sure we don't alienate the newbies just because they may not have all the facts at hand and we should take time to encourage them to research the basis for their views so we continue to educate more and more people to see the fallacy of gun control laws and the purposeful lies and misinformation used by the anti's.
-
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/12/23/2ujehenu.jpg)
-
Another story where disclosing to police that you had a firearm (even though it sounds like the citizen was under no legal obligation to do so....) caused more problems for the legal gun owner.....
http://www.guns.com/2013/12/21/cleveland-settles-pays-gun-owner-weapon-seizure/ (http://www.guns.com/2013/12/21/cleveland-settles-pays-gun-owner-weapon-seizure/)
Derrick Washington is a law-abiding gun owner with a valid concealed-carry permit....Last February, Washington called local police to report a shooting near his home in Cleveland, Ohio. When police arrived on the scene, they began questioning Washington about the incident.
Although he didn't tell them initially, probably because it wasn’t germane to the investigation, Washington later admitted that he was a licensed gun owner and that he had a firearm stored in his parked car. The firearm was not linked to the shooting in any way.
According to police reports, officers claim that Washington said he had two vodka drinks that night– a claim that Washington vehemently denies.
Since Washington had been allegedly drinking and because he waited to tell the officers that he was a law-abiding gun owner with a carry permit, the officers put him in cuffs, confiscated his .38-caliber Taurus from inside his vehicle and charged him with using weapons while intoxicated and illegally carrying a concealed weapon.
Washington would spend three days in jail before an assistant city prosecutor decided to drop the charges because there “was not enough evidence,” as the The Plain Dealer reported.
As for Washington’s firearm, well, that was not returned because of a law that permits police to hold weapons until a “court of competent jurisdiction” rules that one can have them back.
-
Agree with much of the good discussion here.
Specifically with regard to "full auto", I think the challenge is you can very quickly be talking about some serious firepower. Likewise with statements on explosives and "we should be able to buy whatever the military owns". I realize most people are referring to full auto rifles, etc. which are frankly usually just a way to miss expensively, but once you allow full auto where do you end? Why not explosive ammo or incendiaries?
I honestly feel like there are things that should be controlled. Should private citizens be allowed to own auto cannons, guided missiles, anti aircraft guns,etc? I'd say probably not. Where exactly is the line? Does our right to bear incendiary ammo trump the common desire to prevent wildfires? I'm not sure but I believe it's an intersection between the right to bear arms and the right for others to be safe from disproportionately powerful weapons. Certainly most would agree citizens should not possess WMDs, and once we agree in principal that some limits are reasonable it's all about finding a fair and reasonable way to draw that distinction.
Granted I realize many of these can be built fairly easy given COTS tech - cheap INS and compact electronics would make a DIY cruise missile easy - does that mean anyone should be allowed to possess these openly? I'd genuinely be interested to hear a rational argument for why they should.
-
Agree with much of the good discussion here.
Specifically with regard to "full auto", I think the challenge is you can very quickly be talking about some serious firepower. Likewise with statements on explosives and "we should be able to buy whatever the military owns". I realize most people are referring to full auto rifles, etc. which are frankly usually just a way to miss expensively, but once you allow full auto where do you end? Why not explosive ammo or incendiaries?
I honestly feel like there are things that should be controlled. Should private citizens be allowed to own auto cannons, guided missiles, anti aircraft guns,etc? I'd say probably not. Where exactly is the line? Does our right to bear incendiary ammo trump the common desire to prevent wildfires? I'm not sure but I believe it's an intersection between the right to bear arms and the right for others to be safe from disproportionately powerful weapons. Certainly most would agree citizens should not possess WMDs, and once we agree in principal that some limits are reasonable it's all about finding a fair and reasonable way to draw that distinction.
Granted I realize many of these can be built fairly easy given COTS tech - cheap INS and compact electronics would make a DIY cruise missile easy - does that mean anyone should be allowed to possess these openly? I'd genuinely be interested to hear a rational argument for why they should.
Private civilians have the right to possess the same weapons as modern soldiers.
We are usually defending against the same criminals as law enforcement, so why can't we be allowed the same weaponry?
-
Yea sorry this is my first time really discussing things like this. I know almost nobody that owns firearms, besides my self, so i never really had discussion. I just went through the process accepting it. Tho it would be nice to have no regulations, i figured some are necessary.
I do think criminal background checks are necessary tho. Tho the system may be flawed, im sure in court you need beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual crime existed. Stealing, assault, property damage is all crime... whether intent can be proved is the challenge, which is probably more harder for the prosecutor to prove. Criminals should not be allowed to own a gun.. Should be reserved for the law abiding citizen. Certain felonies are pretty serious crimes but tax invasion... yea not so serious to take your 2A away from you
-
Yea sorry this is my first time really discussing things like this. I know almost nobody that owns firearms, besides my self, so i never really had discussion. I just went through the process accepting it. Tho it would be nice to have no regulations, i figured some are necessary.
I do think criminal background checks are necessary tho. Tho the system may be flawed, im sure in court you need beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual crime existed. Stealing, assault, property damage is all crime... whether intent can be proved is the challenge, which is probably more harder for the prosecutor to prove. Criminals should not be allowed to own a gun.. Should be reserved for the law abiding citizen. Certain felonies are pretty serious crimes but tax invasion... yea not so serious to take your 2A away from you
The laws against felons owning guns only apply to a portion of criminals. NOT ALL CRIMINALS ARE CONVICTED. Criminals break laws. Convicted criminals get caught and judged. Additionally, criminals who are okay breaking laws are potentially okay with breaking gun laws, too. That includes finding ways around background checks.
So, while the convicted criminals can be excluded from going to a shop and legally buying guns, it's merely an impediment, not an impenetrable barrier.
The Feds are being very complacent in arresting and convicting people who commit gun crimes exclusively. For instance, lots of people unable to legally buy a gun attempt to every year. What happens when the person is denied the ability to purchase a gun? He acts like he didn't know what he was doing is against the law, then walks away. He should have been arrested and tried for attempting to commit a felony -- acquiring a gun illegally. Doesn't happen.
Stiffer penalties and actual enforcement would make a big difference. Instead, the laws are being tightened against law biding owners to reduce legally owned firearms.
-
.
-
Private civilians have the right to possess the same weapons as modern soldiers.
We are usually defending against the same criminals as law enforcement, so why can't we be allowed the same weaponry?
So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?
-
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Disagree. Slippery slope, give em an inch, they take a mile.
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
Agree, but the crimes need to be specific when pertaining what they did and how the crime prohibits them from having a gun.
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
Agree. The mental disorder needs to be diagnosed correctly and the law needs to be refined and specific.
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
Agree. I don't think just anyone should be able to own a gun, like the examples of felons and people with mental disorders.
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
Disagree. I think the same steps and even more should be taken to acquiring explosives that there are to getting a gun, extensive background checks and mental health checks should be done in this case.
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
Agree. Magazine cap laws are hogwash.
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
This practice needs to be stopped immediately.
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
Agree. But what requirements? I don't think Id be against a written test, like taking one to get your drivers permit. You should know what youre doing with a concealed weapon and how to handle certain situations, like the above video when encountering a cop, if you can pass the test that asks you what you should do in these situations then you shouldn't have a problem in day to day life carrying a concealed weapon.
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
Agree. This could go hand in hand with the written test after the class or course is complete, but it cant be too bureaucratic to where its ridiculously expensive to take this class and should be easily available to the public to take.
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
Agree. The permit should be given after completing the course and test for CC, though I disagree it should be weapon specific.
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
Agree. Driving a car is like handling a weapon and there are zero tolerance views on this so why not with guns. Look at the Chris Deedy case, I don't care if youre a cop or federal agent or anything like that, if you are consuming alcohol, even just one, you have no business carrying a weapon, it can cloud your judgment and poor decisions can be made. You want to be a gun owner, be responsible and choose either to carry a weapon, or drink, you cant have both.
-
So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?
The US military no longer has chemical weapons as generally conceived, but YOU can have them, as that is exactly what pepper sprays and similar are. You need to brush up on standard military arms as well, Nukes are not employed by individual soldiers or Marines. Nor is artillery.
As far as your example of artillery and nukes, did you forget to leave out "bazookas"? That is in the Handgun Control Inc. talking points pamphlet as well, I believe.
-
While we're listing those areas where we believe OUR government has the right to deny us our Constitutional rights (uh... NOWHERE?), I'd like to add that all laws prohibiting the possession, concealed or open carry, and/or use of electric weapons (aka "stun guns") ought to be immediately repealed. The Constitution says "right to bear ARMS", not just firearms. So let's get rid of all the laws restricting law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing those other arms (knives, electric weapons, extendable batons, etc.).
I'd also like to clarify that "law-abiding" as a qualification for arm/firearm purchase and ownership would NOT be disallowed/disqualified on the basis of a conviction, even felonious, for a victimless crime. If someone wants to consume some substance deemed "illegal" by the absurd and irrational policies of some government agency, that is no business of the government. Even if they want to sell it, it's no business of the government to prosecute it as a crime (see ALCOHOL, or PHARMACEUTICALS or TOBACCO, etc.). It's also no business of the government if someone wants to make some kind of value exchange for consenting sexual activity between adults, etc. None of these activities (or other victimless acts), even if deemed felonious by corrupt irrational illogical government policies ought to disqualify a person from keeping and bearing any arm they choose.
-
So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?
Only if a soldier will carry those weapons on the battlefield.
BTW, chemical & biological weapons are illegal, even though Iraq and Syria have/have used them.
Artillery isn't a "carry" item for soldiers.
-
So nuclear, chemical weapons then? Artillery?
WMD's would not be appropriate self defense weapons. They are too indiscriminant and cause mass destruction and death. If you are in a position where a nuke is your only line of defense, then we are probably talking WWIII or Armageddon!
-
Now, now, you are messing up the way the talking points direct them to lead the "debate" to the inevitable victory of "logic".
HCI spent years perfecting this, you know. Have you lost your pamphlet?
-
No
Yes
Define 'Mental Disorder'?
Yes
No, unless they specifically define explosives as those systems used in combat applications
Yes, against hi cap ban
No, because the background check already has your information
Yes
Lol, Define Mental disorder!
I wish that we had Arizona rules, and SBR, SBS, full auto's and Suppressors could be purchased with proper documents.
-
Only if a soldier will carry those weapons on the battlefield.
BTW, chemical & biological weapons are illegal, even though Iraq and Syria have/have used them.
Artillery isn't a "carry" item for soldiers.
how about grenades? ;)
-
how about grenades? ;)
If the grenade is appropriate for self defense, then sure. I think explosive anti-personnel devices are unsuitable for normal self-defense.
You would need to be far enough away from the target to keep from injuring/killing yourself or whoever you are protecting. At that distance, it could be argued you are not in immediate danger from the perp. This same argument is used when shooting a bad guy at 25 yards. At that distance, unless you are being shot at, you probably are not in immediate danger.
-
If the grenade is appropriate for self defense, then sure. I think explosive anti-personnel devices are unsuitable for normal self-defense.
You would need to be far enough away from the target to keep from injuring/killing yourself or whoever you are protecting. At that distance, it could be argued you are not in immediate danger from the perp. This same argument is used when shooting a bad guy at 25 yards. At that distance, unless you are being shot at, you probably are not in immediate danger.
Although a number of recent court decisions re the Second Amendment have pointed out or emphasized the self-defense aspect as an individual fundamental right, there is no doubt that the Founders also believed keeping and bearing arms was necessary for the possibility of engaging a tyrannical government abrogating the rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. I'd venture that such an effort, to be successful, would likely require more than just the extremely close-quarters self-defense weapons, or even the longer range hunting and target shooting rifles. Theft of such items (as hand grenades, etc.) would constitute a greater threat than the theft of firearms, but in my view, if the "justice system" worked properly the 90% of those thieves that are recidivists would never have been let out of prison. Until hand grenades are available to the general public, and criminals are confined to prison, I suppose it's all just theoretical discussion.
-
Although a number of recent court decisions re the Second Amendment have pointed out or emphasized the self-defense aspect as an individual fundamental right, there is no doubt that the Founders also believed keeping and bearing arms was necessary for the possibility of engaging a tyrannical government abrogating the rights of citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. I'd venture that such an effort, to be successful, would likely require more than just the extremely close-quarters self-defense weapons, or even the longer range hunting and target shooting rifles. Theft of such items (as hand grenades, etc.) would constitute a greater threat than the theft of firearms, but in my view, if the "justice system" worked properly the 90% of those thieves that are recidivists would never have been let out of prison. Until hand grenades are available to the general public, and criminals are confined to prison, I suppose it's all just theoretical discussion.
One thing to consider when discussing tyrannical situations. You can use defensive weapons as a starting point to acquire more capable weapons. No need to stockpile the "big boys" like grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, mines, and the like. With some planning and conventional weapons, the other firepower is within reach.
-
One thing to consider when discussing tyrannical situations. You can use defensive weapons as a starting point to acquire more capable weapons. No need to stockpile the "big boys" like grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, mines, and the like. With some planning and conventional weapons, the other firepower is within reach.
Let's hope that at least some portion of those controlling such weapons would be on the side against tyranny from the start. I'm not sure I ever really bought into that "Red Dawn" storyline. I really hope that more people wake up and see what's happening and we have a peaceful return to Constitutional law and order. In the meantime we have our work cut out just to deal with the irrational firearm laws that exist here, and the likely attempts to impose more meaningless laws in the upcoming legislative session. It never ends! Living in a state with draconian gun laws (permits to acquire, registration, limitations/bans (magazine capacity, "assault pistols", etc.), etc., and where concealed and open carry are de facto totally illegal, we have more than enough to deal with without splitting hairs over hand grenades! But I understand the desire to explore the logic of such limitations and the attempt to establish logically coherent laws that respect the Constitution and the legitimate areas of government control over law-abiding citizens. I admit I'm not a big fan of government control over law-abiding citizens.
-
Agree with much of the good discussion here.
Specifically with regard to "full auto", I think the challenge is you can very quickly be talking about some serious firepower. Likewise with statements on explosives and "we should be able to buy whatever the military owns". I realize most people are referring to full auto rifles, etc. which are frankly usually just a way to miss expensively, but once you allow full auto where do you end? Why not explosive ammo or incendiaries?
I honestly feel like there are things that should be controlled. Should private citizens be allowed to own auto cannons, guided missiles, anti aircraft guns,etc? I'd say probably not. Where exactly is the line? Does our right to bear incendiary ammo trump the common desire to prevent wildfires? I'm not sure but I believe it's an intersection between the right to bear arms and the right for others to be safe from disproportionately powerful weapons. Certainly most would agree citizens should not possess WMDs, and once we agree in principal that some limits are reasonable it's all about finding a fair and reasonable way to draw that distinction.
Granted I realize many of these can be built fairly easy given COTS tech - cheap INS and compact electronics would make a DIY cruise missile easy - does that mean anyone should be allowed to possess these openly? I'd genuinely be interested to hear a rational argument for why they should.
But, "what you think" should be based on hard facts, not emotionally driven, suppositions. If you "think" full autos should be banned, why? Because it is "serious firepower?" Really?? Name one criminal action with full auto firearms? Until the Northridge bank job, the only other recorded use of a full automatic weapon in the commission of a crime was by an LEO. And, contrary to popular belief, full auto ownership is not only legal (in many places) and the instances of those legal "machine guns" being used in crimes are non-existent. So, tell me again why this "serious firepower" should be illegal?
As for explosives, what about gasoline and nitrate fertilizer? Should those very powerful "bomb precursors" be banned? If not, why not? Certainly they represent a more significant "serious firepower" that a fully automatic firearm?
-
Yea sorry this is my first time really discussing things like this. I know almost nobody that owns firearms, besides my self, so i never really had discussion. I just went through the process accepting it. Tho it would be nice to have no regulations, i figured some are necessary.
I do think criminal background checks are necessary tho. Tho the system may be flawed, im sure in court you need beyond a reasonable doubt that an actual crime existed. Stealing, assault, property damage is all crime... whether intent can be proved is the challenge, which is probably more harder for the prosecutor to prove. Criminals should not be allowed to own a gun.. Should be reserved for the law abiding citizen. Certain felonies are pretty serious crimes but tax invasion... yea not so serious to take your 2A away from you
OK, let's talk about background checks: Who needs them and when?
If I buy a new gun from a dealer (an FFL) I get a background check. OK, that's the current process. But, if I buy a gun from my friend, do I need to get a background check, especially since I already own several guns? Who pays for it? How do I access it?
I want to pass my grandfather's shotgun down to my son on his 18th birthday. Do I need to do a background check? Why, or why not?
I want to loan my shotgun to my friend who is considering buying a similar model. Do I need to do a background check on him before I loan it out?
Under the Manchin-Tooney bill that would have mandated "universal background checks" all of the above would have fallen under the provisions of the law and each interaction would have required a background check. One of the more ridiculous parts of the law would have required that the person I loaned MY gun to do a background check on ME BEFORE returning MY gun.....
In regards to "criminals" especially felons having gun rights, let me ask you this: What other core, fundamental Constitutional right is withheld from someone after they get out of prison for a felony? Freedom of speech, religion, political affiliation, unreasonable search and seizure?
I might be inclined to limit those convicted of VIOLENT felonies from having gun rights, but not all felons. The example I used earlier in the discussion was one related to the endangered species act: You're walking through the forest and pick up a feather on the ground and stick it in your pocket. You are stopped for an unrelated issue by a "game warden" and he finds the feather, which, unfortunately for you, is from a Bald Eagle. You are now charged with a felony and if the charges stick in court, your gun rights evaporate. That's OK with you?
-
OK, let's talk about background checks: Who needs them and when?
If I buy a new gun from a dealer (an FFL) I get a background check. OK, that's the current process. But, if I buy a gun from my friend, do I need to get a background check, especially since I already own several guns? Who pays for it? How do I access it?
I want to pass my grandfather's shotgun down to my son on his 18th birthday. Do I need to do a background check? Why, or why not?
I want to loan my shotgun to my friend who is considering buying a similar model. Do I need to do a background check on him before I loan it out?
Under the Manchin-Tooney bill that would have mandated "universal background checks" all of the above would have fallen under the provisions of the law and each interaction would have required a background check. One of the more ridiculous parts of the law would have required that the person I loaned MY gun to do a background check on ME BEFORE returning MY gun.....
In regards to "criminals" especially felons having gun rights, let me ask you this: What other core, fundamental Constitutional right is withheld from someone after they get out of prison for a felony? Freedom of speech, religion, political affiliation, unreasonable search and seizure?
I might be inclined to limit those convicted of VIOLENT felonies from having gun rights, but not all felons. The example I used earlier in the discussion was one related to the endangered species act: You're walking through the forest and pick up a feather on the ground and stick it in your pocket. You are stopped for an unrelated issue by a "game warden" and he finds the feather, which, unfortunately for you, is from a Bald Eagle. You are now charged with a felony and if the charges stick in court, your gun rights evaporate. That's OK with you?
Most states that require a background check for firearms purchase will waive the requirement if the buyer holds a CCW permit.
So, if Hawaii were to follow their lead, CCW would solve background check concerns, cost, and wasted time.
-
I think outlawing full auto is reasonable
Disagree. Slippery slope, give em an inch, they take a mile.
I think preventing felons form owning firearms is reasonable
Agree, but the crimes need to be specific when pertaining what they did and how the crime prohibits them from having a gun.
So what felonies would you consider so onerous that one's gun rights should be restricted? Which felonies would not result in restrictions? If you advance an argument that only "some" felons should be disallowed guns, you should be prepared to elaborate and be specific.
I think preventing someone from certain diagnosed mental disorders is reasonable
Agree. The mental disorder needs to be diagnosed correctly and the law needs to be refined and specific.
Again, if you advance an argument that only "certain" diagnoses should disqualify someone from owning a gun, you should be prepared to state (and justify) specifically which ones. As well as mechanisms to correct false diagnoses or ones they are no longer adversely affected by, such as PTSD.
I think background checks are reasonable (otherwise it would be impossible to screen for felons and mentally unstable people)
Agree. I don't think just anyone should be able to own a gun, like the examples of felons and people with mental disorders
"universal background checks" or something more targeted? Who and when are background checks required? Be specific please....
I think outlawing explosives is reasonable.
Disagree. I think the same steps and even more should be taken to acquiring explosives that there are to getting a gun, extensive background checks and mental health checks should be done in this case.
I am against magazine capacity limit laws.
Agree. Magazine cap laws are hogwash.
I am undecided on whether the registration of firearms are reasonable.
This practice needs to be stopped immediately.
I am for concealed carry only after meeting certain requirements
Agree. But what requirements? I don't think Id be against a written test, like taking one to get your drivers permit. You should know what youre doing with a concealed weapon and how to handle certain situations, like the above video when encountering a cop, if you can pass the test that asks you what you should do in these situations then you shouldn't have a problem in day to day life carrying a concealed weapon.
OK, I kinda get where you stand on this, but let me ask about your statement about the video and the cop: you say that if you can "pass the test that asks what you should do in these situations" then you're good to go. So, what would you have done in that situation? Remember, the driver was not being interviewed and was told to remain in his seat and quiet. When the cop first approached the driver he (the driver) tried to make the notification but couldn't due to the officers orders and demeanor. So, go on....what would you have done? Remember, if you don't answer correctly, you don't get your CCW...
A person has taken a CC training class which would include firearm training and legal training
Agree. This could go hand in hand with the written test after the class or course is complete, but it cant be too bureaucratic to where its ridiculously expensive to take this class and should be easily available to the public to take.
And how much would this class cost and how long should it be? Who can teach it? One of the reasons LIFE was formed was because when the initial laws on firearms, especially handguns, were promulgated, the only means to received the required training was from the police. They of course didn't offer such a course, and never intended to do so, therefore there was an effective ban on handgun ownership, or there would have been if the laws weren't changed to allow NRA instructors to teach a class that qualified. Currently, only NRA instructors can teach the required class to get a handgun but aren't there other trainers out there that could teach a basic class, such as the First Shots, that should meet the requirements of the law?
A person has to obtain a permit to CC a firearm (maybe even to include the specific firearm allowed to carry on it)
Agree. The permit should be given after completing the course and test for CC, though I disagree it should be weapon specific.
A person cannot carry a CC firearm while they are intoxicated
Agree. Driving a car is like handling a weapon and there are zero tolerance views on this so why not with guns. Look at the Chris Deedy case, I don't care if youre a cop or federal agent or anything like that, if you are consuming alcohol, even just one, you have no business carrying a weapon, it can cloud your judgment and poor decisions can be made. You want to be a gun owner, be responsible and choose either to carry a weapon, or drink, you cant have both.
Incorrect. You can legally drive a vehicle after drinking as long as you don't exceed the .08% or aren't objectively impaired to the point you couldn't drive the car safely. That being said, driving a car is not a Constitutional right. What other Constitutional rights are denied to you after you have consumed a few beers with dinner? Should there be a restriction on your free speech after you had even one drink?
-
Most states that require a background check for firearms purchase will waive the requirement if the buyer holds a CCW permit.
So, if Hawaii were to follow their lead, CCW would solve background check concerns, cost, and wasted time.
We'd need to get concealed carry first, but otherwise I agree....
-
Just saw this and thought it was pertinet to the discussion, mainly because it clearly illustrates how things that are "just common sense" can morph into something increasingly onerous to legal gun owners.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/12/new_york_and_am.php (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/12/new_york_and_am.php)
The NY SAFE act requires background checks for ammunition purchases. The cost for each background check is $10.00, which will soon be raised to $20.00. And, I'm sure it'll be raised again, and again.....
Who didn't see that coming, from a corrupt government agency that charges you more than $300 (which is non-refundable if the permit is denied....) to apply for a concealed firearms permit.....
-
HiCarry wrote re CCW: "And how much would this class cost and how long should it be? Who can teach it? One of the reasons LIFE was formed was because when the initial laws on firearms, especially handguns, were promulgated, the only means to received the required training was from the police. They of course didn't offer such a course, and never intended to do so, therefore there was an effective ban on handgun ownership, or there would have been if the laws weren't changed to allow NRA instructors to teach a class that qualified. Currently, only NRA instructors can teach the required class to get a handgun but aren't there other trainers out there that could teach a basic class, such as the First Shots, that should meet the requirements of the law?"
I've wanted to raise the question of the likely roadblocks that will be established in Hawaii for obtaining a CCW license should the Ninth Circuit rule the current restrictions (de facto "shall NOT issue") to be unlawful, but didn't want to get too far ahead of reality. I'd be willing to wager that there are already plans in place to make the process as cumbersome, time-consuming, expensive, and as difficult as possible. Why? Because it's Hawaii, and there seems to be a deeply ingrained resentment towards the idea of ordinary citizens bearing arms for self-defense. They will not go down without a fight. See this article about the attempts to infringe the "right to carry" in Illinois after the clear decisions in McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/daniel-zimmerman/cook-county-sheriff-wants-dig-dirt-ccw-applicants/#more-282465 (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/daniel-zimmerman/cook-county-sheriff-wants-dig-dirt-ccw-applicants/#more-282465) I suspect that some officials somewhere in Hawaii are looking at the attempts to circumvent court-ruled concealed carry by examining the "models" in Illinois, Washington D.C., Maryland, Connecticut, New York City, et. al.
I find it interesting (and frustrating) that people sworn to uphold the Constitution and other laws balk at following these laws that allow citizens to carry concealed (or open) weapons outside their homes. If it's the law, it's the law, right? Not really, if they don't like it they will erect whatever financial and other burdensome barriers they can to deny people their Constitutional rights as determined by the courts. I'd be surprised that IF the Ninth Circuit rules that Hawaii must put a "shall issue" CCW process into place if anyone actually has a license/permit within two years and that it costs less than $200 and a minimum of 20 class hours. Such is likely their interpretation of "shall not be infringed".
-
Just saw this and thought it was pertinet to the discussion, mainly because it clearly illustrates how things that are "just common sense" can morph into something increasingly onerous to legal gun owners.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/12/new_york_and_am.php (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2013/12/new_york_and_am.php)
The NY SAFE act requires background checks for ammunition purchases. The cost for each background check is $10.00, which will soon be raised to $20.00. And, I'm sure it'll be raised again, and again.....
Who didn't see that coming, from a corrupt government agency that charges you more than $300 (which is non-refundable if the permit is denied....) to apply for a concealed firearms permit.....
Yeah, it's scary when one sees we've truly started down the path of a standup comedian's (Chris Rock) take on "bullet control"...
Hmmm... won't let me post the url for the Youtube clip... search "Chris Rock gun control" or "Chris Rock bullet control"... 1:41 gets the whole routine...
Chris Rock on Gun Control (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II#)
oh... it posted the clip itself rather than the text of the url... never done that before...
-
I've wanted to raise the question of the likely roadblocks that will be established in Hawaii for obtaining a CCW license should the Ninth Circuit rule the current restrictions (de facto "shall NOT issue") to be unlawful, but didn't want to get too far ahead of reality. I'd be willing to wager that there are already plans in place to make the process as cumbersome, time-consuming, expensive, and as difficult as possible. Why? Because it's Hawaii, and there seems to be a deeply ingrained resentment towards the idea of ordinary citizens bearing arms for self-defense. They will not go down without a fight. See this article about the attempts to infringe the "right to carry" in Illinois after the clear decisions in McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/daniel-zimmerman/cook-county-sheriff-wants-dig-dirt-ccw-applicants/#more-282465 (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/12/daniel-zimmerman/cook-county-sheriff-wants-dig-dirt-ccw-applicants/#more-282465) I suspect that some officials somewhere in Hawaii are looking at the attempts to circumvent court-ruled concealed carry by examining the "models" in Illinois, Washington D.C., Maryland, Connecticut, New York City, et. al.
I find it interesting (and frustrating) that people sworn to uphold the Constitution and other laws balk at following these laws that allow citizens to carry concealed (or open) weapons outside their homes. If it's the law, it's the law, right? Not really, if they don't like it they will erect whatever financial and other burdensome barriers they can to deny people their Constitutional rights as determined by the courts. I'd be surprised that IF the Ninth Circuit rules that Hawaii must put a "shall issue" CCW process into place if anyone actually has a license/permit within two years and that it costs less than $200 and a minimum of 20 class hours. Such is likely their interpretation of "shall not be infringed".
And that is exactly what the problem is with the so called "common sense" approach to gun control laws. It does seem "reasonable," at least on the surface, and in the ever so important anti-gun sound-bites that most Americans use as the basis of their decision making, but on deeper inspection the all too likely situation you describe becomes a concern. There was a reason only the police were initially granted the authority to teach the requisite safety course; they knew they weren't going to provide that service, and to date, never have. Ta-da: handgun ban. There is a reason you need to make 3 trips to the police department, during the week, and only during limited "banker's hours." There is absolutely no reason we should assume that similar efforts to make the process as difficult, and expensive, as possible, wouldn't happen if when we get concealed carry. Heck, we even have some relevant history related to concealed carry under LEOSA here in Hawaii we can look to to validate these suspicions. Even for qualified retired LEOs, the AG purposefully delayed promulgating rules, and when it did, it made the requisite qualifying shooting expensive ($500.00), logistically difficult (only one range on Hawaii Island), and required a higher qualifying score than active LEOs....But, that's for LEOs, surely they wouldn't try to make it difficult for us law abiding citizens simply trying to exercise our rights, now would they???