District of Columbia

[TeddyR]

Continues to lose in court with respect to its draconian and unconstitutional gun laws.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-one-gun-a-month-law-in-district/2015/09/18/137fa290-5e22-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. knocked down several provisions of the District’s Firearms Amendment Act of 2012, including requirements that gun owners re-register weapons every three years, bring their firearm with them to be registered and pass a knowledge test of local laws.


Writing for the court, U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan appointee, said the District government’s claim that limiting residents to registering one pistol every 30 days promotes public safety by reducing the number of guns on the street, “does not justify restricting an individual’s undoubted constitutional right to keep arms (plural) in his or her home.”

He continued, “Taken to its logical conclusion, that reasoning would justify a total ban on firearms kept in the home.”

[jonno99]

1. Most early gun "control" laws were created for the explicit purpose of

keeping firearms out of the hands of POC.

The KKK loved gun control laws that left gave law enforcement the power over who could own a gun...

[randys1]

26. I am all for ONLY Black people having guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. That's an explicitly racist statement. Got any other racially based qualifications in mind?

[clffrdjk]

43. wow just plain wow.

[ileus]

48. That's an odd statement to make, why is it you only care about the safety and security

of one race????


It's not very progressive...

[guillaumeb]

2. "Draconian and unconstitutional"? Sounds like common sense to me.

What is unreasonable about registering deadly weapons, show that the citizens actually possess the weapons that they register, and have some knowledge about laws that regulate firearms use?

I find ridiculous the idea that restricting any citizen to ONLY 12 gun purchases a year will severely impact any resident's ability to self defense. Does this resident need a gun in each room, a gun on each table, a gun in each closet?

Please. Except in NRA fantasy land, more guns=more violence. That is why the Founders of the US linked gun ownership to membership in a well regulated militia.

[SecularMotion]

3. The constitutional right to keep arms is not unlimited

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

[hack89]

5. Your problems are not legal ones

the 2A certainly allows strict regulation of guns.

Your problem is that you can't get enough people to vote for your agenda.

[krispos42]

32. Which does not mean that any regulation is constitutional.

Or reasonable.

NO right is unlimited.

[hack89]

4. In the real world more guns did not equal more violence

violent crime including gun violence is at all time lows after falling from historic peaks in the early 90's (remember the crack epidemic?) We have cut our murder and manslaughter rates in half since 1992. Are you arguing that gun ownership declined in that period?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

[jimmy the one]

7. gun ownership rates declined 1993 - ~2012

hack: In the real world more guns did not equal more violence .. violent crime including gun violence is at all time lows after falling from historic peaks in the early 90's .. We have cut our murder and manslaughter rates in half since 1992. Are you arguing that gun ownership declined in that period?

Yep, gun ownership rates declined in that period:

Pew Research has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend.
In our {Pew} 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home.
A 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/

[hack89]

18. So what is all the fuss about?

Last edited Fri Sep 18, 2015, 08:20 PM - Edit history (1)

Gun ownership down. Violence down. The status quo seems to be working just fine. Certainly room for some minor tweaks like UBCs but listening to controllers one would think we were in the grips of an ever increasing spiral of gun violence.

[jimmy the one]

6. political rulings abound

Most all of the gun rulings in these 3 judge court cases are political, guillaume.
Republicans judges tend to rule pro gun, democrats gun control. Men tend to rule pro gun, women tend to rule gun control.

Writing for the court, U.S. Circuit Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, a Reagan {republican} appointee, said .. limiting residents to registering one pistol every 30 days promotes public safety by reducing the number of guns on the street, “does not justify restricting an individual’s undoubted constitutional right to keep arms in his or her home.”

He continued, “Taken to its logical conclusion, that reasoning would justify a total ban on firearms kept in the home.”

Huh? limiting americans to 12 guns per year means a total ban on firearms, is a LOGICAL CONCLUSION? in what weird world is that?
Note that republican Douglas Ginsburg above should NOT be confused with US supreme court justice democrat Ruth Ginsburg, more of a gun control advocate.

In a dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge {republican} Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by George W. Bush, warned that regulating firearms to “combat gun violence is a grave and complex task,” and that she would have upheld all of the D.C. law.

Karen Henderson, republican, is of course a woman, & even then it is surprising to me that she voted for the democrat point of view. But the woman in her overruled the pathetic republican interpretation of gun laws in our country.
So I would say that most of these 'rulings' depend by & large on which way the political breakdown of the court comes down.

There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys, there's just you & me & we just disagree'.

[guillaumeb]

11. Excellent points. eom

[Big_Mike]

46. It seems that somehow you neglected to mention the fact

That Circuit Court Judge Patricia Millet, a female Democrat appointed by President Obama, sided with Ginsburg. Kind of negates your point, doesn't it?

Point out all of the facts, then make your case. Selective evidence is what the Freepers do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. Selective acceptance of Supreme Court decisions: Not just for county clerks in Kentucky!

[branford]

55. Obviously, Judge Millet is not a real and true Democrat!

She needs to be reported to DU People's Committee for Democratic Party Purity for immediate reeducation, lest those ammosexuals and gun humpers remind people that some wayward Democrats actually support a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment, and worse, will join a decision with a Republican jurist.

[jonno99]

8. "What is unreasonable about registering..." Question: should the police stop

every.single.motorist. , inspect their vehicles - and then tell them not to speed? Or should they only go after the reckless & the speeders?

I'll restate my original point:

"Most early gun "control" laws were created for the explicit purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of POC.
The KKK loved gun control laws that left gave law enforcement the power over who could own a gun..."

It's very simple, it is not the LAWFUL citizens about whom we need to concentrate our control efforts. it is those who commit criminal acts. More than that, I don't want the police to have the power to say what I can own or purchase. Power corrupts - maybe you didn't know that.

[guillaumeb]

10. The problem with your quite reasonable statement, is that criminals do not always announce

themselves.

The news is filled with incidents about people who have never been arrested, never been in trouble, seemingly solid citizens. Until the day that they take up a gun and kill a family member. Or people in a church. or people at a theatre. Or people driving down the street.

Allowing everyone to walk around with a gun simply increases the possibility that a gun will be used.

In Canada, the Firearms Act requires registration of allowable guns. Canadians are not less free, or less safe. But there is far less gun violence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. "criminals do not always announce themselves."

Do they register guns?

[guillaumeb]

17. And do all gun sellers register their sales?

No. It is not required. An enormous loophole.

[hack89]

19. So implement UBCs

Problem solved.

[guillaumeb]

21. And what is the NRA position on background checks? eom

[hack89]

22. Beats the shit out of me.

Perhaps you should ask them. 17 states managed to implement them just fine. My state has them.

[guillaumeb]

24. I looked it up. NRA is opposed.

NRA opposes expanding background check systems at the federal or state level. Studies by the federal government show that people sent to state prison because of gun crimes typically get guns through theft, on the black market, or from family members or friends, and nearly half of illegally trafficked firearms originate with straw purchasers—people who can pass background checks, who buy guns for criminals on the sly. No amount of background checks can stop these criminals.

NRA also opposes gun registration. Expanding background check systems and allowing records to be kept on people who pass background checks to acquire guns would be steps toward transforming NICS into the national gun registry that gun control supporters have wanted for more than a hundred years.
https://www.nraila.org/issues/background-checksnics/

[hack89]

25. So? 17 states passed UBCs

Is the NRA simply your excuse to do nothing?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

28. One could be left with the impression --

It's not about efficacy so much as it is having a political bogeyman.

[branford]

30. Why does the NRA (and most other gun rights groups) oppose a national gun registry?

One needs only look to strong gun control countries like Britain and Australia, who most gun control advocates cite as "models" for firearm regulation, and how such lists were used as part of confiscation efforts (to say nothing of how the lists have recently been mishandled by states like New York both for improper confiscation and attempts at public shaming).

You may believe gun rights proponents are wrong or even evil, but they're certainly not stupid. These proponents would need to be unmitigated fools to willingly agree to such an obvious incrementalist approach to eventual gun bans that also have such a great risk of abuse.

There are also ways to expand and improve background checks without registration list problems, such as opening-up NICS to non-FFL's. These ideas have generally been summarily dismissed by gun controllers precisely because achieving registration lists would become more difficult. It's just another point in the long list of examples of how many gun control advocates and organizations make the perfect the enemy of the good, and will routinely sacrifice matters they claim will improve safety and security in their pursuit more draconian restrictions that clearly lack electoral support (and according to Pew and Gallop, continue to steadily lose the support they currently enjoy).

[Eleanors38]

41. The problems you may be encountering:

1). Those wanting gun-control/prohibition have always thought in terms of national legislation when state action is not precluded or in fact may be required. Hence, a whole avenue of change possibility is for the most part is given short shrift.

2). The "dialog" of gun controllers is essentially in national, culture war terms which causes citizens to not only recoil from the rhetoric, but to seek the election of those who will weld into place state pro-gun policies and politicians and politicians at the national level to utterly shit-can any control proposal.

3). I favor UCBs. But in the current atmosphere, who or what has the credibility to propose and enact such? (I was once asked by a controller why I didn't work for such. I answered that it was peculiar to ask your nominal "enemy" to do your own work, then added: What good would it do when in the midst of my toils to have some anti crawling up my back advocating bans for Gunhumpers and Ammosexuals?)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. Do you understand that a criminal cannot be prosecuted for

failing to register a gun or its sale?

Haynes v. United States

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).

Background of the case

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

Majority opinion

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration. The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971). The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

[jonno99]

15. A couple of thoughts:

- By definition, criminals do announce themselves. When they commit a crime they have engaged in a criminal act.
- Similarly (imo), the mental ill should be "controlled" from owning a firearm when, by credible word or deed (an act) they threaten violence.

Your statement:
"Allowing everyone to walk around with a gun simply increases the possibility that a gun will be used."

Well, of course. But you seem to presuppose that every use of those firearms would be a bad thing. The law enforcement officer, the diminutive women (or man) faced with a violent criminal or two, is at an extreme disadvantage if the confrontation is "mano-e-mano" - with physical strength/skill as the only arbiter.

Now you will make the argument that seemingly minor conflicts can result in death if firearms are present. That is true; but tell the rape victim, or the victim of a violent home invasion that society - as a whole - is better off because they were not allowed to defend themselves. It will give them little solace.

The bottom line is that gun 'control' measures (GCM) are a panacea - they make some of us "feel good" - that we're "doing something" about violence and crime.

The fact is though, that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible. Concealed-carry license holders as a group have lower incidence of crime than do the police (though that might not mean much to some folks). GCM adversely affect the law-abiding and especially the weak - seldom the actual criminals...

[guillaumeb]

20. Some agreement, and some qualification.

Criminals announce themselves, IN THE ACT, but there is rarely advance notice.

If, to paraphrase your words, carrying a gun makes some people feel good, this feeling is to some degree an illusion. Carrying a weapon can provide a feeling of safety, a feeling of security, and a feeling that one is accomplishing something.

But studies have shown that people living in a home where a gun is kept are more likely to be the victim of gun violence.

And yes, the vast majority of gun owners are not the problem, but in a country with an estimated 100 million plus weapons, a small fraction of irresponsible gun owners can have a big impact. 30,000 gun deaths a year is a huge number of victims. All to provide the illusion of security? A high price to pay.

[jonno99]

29. I think it is important to understand the language of "feeling".

Yes the person who "feels" safe simply because they have a gun are fooling themselves - there are no guarantees.

Of course this is no different than the person who "eats right and exercises" or the person who scrupulously makes sure their car is tuned and has good tires. There is no guarantee that one of these will escape heart attack or calamity - and they would be foolish to assume otherwise.

And of course having a gun in your home makes you more likely to be a victim of gun crime - just like driving a car makes you more likely to die in an car accident.

When you consider 30,000 gun deaths a year, you should keep in mind that ~20,000 of those are due to suicide. And while this is a sad figure, one cannot simply conclude that guns are the reason. Japan has extremely strict gun control laws - and yet has a higher rate of suicide than does the US. I won't even get into US firearm deaths attributed to drug-war turf battles.

You consider guns to be an illusion of security? Perhaps, but don't tell that to the LEO, and don't tell that to the rape victims and the home invasion victims. They have no illusions - they understand the cold hard reality of helplessness.

[guillaumeb]

33. 30,000 gun deaths a year is the equivalent of a Sept 11 every month.

When you wrote:

"You consider guns to be an illusion of security? Perhaps, but don't tell that to the LEO, and don't tell that to the rape victims and the home invasion victims. They have no illusions - they understand the cold hard reality of helplessness. "

You are framing this argument as one where innocent victims only have guns as salvation. DO any of these victims have guns that are used against them?

[gejohnston]

36. 64 percent of which

are suicides. That number is 52 percent of all suicides.

DO any of these victims have guns that are used against them?

There might be a few, but that number is probably statistically nonexistent. I don't know know of a single document case. There have been cases of the reverse happening.
As for only guns? Katanas work. There is no such thing as an "only" anything. BTW, the "studies show" argument, ever notice they don't cite those studies? That is because they don't actually exist. The nearest thing to it was a study by and MD named Author Kellermann who revised his study several times after failing peer review, and has never been replicated by an objective third party.

[jonno99]

38. The utopia you seek is not acheivable - not while they are some who are intent on

harming others.

To answer your question: Yes, I'm sure there are some whose arms are used against them - just like there are some who die in car crashes even though they belt themselves in. You're looking for guarantees - there aren't any - sometimes sh!t happens.

30,000 gun deaths - 20,000 of which are suicides. What percentage would have used other means if guns were not available? Would their deaths be less tragic if they "merely" hung themselves - like the other ~20,000 (of ~40,000 annual) suicide victims? Why is it only when a gun is the tool that we are outraged?

[branford]

23. You've just inadvertently gave a resounding defense of policies such as "stop and frisk"

and restricting or eviscerating the entire Fourth Amendment. I guess when you oppose the Second Amendment, eroding the rest of the Constitution is just considered acceptable collateral damage.

I am always astounded how otherwise liberal and progressive Democrats adopt tyrannical conservative arguments and policies concerning civil rights when it involves the topic of firearms, particularly when the rate of gun crime and accidents among lawful firearm owners is extremely low.

[Snobblevitch]

31. Canada repealed the requirement to register almost all long guns.

They spent two billion dollars on gun registration and got little support and the percentage of Canadians registering those guns was quite low.

[guillaumeb]

34. It was a partial repeal:

On April 5, 2012, Bill C-19, the Ending the Long-gun Registry Act, came into effect. The key changes are as follows:
•Removal of the requirement to register non-restricted firearms
•Destruction of the existing non-restricted firearms registration records
•Allowing the transferor of a non-restricted firearm to obtain confirmation of a transferee's firearms acquisition licence prior to the transfer being finalized

It is important to note that the new law does not change the requirement for all individuals to hold a licence in order to possess a firearm. The licensing, safety training and safe storage requirements for anyone who uses or owns a firearm continue to be in force.

The legislation also does not impact registration requirements for restricted or prohibited firearms.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm

As to restricted firearms:

According to the Criminal Code, a prohibited firearm is:
a.a handgun that ◦has a barrel equal to or less than 105 mm in length, or
◦is designed or adapted to discharge a 25 or 32 calibre cartridge, but does not include any such handgun that is prescribed, where the handgun is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

b.a firearm that is adapted from a rifle or shotgun, whether by sawing, cutting or any other alteration, and that, as so adapted, ◦is less than 660 mm in length, or
◦is 660 mm or greater in length and has a barrel less than 457 mm in length,

c.an automatic firearm, whether or not it has been altered to discharge only one projectile with one pressure of the trigger, or
d.any firearm that is prescribed to be a prohibited firearm

So do you wish to adopt the Firearms Act, as modified?

[branford]

35. Why don't you persuade us of the wisdom, necessity and constitutionality

of a comparable national firearms registry in the USA, particularly in light of the fact that Canada's was so ineffective they needed to cut it down, as well as how you would achieve the requisite Congressional and popular support for it to become law?

I've already raised some of the obvious reasons why many oppose such a law in my Post #30 in this thread in response to another one of your comments, but never received a response.

[guillaumeb]

42. Money, and fear, talk in US politics.

The arms industry is always looking to expand profits, both in foreign and domestic markets. Thanks to the SCOTUS, and the Heller decision, the various US war industries can purchase a lot of politicians from both parties with their "green speech".

So the political will is absent for reasonable gun regulation as well as many other ideas that enjoy popular support but are ignored by Congress.

Firearms ownership is driven by fear. 30 years of GOP propaganda, starting with Reagan and the welfare queens, ably seconded by G.H.W. Bush and he Willie Horton ads, and a constant barrage of death stories from the US corporate media. Any substantive political discussion has been replaced by a constant stream of stories about shootings and mayhem.

[clffrdjk]

44. so not a single comment on how you would make your version better than Canada's failure?

[guillaumeb]

49. I did not say better, I said the same type of legislation.

Canada modified the act, but that does not imply failure so much as a right wing national government with a Prime Minister who increasingly resembles George W. Bush.

That said, how would YOU fix the problem of gun violence in the US?

[branford]

45. The actual polling doesn't appear to support your claims for "reasonable" gun control,

and support for gun rights, and liberalization of gun laws nationally and in many states, was occurring well before Heller and McDonald, and is the reason why laws such as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was passed way back in 2005 (65 votes in the Senate and 284 in the House) in response to attempts by gun control advocates to bankrupt the firearm industry with frivolous lawsuits.

http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179213/six-americans-say-guns-homes-safer.aspx?g_source=guns&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx?g_source=guns&g_medium=search&g_campaign=tiles
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

The rest of your tirade about gun manufacturers, the GOP, Reagan, welfare queens, Willie Horton, etc., is nothing more than simple denial and offering excuses for why the public and elected officials don't seem to adopt your perceived wisdom.

As for money and access, you have pet billionaires, numerous celebrities and ample politicians and organizations on your side of this part of the culture war. For example, gun control advocate spent 6 times as much money in Colorado during the recall elections, yet still badly lost. While this might not penetrate your cognitive dissonance, there are about 80-100 million lawful gun owners in this country, including many Democrats, and they and their supporters almost universally believe in gun rights and will vote accordingly. All the is accomplished with the majority of Democratic gun control efforts is helping to elect Republicans and endangering all progressive priorities.

Lastly, I would note your failure to address the defects and failures of national gun registration legislation in the USA and elsewhere. I assume that to you, the problems concerning confiscation and abuse are features, not bugs, of such a regime. This attitude is readily apparent to gun rights proponents, and the reason why compromise is impossible.

[guillaumeb]

50. What is your source for your claim

of 80-100 billion gun owners in the US?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

51. Time for a vision check

That was Million not Billion.

[branford]

54. Approximately 80 - 100 million, not billion.

Approximately one out of every three American adults -admit- to own lawfully owning a firearm (and the numbers may well be much higher due to unwillingness to admit gun ownership or cooperate with firearm surveys due to the contentious nature of this issue). These numbers were also based on data from the Brady Law Center and Injury Prevention and Control Center, hardly bastions of pro-gun rights propaganda.

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/64860/20150630/study-shows-1-in-every-3-americans-owns-a-firearm.htm
http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/early/2015/06/09/injuryprev-2015-041586
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/

For purposes of reference, the following are census data figures for the number of adults in the USA.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/869,36,868,867,133/39,40,41/416,417

[guillaumeb]

57. Billion was a mis-type. I blame the computer of course. eom

[jimmy the one]

53. you post disinformation #2

brnaford: The actual polling doesn't appear to support your claims for "reasonable" gun control, ...

Evidently Branford cannot interpret polls properly. From his own link (Polling report):

cbs: Aug 2015. N=1,252 "In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
........... More strict.. Less strict.. Kept as they are... Unsure/ No ans
7/29 - 8/2/15 .... 52... 13............... 32 ..................2
Republicans ....... 31 ...21 ...............47 ..................2
Democrats .... 77 ....4 ................18 ..................1
Independents ... 48 ...16 ................33 .................3

pew: July 2015. N=2,002 ..more important - protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?"
Protect right to own guns Control ownership Unsure/Refused
7/14-20/15 ...47 ................... 50 ...........................3
12/3-7/14 ... 52 ................... 46

cbs, jan 2013: ..favor or oppose creating a national database that would track all gun sales in the United States?"
Favor Oppose Unsure/ No answer 1/13 ... 78 favor ..20 oppose.. 2

branford: ... many Democrats, and they and their supporters almost universally believe in gun rights and will vote accordingly.

Is that right Branford? you have a source for that rot?:

Quinnipiac, jan 2013If a member of Congress who represents your district were to vote for a ban on the sale of assault weapons, would you be more likely to vote for that person, less likely to vote for that person, or wouldn't it make a difference?"
More likely .. Less likely .. No difference.. Unsure
ALL .......37 ......31 ...................30 3
Republicans 19 ..48................... 29 4
Democrats 61% more likely to vote for .. 11 26 2
Independents 30 ..33 .................34 2

cbs 4/2013: "Do you favor or oppose a nationwide ban on semi-automatic weapons -- including some rifles, pistols, and shotguns -- that have detachable magazines, allowing them to rapidly fire a high number of rounds?"
Favor Oppose Unsure/ No answer
4/24-28/13 50 47 3
Republicans 41 56 2
Democrats 65 32 3
Independents 44 52 http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

Pew Research Center. July 26-29, 2012. N=1,010 adults nationwide
"What do you think is more important -- to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?"
Right to own guns .. Control ownership Unsure
7/26-29/12 ......46............... 47............... 6
Republicans ... ..70 ............26 ...............4
Democrats .........30 .............67 ...............3
Independents ......46 .............50 ...............4

[Snobblevitch]

37. Nope.

Most of the owners of long guns in Canada never registered their guns nor sought a license. I don't know how many got licenses and registered their handguns.


I thought I indicated in my reply that ot was a partial repeal. I know several people in Ontario who never registered any of their firearms.

I am against gun registration. Currently, a federal law requiring gun registration would be illegal.

[jimmy the one]

12. POC

Jonno: "Most early gun "control" laws were created for the explicit purpose of keeping firearms out of the hands of POC.

There were certainly state laws hindering black ownership of guns (poc = people of color).
But please point out which federal law done did that:

wiki: The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York State that took effect in 1911. ..the Sullivan Act required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed... For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license .. (in 19th century, southern states also placed restrictions on gun-ownership for certain "undesirable" whites .. chiefly Italians--in the first three years of the Sullivan Laws, roughly 70% of those arrested had Italian surnames).

.. impetus for National Firearms Act {NFA} of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,526 in 2015). NFA weapons were machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOW or concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers)..

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA or GCA68) is a federal law that regulates the firearms industry and firearms owners. It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers.
The GCA1968 was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on Oct 1968.

The very Lyndon Johnson who signed the civil rights act of 1964 to protect black americans, wanted to proscribe guns? dunno. you tell me.

jonno: The KKK loved gun control laws that left gave law enforcement the power over who could own a gun..."

KKK loved that aspect for sure, but they would'nt've loved gun control laws for limiting THEIR gun ownership ability, for mention of god & guns goes hand in hand in their motto.

jonno: It's very simple, it is not the LAWFUL citizens about whom we need to concentrate our control efforts.

No it's not that simple at all.

[jonno99]

16. "No it's not that simple at all." On this you are exactly correct. However, there

are many who seem to stop right at gun "control" as the simple fix:

Another gang shooting? solution = gun control
Angry boyfriend shoots his partner? solution = gun control
Another mass shooter? solution = gun control

You're right - it's not that simple at all. Because the problem is the mindset of the person who would commit violence. But who wants to try to tackle that one? That's sounds HARD to fix.

Gun control? Sure let's do that. But in the end you are merely trimming a diseased tree and declaring it well. There is a root problem - and it's not the gun...

[jimmy the one]

40. many roots from a root ball

jonno: It's very simple, it is not the LAWFUL citizens about whom we need to concentrate our control efforts.

jimmy: No it's not that simple at all.

jonno: "No it's not that simple at all." On this you are exactly correct.

And thus you were at first exactly wrong.

jonno: ...the problem is the mindset of the person who would commit violence. But who wants to try to tackle that one? That's sounds HARD to fix.

Universal background checks would help in that regard. Gun control has only ever seriously & officially believed a marginal improvement would occur over violence rates & the status quo of america's 'guns galore' policy with lax gun laws.

Gun control? Sure let's do that. But in the end you are merely trimming a diseased tree and declaring it well. There is a root problem - and it's not the gun...

Not sure what you say here. Our gun policy is a diseased tree? agree. You support gun control?
There are several roots stemming out of the diseased tree's root ball, & some of them are the various varieties of GUNS.

[yeoman6987]

52. Until they added the little test, I actually thought reasonable

But a test on current DC information....no! What test a voting test?

[guillaumeb]

56. was the test concerning gun regulations?

Similar to a driving test, where the prospective driver is asked questions about driving?

[yeoman6987]

58. Yes. I still don't like it.

As soon as we start expanding tests for things, tests for voting will at least be insisted by Repugs and it will start in red states and expand.

[guillaumeb]

59. Would you say the same thing about driving tests?

What is wrong with asking gun owners to be aware of laws regulating the use of guns?

[yeoman6987]

60. Well constitutionally you don't have a right to drive

So I imagine this test will never get through the courts. Actually same with voting.

[Eleanors38]

9. D.C.'s laws resonate with past Jim (large, raucous black bird) laws in the ol' South.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. JFK said...

...'DC is a city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency.'