Can you be a Progressive Democrat and still the support the Second Amendment?

[Berlin Vet]

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on what is reasonable gun control that a Democratic politician could use when running for office.

Here are a few of mine:

1. The current method of filling out a BATFE form 4473 to purchase a firearm from a dealer ensures criminals can not buy guns. This needs to continue. I live in Washington state and a law was passed in 2014 requiring private gun sales needed to be done through an FFL dealer. I don't really have a problem with this since you best bud for the past twenty years could have committed a felony years ago and never told anyone.

2. I lived in Illinois in the 90's and I had to get a Firearms Owner Identification (FOID) card to buy guns (and maybe ammo, don't remember). I would prefer to see this done state by state to avoid that "gun database for later seizure" issue. What I like about this is if I sell you a gun (private sale), I would make a copy of your FOID, and then call the State Police to see if your FOID is still valid. If not no sale.

3. Guns should be secured (safes, secure rooms, trigger locks) when not in use to prevent misuse by others and to deter thefts. I also believe that if you secured firearm is stolen and used in a crime, you are not responsible. Same as if someone stole my car and run over people.

Looking forward to your input.

[AJT]

1. Of course you can

Would just like a bipartisan bill that deals with gun shows, background checks, the intimidation involved with open carry.
How would handle clip(?)size? Is there any reason to have 30 rounds of ammunition in a clip?

[hollowdweller]

80. OK so here's my thoughts.

Gun owner and collector here.

First they should keep Obama's restriction of anyone who is judged incompetent to handle their disability funds as being prohibited from buying a weapon.

I would slap a big tax on big clips and so called assault weapons. What we really need is a way to encourage people to buy guns that are good for hunting and target practice, but not so good for mass killing. If buying a revolver 6 rounds or a lever action 7 rounds were a lot cheaper than buying an AK or something I think that would keep less of them getting to crazies.

But really, here's the problem. People who own guns and vote on them are afraid any sort of list will be used to round them up later if there is gun confiscation.

We passed Heller, and I thought that would make people a lot more willing to accept some reasonable stuff. But not yet.

Ideally, in my mind a gun should have a title, just like a car and if you transfer it there is a background check. Guns with a high potential for abuse or at least the clips should be subject o a big tax to reduce consumption. That way you won't BAN them but it will limit them to collectors.

To me, the big nut to crack in gun control isn't what kind to have. It's how to put in in law that they will never be confiscated. Once people feel secure in that then there is no problem with doing some stuff.

Of course violent crime is really low now anyway despite a loosening of gun laws overall.

For me gun control is like abortion restriction on the right. Both gun violence and abortion rates are at record lows. Rather than turning off women voters on the right, or alienating gun owners on the left, we should be focusing on Paid Leave, 40 hour work week, raising min wage.

[yagotme]

189. Some lever actions hold 7 (or so),

some twice that. Henry, for example. 1885 technology. And a "big" tax on the clips is probably a non-starter, like the ink tax. And if the violent crime rate is lowering, why fix a non existent problem?

[DuckBurp]

2. Yes, but only if you can't read English

Both the letter and intent of the Second Amendment are widely misunderstood.

[gejohnston]

7. The Founders and the SCOTUS disagree

especially since the BoR does not give rights to individuals, it limits what the State can do.

[DuckBurp]

56. Actually, I think you're wrong, but here's a Valentine anyway.

I really don't feel like arguing this issue.

[wincest]

58. what is the purpose of the

bill of rights?

[yagotme]

190. To enumerate some natural rights,

and limit/deny the government's infringement upon those listed, and those that are not.

ETA: Welcome to DU!

[pablo_marmol]

3. Absolutely.

I can't take issue with any of your thoughts, and am of the opinion that the gun restriction/gun rights debate is the one area where Democrats turn away from their defense of the vulnerable in society. Hardly a progressive posture.

I know I've posted a link to this Daily Koz article a thousand times, but Kaili Joy Gray is eloquent as hell IMO in addressing the issue you raise. Here's her honest, thoughtful piece:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/4/881431/-

[Berlin Vet]

4. Thanks for the link.

[pablo_marmol]

5. You are most welcome! NT

[Berlin Vet]

10. Great Article

Thanks for that link. Just finished reading it and she nailed it. Will keep this and send to others. Thanks again!

[pablo_marmol]

14. :-)

[gejohnston]

6. on the first,

Criminals don't generally buy guns at FFLs and they avoid gun shows like the plague, at least according to a trio of criminologists.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=155885
http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/8357

IL's FOID is needed for ammo sales. In Canada, once an online seller verifies the PAL with the RCMP, the firearm comes to your door instead of our transfer system. In the Czech Republic, your FOID is also your defacto CCW.

I still maintain that single payer with mental health and dental will put a greater dent in suicides and spree killings than gun control. China's mental health system sucks, and they pay for it with Sandy Hook level mass stabbings.

Gang violence can be taken care of with prison reform, infrastructure repairs, etc.

[guillaumeb]

8. Support the Second Amendment does not mean supporting Scalia's version of it.

A version at odds with all precedent.

A version unsupported by the actual wording.

A version that requires one to eliminate half of the original wording in order to support Scalia's fantasized original intent.

[hack89]

20. Can we support the Democratic party version? Obama's version?

The one that says it supports an individual right?

[guillaumeb]

23. That was actually an echo of the Scalia version.

A novel interpretation.

[hack89]

65. So the party platform is RW on the 2A?

Good thing there are super pure progressives to keep us straight.

So tell me - when was that golden age in America when gun ownership was strictly tied to militia membership and the government banned private ownership? Can you show me when private gun ownership outside of militia service was illegal and rare?

[guillaumeb]

68. You are asking for the ideal versus reality.

When your Founders spoke of all men are created equal, were all men equal?

[hack89]

69. So no state ever properly enforced the 2A?

So where is all that precedence you say Heller went against? Doesn't really exist?

[guillaumeb]

70. Heller created precedent.

A creation that required Scalia to eliminate 1/2 of the Second Amendment.

And you avoided my question.

Did your Founders intend that all men be treated as equals? Or just white males of property?

[hack89]

74. Of course not all men were actually equal

But we have fixed it as we have steadily expanded the scope of civil rights. That's what Heller represents- the arc of American history bends towards more rights, not fewer. It was a true progressive ruling.

[guillaumeb]

77. Heller indeed has been an expansion of rights.

But at the expense of the Constitution.

It also led to an expansion of profit for the gun industry. The real NRA motivation.

[hack89]

78. That makes no sense

Heller is very specific that the 2A allows strict regulation of guns. It did not expand the pool of potential gun owners. What was driving gun profits was the never-ending calls for gun bans. With Trump in office watch profits go down as the hysteria disappears.

[guillaumeb]

79. The hysteria that drives sales will never stop.

The NRA is a lobbying group for the gun manufacturers. Their only goal is to increase gun sales.

And while Heller in theory allows for reasonable regulation, a right wing SCOTUS and generally right wing judiciary will not rule in favor of any regulation being reasonable.

[hack89]

82. Can you name a single AWB that was ruled unconstitutional?

Registration is legal and constitutional. Permits for concealed carry have survived legal attack. Where are all these pro- gun rulings you are talking about?

[guillaumeb]

83. What I said is that no regulations will be found reasonable.

Open carry is being pushed in every venue. Your own response proves my point with the concealed carry point.

[hack89]

84. But that is not happening due to court rulings

There is simply no real gun control movement in America. Has nothing to do with Heller - it is what most Americans want.

[Marengo]

126. You avoided his. When and where has private gun ownership been strictly tied to militia membership?

I've posed this question in the past to supporters of the collective interpretation of the 2nd, and yet not a one has bothered to reply. Why would that be?

[guillaumeb]

127. Prior to Heller, this concept of individual self-defense outside the home

was not found. If the Second Amendment was intended by the Founders and Framers to be a universal right, why was it restricted to white males? That question is at the heart of individual intent.

[Marengo]

128. Oh, a smoke screen is it? Let's try again: When and where has a Federal court ruled that militia...

Membership is a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by free citizens?

[guillaumeb]

129. More avoidance?

If gun owners insist on a universal right, why did the Founders and Framers exclude most of the population from this right? A question that you cannot answer without destroying the foundation of your argument.

[hack89]

132. Are you then arguing that voting is not a universal right.?

because the founders certainly limited most of the population.

[guillaumeb]

133. What did Scalia mean by original intent? eom

[hack89]

134. "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

crystal clear to all but a few. The Bill of Rights protects individual rights - there can be no argument about that. That was the original intent of the BoR.

[guillaumeb]

136. It is obviously clear to gun owners and gun lobbyists.

But not to others. Scalia found what he was determined to find, and ignored what he was determined to ignore. He was a hack, an activist Judge.

[hack89]

138. It is mainstream within the Democratic party.

it has been part of our party platform for a long time. It is not a fringe idea - both our presidential candidates supported the notion that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. As did the former democratic President.

Here is the deal - Scalia made clear in Heller that most every gun regulation you want is perfectly constitutional. You need to stop using Heller as an excuse for the massive failure of the gun control movement. Right now it simply sounds like you are looking for excuses for your inability to rally widespread public support for your ideas.

[Marengo]

145. Was he a "hack" on Texas v Johnson, Maryland v King, Brown v Entertainment, Florida v Jardine...

US vs Jones?

[guillaumeb]

156. What happened to the rest of the Amendment?

Really now, I expected better of a progressive.

Or is this the NRA approved version that is on the NRA website?

[hack89]

161. No - this is the version you can find in the Democratic party platform

the version supported by President Obama and both Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

The version that says the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

So tell me - is Bernie progressive enough for you? Because he agrees with me.

[guillaumeb]

168. Intentionally or not, you redacted 1/2 of the Amendment.

Hardly what I would call a fair and progressive debating practice.

You might wish to google search for the actual text and read it. It is a bit longer than your Scalia/NRA approved version.

[hack89]

169. So how do you explain the party platform?

Or Obama's, Hillary's and Bernie's positions on the 2A? Are they being deceitful or unfair? Do they support the NRA?

[guillaumeb]

170. Do I detect avoidance?

And why are you avoiding the question?

[hack89]

171. Just pointing out that the NRA and Scalia are irrelevant

to the conversation. Their position is the same as the Democratic position. I support the Democratic position. Don't you?

[guillaumeb]

172. Allow me to help you:

Here is the actual text of the entire Amendment. No need to thank me with a heart.
I took the liberty of highlighting the part that you, Scalia, and the NRA omitted.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[hack89]

174. So? It still protects and individual right.

Let's not forget the Democratic party platform predates Heller.

[guillaumeb]

175. And the Constitution predates the Democratic Party.

And again, no need to thank me.

[hack89]

182. Ok.

Still makes no difference. Historically, culturally and legally America has rejected your interpretation for hundreds of years. If it makes you feel better than good for you. At the end of the day nothing changes.

[yagotme]

191. Whole lotta comma's in there,

wonder why?

"These things shall not be infringed:

1. A well regulated Militia, because, you know, we need a free State, and that's the best way we know to keep it.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Duh. Why explain simple English?"

[guillaumeb]

197. Two interdependent clauses, and one modifies the other.

And I only used one comma.

[yagotme]

199. I was referring to the original text you quoted.

And, per my response, I separated the clauses. Perhaps your modifier is in a different place than mine.

[guillaumeb]

200. A displaced modifier?

Perhaps you are correct.

[yagotme]

203. Sometimes, when you read something Yoda-like,

the meaning may become a little clearer.

May the Force be with you.

[guillaumeb]

204. And with you also. eom

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

154. Are you seriously trying to argue that...

...only white males from 18 to 45 should be able to own arms? (...and other things and take other actions? own real estate, vote, marry a woman...



Naming something as a human right prior to correcting the defect in who is part of the set of creatures called human does not mean that the right previously articulated is no longer a right. I can't even imagine pulling that out of my butt.




The "original intent" of the 2A was to protect and articulate the right not to limit it. If, one day in the distant future, a new species evolves and articulates a demand for the US to recognize and respect it as also having rights, I would hope those rights would include everything in the BoR.

[Marengo]

135. When and where has a Federal court ruled that militia membership is a prerequisite for the private..

Ownership of firearms by free citizens. I will accept as a reply ONLY one or more examples, or an acknowledgement that none exists. If you reply on any other way, I will have no choice but to assume that you can provide no examples or that you simple lack knowledge of the subject.

[guillaumeb]

137. More avoidance. I understand that you cannot answer without

damaging your position.

[Marengo]

139. When or where has a Federal court ruled that Militia membership is a prerequisite for the private...

Ownership of firearms by free citizens? Why can't you answer in the manner I have requested? What is an observer of this exchange left to think of you inability to do so?

[Marengo]

146. In reality, what is understood is that your position stands utterly unsubstantiated as you...

Have not provided any evidence of a Federal court judgement which allows the complete prohibiting of ownership of firearms by free citizens who are NOT engaged in militia service. Now, you may continue to evade by claiming I am engaging in avoidance behavior, but my question to you was the first in this exchange and remains unanswered.

[guillaumeb]

147. Your question has nothing to do with open carry, or concealed carry, or supposed self-defense.

[Marengo]

149. God God, what a comedy. You're going hide behind THAT? Where's the evidence I asked for?

Or should I simply assume you have nothing?

[guillaumeb]

150. The post, and my responses, concerned Heller.

My responses concerned Scalia's dishonest redaction of the Amendment so he could discover an Original meaning more to his liking. And the liking of the NRA.

[Marengo]

151. What do you mean by "dishonest redaction"?

[guillaumeb]

152. That should be obvious.

When he effectively redacted the first clause by terming it merely prefatory.

[Marengo]

153. Can you provide evidence that it is otherwise?

[guillaumeb]

155. Do you read the Amendment and decide for yourself what words really matter?

And if so, we can have no real discussion.

[Marengo]

158. All that really matters is the SC's decision, and in Heller a majority agreed the 2nd protects...

An individual right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED to militia service. A majority, not just Scalia. Now, I am asking you to provide evidence that the opposite has been established as precedence on a Federal level.

[Rucker61]

218. Even Stevens and Breyer Indicated It Was An Individual Right

Stevens:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Breyer
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

“ Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense.”

[hack89]

131. Where does it say that the 2A was limited to whites only?

There is a rich history of black freemen owning and using guns.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/01/28/negroes-and-the-gun-slaves-fugitives-freemen-and-citizens/?utm_term=.eddf00f9bbb7

It was only post-civil war did we see concerted efforts to disarm blacks.

Almost as soon as the shooting war stopped, Southern governments moved to reinstitute slavery through a variety of state and local laws, restricting every aspect of Negro life. Gun prohibition was a common theme of these “Black Codes.”

Heller does not talk about self defense outside of the home.

[gejohnston]

21. Hate to break it to you, but you have been misinformed

It created precedent, Heller did not overturn any precedent. No SCOTUS ever supported the "group rights" nonsense.
No it doesn't
No it doesn't, the original intent is an individual right protected against the State, just like the other BoR. It is not contingent on membership of a State militia, which is odd since police departments aren't covered under it.

[guillaumeb]

24. Well, someone IS misinformed.

But SCOTUS precedent, and the total absence of any SCOTUS precedent that conforms to Scalia's personal interpretation, does support a right linked to the necessity of a well-regulated militia. But that phrase, the first half of the Amendment, was redacted in Scalia's version. A first half that he dismissed as being merely prefatory.

In case it is not in your version, it is the part that begins "A well-regulated militia being....etc". And it well may be that in Texas, and some GOP states, that first half of the Amendment is missing. As to that well-regulated militia that Scalia ignored, that also is referred to, and elaborated on, in the Constitution.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. From the link in #3

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

That sounds like pretty much everyone is the militia.
A reading of Federalist #46 by Madison where he postulates the size of the militia at half a million of the 3.6 million population. Eliminating slaves and women and those under 17, who exactly are you thinking is excluded?

[guillaumeb]

31. So using your link, we can infer that the original intent was that possession of firearms

was limited to males only. With the exception of the National Guard. So non-white males, and females are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Are you willing to agree that the original intent, so much loved by gun owners, excludes non-whites and females? Just as the original intent excluded non-whites and females from the franchise.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. The original intent...

...was to insure that all of those considered full and free citizens be armed. Those that were able to vote should be able to own a gun.

Women, children, non-whites and some others were mostly looked upon as property. We've seen fit to correct that mistake in the law.

[guillaumeb]

34. SO, reading your second statement, we can infer that Amendments can be amended?

And the vote was limited to white males of property. As was possession of firearms.

So either you believe in respecting original intent or you do not.

That said, Scalia ignored 1/2 of the Amendment to arrive at his rather tortured interpretation. SO the so-called originalist Justice was actually nothing of the kind.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

36. Are you also in favor of...

...a bit of voting reform? I mean if you really want to roll back the clock to where women, NAs and AAs can't vote, you should just do splendidly.

[guillaumeb]

40. You discounted my sarcasm and irony. eom

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

63. Sorry about that chief

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. The purpose of the BoR...

...is clearly expressed in the Preamble:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added..."

Restrictions on the adopted Constitution to prevent, for one, abuses.

[guillaumeb]

39. And that Second Amendment included two clauses.

One of which Scalia dismissed as "merely prefatory" because to arrive at his self-described original intent he had to ignore 1/2 of the Amendment that was originally written by your Founders.

And because that dismissal of 1/2 of the Amendment resulted in an interpretation that supports what many gun owners already believed, it was regarded by them as correct. But it was a dismissal and a leap of something, I cannot say logic, but Scalia made a leap of illogic to arrive at his predetermined conclusion.

[Straw Man]

60. "Merely" prefatory?

Here we go again. Here's an analogy:

"An informed electorate being essential to a healthy democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books and other written materials shall not be infringed."

Do you take that as meaning that only voters should be allowed to read?

[guillaumeb]

67. Your attempt ignores the actual written wording of the Amendment.

If, a huge if, but if the Founders had intended to speak of an individual right, as separate from an individual in a well-regulated militia, the Amendment would have needed no reference to a militia at all.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

73. Why is it that somehow with you pro-restriction folks there is always a need for a "need"?

[guillaumeb]

76. I referred to a literary need.

As opposed to a perceived need.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

87. I get that. We "gun-nuts" are just sensitive on that word "need"

[guillaumeb]

117. Understood. I could have been clearer also. eom

[Straw Man]

115. Wrong -- YOUR attempt does.

Your attempt ignores the actual written wording of the Amendment.

If, a huge if, but if the Founders had intended to speak of an individual right, as separate from an individual in a well-regulated militia, the Amendment would have needed no reference to a militia at all.

If the founders had not intended to speak of an individual right, the second clause would have read "... the right of states to raise militias must not be infringed."

I notice that you've managed to entirely avoid my analogy and assertion that the prefatory clause states not a limitation on the right recognized in the main clause, but the reason for its importance.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

72. I feel we've discussed this before but thanks the exchange

Scalia did write the opinion and AFAIK led the discussion but the interpretation that the right applies to individuals was shared by all 9 justices. From the Breyer dissent:

"In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an "individual" right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred."

As I see it, all human rights are attributes of humanity innate in each instance of that humanity. In dealings with others and groups to which those others are a part, said rights may either be respected or not. It is fundamentally correct and good to respect the rights of everyone. Failing to respect rights is not a good act.

As it says in the Declaration, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". Groups, for example governments and militias, do not have rights either apart from or greater than than members. The circumstances leading to the Declaration were a perfect storm of highlights for the founders to enable for them clarity on the nature of man and his rights and the relation of those rights to governments.

You suggest that the first half of the 2A was "dismissed". Your opinion, if I understand correctly, is that the RKBA exists solely for the protection of exercise by a militia. (Please correct me if I'm wrong here.) From that I infer you see restrictions as comparable to government exercise of just powers like setting occupancy limits on venues for the safety of the people.

That is a lofty ideal but one which is counter to fundamental rights. The fundamental rights expressed in the Declaration are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. My happiness is based largely on being able to provide for my family. My commitment to that is not up for compromise. I limit my risks to that end and I view that as my most basic duty. How is my liberty and my commitment protected by a government usurpation of rights needed a task for which I am most directly concerned and most basically suited?

Self-defense while a sad necessity is not evil. There is no need for a government to punish a crime with the death of the perpetrator but self-defense is not a punishment. The victim of an attack where the presence of serious danger is obvious does not attack as judge, jury and executioner. He acts to stop the attack and preserve his own life.

If I don't use the most effective means to protect my own life, aren't I just a little bit complicit if I am killed?

The right to life implies a right to self-defense. The 2A explains that the RKBA MUST be protected because the people must be relied upon for militia participation. The Constitution is a federal document. The union of the states are its focus. How exactly can one be fit for infantry duty apart from a basic skill at arms?

Does a federal protection of an individual right limit the exercise of that right to only its purpose noted? Justice Breyer does not (AFAIK) deny that A purpose of the RKBA is self-defense. He claims that that purpose is not afforded 2A protection.

[guillaumeb]

75. A nice response. And polite as well. Something that is occasionally lacking in this venue.

As to the Second Amendment:

1) Your Founders made no provision for a standing army, preferring a militia that would be used for self-defense. (And slaughtering the First Peoples, but that is another matter.)

2) It was intended that all white males of a certain age range would be in the militia. Part of that militia was well-regulated. What constitutes well-regulated is discussed elsewhere in the Constitution.

3) Obviously at one point a standing army came into being. A prima facie violation of the Constitution, but the US empire required a conquering army. The militia is now known as the National Guard and as such is called into regular service at times.

4) The defense aspect of the Second Amendment obviously referred to national defense, not personal self-defense of every individual. Thus the wording of the actual Second Amendment.

5) As to fitness for duty, if fitness in a military sense is a requirement, I would suggest that a significant portion of the US population is too old and/or too out of shape to be fit for anything. Thus the age range limitations of the Constitution.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

86. As to the points you raise and a thanks again for the polite exchange

1) & 3) That same Constitution, of which the 2A is a part, names the President as

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...

It seems contrary to the position of there being no standing army to name a commander of said army.

2) It was intended originally that service in the organized militia would be compulsory. That is no longer the case. It was intended that those recognized as people (who possessed rights) were at all times part of the unorganized militia. In the vernacular of the day, one meaning of well-regulated was efficient. Being denied the ability to keep and bear arms does not serve to enhance one's efficiency in their use.

4) The term "defense" does not appear in the 2A at all. The announced purpose of the militia is SECURITY. I claim the 2A protects the RKBA, as it says in the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the various militias may not be subjugated and disbanded by the government in favor of their own professional armies or mercenaries. A militia of the people is loyal to the people. Pros and mercs are sometimes more loyal to whoever signs the checks. The existence of a need for a militia does not serve to limit a right expressed in the context of a means to protect the existence of that militia.

By the principle of In pari materia interpreting the 2A ought to be done in respect to the other 9 amendments in the BoR. Their purpose is quite clear from their texts and the preamble, which is the securing personal rights.

5) If you believe that somehow our individual and national interest is served by only allowing arms to those physically fit for service, I further hold by analogy that it would be by the same logic to say we are better served by letting only those with IQs over 100 vote.

Expressing a state and national purpose for a basic right does not serve to limit that right to be exercised ONLY that purpose.

[guillaumeb]

89. Since you raised the points:

1) There was no provision for a standing army, but when one was needed. Thus the 2-year limitation on military spending bills.

2) If militia service is compulsory, or was intended to be, it would follow that any right of possession be linked to such service. So possession would seem to be limited to males between 17 and 45.

4) The Amendment reads, (in full for the Scalia type originalists, )

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Linking the security of a free State with the right.

5) The Constitution itself sets forth the age limits. A clear expression of original intent that should, in a world of consistent logic, appeal to the fans of Judge Scalia.

And finally, that basic right is not an unlimited or absolute right. So limits on the exercise of that right, per Heller, are appropriate.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

105. Point by point

1) The Constitution did/does not not deal with a provision for the military. Clearly the Continental Army existed and prior to the ratification of the BoR in 1791, Congress created the Army in 1789:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/congress-establishes-the-us-army-sept-29-1789-228648

2) No it would not follow. It might follow if the government was actually supplying the arms and ammo and if there had been a provision to surrender them upon concluding one's service.

4) A link is not a limit. Simply put, security requires a militia; a militia requires an infantry that can shoot. Shooting is a practiced skill that requires regular attention and use. While on my college rifle team the change in my abilities from practicing 3-4 days per week to the once a week during mid-terms was evident. Saying that arms can only be used for militia duties is like saying a venue used for voting can only be used for voting.

5) Please site the age limits from the Constitution.

It may be a fine point but I would agree that individual conduct, in regard to a right, is not absolute nor unlimited. As was stated in Heller, reasonable laws may still prevail. From the Heller majority:

"...nothing in our opinion should 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."

[guillaumeb]

108. And yet the gun lobby is rapidly pushing to allow gun owners to carry everywhere.

Unless there is a draft, there is no need for constant practice. Most military members are not snipers.

And the Constitution puts a 2 year limit on military appropriations, and made no provision for a standing army. Thus the focus on a well-regulated militia to stand in place of a standing army.

Given the current huge military, and the National Guard, there is no need at all for a militia. Except as justification for the claimed right of individual carry.

The Heller decision in my view resembles the Citizens United decision. It was pure legislating from the Bench so that Scalia could rewrite the Constitution the way he felt would best serve the interests of the 1%.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

109. I think it's rather obvious what my preferred list of restrictions would cover

I can elaborate where needed but I'm not sure what ends, restrictions or allowances you're in favor of. You seem to be saying only that, apart from militia service, there is no right to arms. An assertion which I just don't buy.

If you want to detail what you see as acceptable and what isn't, we may be able to discuss this further.

[guillaumeb]

116. We both understand that a respectful dialogue is possible,

and I believe our dialogue is respectful and polite. I do not label gun owners as crazy, or any other negative description. That simply leads to anger. We simply have a different opinion about this particular issue.

While I have no issue with gun ownership, I do have an issue with open carry and concealed carry. Apart from hunting, or for a job, I see no valid reason to carry a firearm. Obviously other people disagree with me.

[gejohnston]

44. Voting has nothing to do with it

Voting laws vary by state because it is a state issue. Most states probably did limit voting to white men with property, however some in fact did allow women and free blacks to vote.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

64. Other states like Utah...

...didn't let Native Americans vote until the mid '50s.

Non-whites and women didn't have their rights respected by law very much at all.

[gejohnston]

118. Utah and Wyoming have something of a rivalry

BTW, why do seagulls in Utah fly upside down? Because there isn't anything worth shitting on.

[Marengo]

207. Free white women, as a group, were universally prohibited from posessing firearms?

[guillaumeb]

211. Not explicitly. But neither were non-whites explicitly named.

Perhaps it was not thought necessary to state what appeared to the Framers as obvious.

[Marengo]

212. Free white women could not, and did not, possess firearms?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

213. When you start with original intent...

...and assume that a single sentence embodies all the needed information to support your twisted interpretation, what is the rest of all the evidence to the contrary... fake news?
Or does this all just make one look foolish?

[guillaumeb]

214. My interpretation depends on a reading of the actual Amendment.

You call that twisted. But the interpretation that Scalia and apparently you rely on requires that 1/2 of the Amendment be ignored.

What an interesting insight into your thinking process.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

215. Perhaps you can resolve the mystery

What actions are protected by the 2A?

You seem to be asserting that "the people" do not have a right to keep and bear arms. Is that correct?

[guillaumeb]

220. I am asserting that, in my opinion,

Scalia was dishonest in his so-called originalist interpretation. Any interpretation that claims to speak to the intent of the Framers while dismissing 1/2 of the original words is certainly not original, nor is it honest.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

221. Again I ask:

What actions are protected by the 2A?

You seem to be asserting that "the people" do not have a right to keep and bear arms. Is that correct?

Asserting that Scalia was whatever does not answer what is covered by the people's right to keep and bear arms?
I am no longer pursuing who or what you say is wrong. I'm asking what actions are covered by people's right to keep and bear arms.

[guillaumeb]

223. I believe in a complete and literal interpretation.

That the militia is the reason for the right.

That membership in the militia is crucial to exercise of that right.

That the militia has several well-defined functions, as described in the Constitution.

And that nowhere in these well-defined militia functions is the right to walk around in public places with a firearm under the pretext of self-defense from an overbearing Government or from criminals.

And if the militia was replaced by a standing army, all reason for the unorganized militia disappears.

[Rucker61]

224. Why Is Your Version Not Supported By History?

Why didn't the Brady Act 1992 make a reference to the militia? The word "individual" was used eleven times.
Why didn't the FOPA 1986 make any references to the militia?

Why did the Gun Control Act of 1968 not mention militia a single time? "Citizen" was used twice and "individual" was used seven times.

In 1968, the Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed by a Democratic House and Senate, signed by a Democratic president and affirmed by a liberal majority SCOTUS. Here's the opening paragraph:

Gun Control Act of 1968 Sec. 101. The Congress hereby declares that the purpose of this title is to provide support to Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials in their fight against crime and violence, and it is not the purpose of this title to place any undue or unnecessary Federal restrictions or burdens on law-abiding citizens with respect to the acquisition, possession, or use of firearms appropriate to the purpose of hunting, trapshooting, target shooting, personal protection, or any other lawful activity, and that this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, or provide for the imposition by Federal regulations of any procedures or requirements other than those reasonably necessary to implement and effectuate the provisions of this title.

Let me repeat a phrase: "this title is not intended to discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". That's 40 years before Heller.

[guillaumeb]

225. Money talks.

And the weapons manufacturers spend a lot of money on publicity and politicians. Framing the issues is critical.

And the war industry is literally located in every single Congressional District.

And history is written by the rich, not the poor and not the victims.

So why did the actual Amendment mention the militia?

[Rucker61]

227. Some History

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

228. Ignoring the question isn't an answer. To clarify:

I asked: "I'm asking what actions are covered by people's right to keep and bear arms."
I infer from your answer that you believe that there is no RKBA for the people at large and any ownership of arms at all is a privilege. Is that correct?

[Rucker61]

222. Blame the Waite Court

US v Cruikshank on the 2nd Amendment: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

[Marengo]

216. Where was militia service a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by free citizens?

[Marengo]

230. Free white women could not, and did not, possess firearms?

[sarisataka]

27. But SCOTUS precedent...

what precedent? Can you cite a case?

[guillaumeb]

35. There are no cases prior to Heller v. DC.

A negative precedent.

[sarisataka]

50. So there was no precedent

for the "collective right" theory, therefore there was no precedent to overturn. The Court did have cases previously and did not invoke anything close o a collectives right, nor tie gun ownership to militia service. Heller is therefore, completely in line with precedent.

Negative precedent is simply conceding that the court has not ruled on such a case before.

[guillaumeb]

66. No, the collective right of "the people", as opposed to wording such as

"every person", was understood by every SCOTUS until Scalia discovered a new meaning in the Second Amendment. A discovery that only required Scalia to logically delete 1/2 of the actual words contained in the Second Amendment.

So if you accept Scalia's poor excuse for logic, you will accept the Heller v. DC decision.

[sarisataka]

88. Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The "people", not "every person" therefore we have no individual right against search and seizure? It's only if the police come into a neighborhood to search every house they need a warrant?

[guillaumeb]

90. The term "the people" refers to the theory.

A warrant is something that is necessary to override that theory.

[sarisataka]

91. You are avoiding the question

The people have the right to be secure Etc not every person has the right to be secure Etc.

By the logic you used above we, as individuals, have no right to be secure from search and seizure. It is only a collective right.

[guillaumeb]

96. A collective right is not an absolute right.

And laws are crafted to deal with the application, and the limits, of those rights.

[sarisataka]

99. The only right that is arguably collective

is the right of the people to assemble as, by definition, it takes more than one person to be an assembly. Even then, there are limits to when, where and how people may assemble. No right is absolute and only extremists will say otherwise.

Heller simply says the right is exercised by individuals, which has been de facto and de jure since the ratification of the BoR. As has been repeatedly pointed out, Heller does not say the Second is absolute; it specifically says regulation is permitted.

[guillaumeb]

100. Good points about the right of assembly.

As to the Heller decision, the Courts will decide what regulations are permitted, and a GOP dominated Court will probably find for the gun manufacturers.

[sarisataka]

102. A GOP dominated Court is unfortunate

*massive understatement* as there are quite a few regulations fully supported by the vast majority of gun owners. Here in Minnesota we passed a very good DV law that removes guns temporarily, or permanently, from people who are under a restraining order. It had so much support from gun owners that even the NRA reversed its position and supported the bill. All it took to get that support was adding a couple due process clauses to prevent it being used vindictively and stripping the language proposed by Bloomberg's groups that essentially made "temporarily" equal "permanent".

[guillaumeb]

103. Good for your state.

Good also that compromise is sometimes possible.

[gejohnston]

42. no it doesn't

There is no SCOTUS precedent that supports the "group rights" claim. None. All of the other 2A cases previous to Heller were decided based on pre incorporation actions of state governments. Since I happen to think Barron v. Baltimore was wrongly decided and led to civil rights disasters, only adds more "fuel to my fire". US v Miller simply ruled that no evidence presented that a sawed-off shotgun, which is less regulated in Canada than here, is a military weapon. If it were a Thompson, NFA would have been stuck down using their logic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller
No, Scalia did not ignore the prefatory, which is all it is. To say that it was more than that would also say that it gives state government rights, or that it protects group rights. The concept of "group rights" did not exist in any context at the time. It was also antithetical of Natural Law based liberalism at the time. It is still antithetical to liberalism, along with other collectivist nonsense like "common good" or any of the collectivist shit the right wing throws.

The BoR is a LIMIT ON GOVERNMENT, not on individuals. That is a simple fact. The tenth Amendment specifically limits the federal government.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=960810

BTW, the reason the registration and tax on automatic weapons etc. instead of a ban under the NFA was because the sponsors of the bill predicted that a ban would be struck down.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/02/dean-weingarten/review-1934-national-firearms-act-original-bill-hearings/

Here it is for download in Google Books
https://books.google.com/books?id=DFwWAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=Ammunition+production+1933+United+States&source=bl&ots=0JmLL4BUSj&sig=l1u06tA3BLF_XoDf0ot0l3qhm30&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj6iN6NwPbRAhVIz1QKHWKSDtc4ChDoAQgZMAA#v=onepage&q=Ammunition%20production%201933%20United%20States&f=false

The scholarship is on my side, not yours.

[guillaumeb]

43. Like Scalia, you ignore what you cannot explain in the individual vs group argument.

To say that 1/2 of the Second Amendment is merely prefatory is to engage in an argument wherein every part of the Constitution could be re-interpreted by simply deleting words that anyone might find inconvenient. That is a recipe for chaos because nothing would really mean what it appears to mean.

If this is your scholarship, I am glad I was not exposed to such scholarship in school.

[gejohnston]

45. Group rights simply do not exist

in the BoR. The very concept is illiberal and antithetical of the Enlightenment. Therefore, an originalist would correctly view it as merely prefatory. You failed to provide any argument to the contrary.

Such wording wasn't that unusual at the time.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

[guillaumeb]

47. Again you reiterate Scalia's nonsensical excuse for scholarship.

But you have your position, and I understand that.

[gejohnston]

48. You haven't read any of the links,

unless you are Evelyn Wood's best student ever. All you are providing is ideology and no scholarship.
Your logical fallacy is
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

[tortoise1956]

120. You have always been a good debater, even if I don't agree with your premise...

Here is a link to a story that cuts to the heart of the 2A debate. It discusses it in the context of the original right it was derived from, that of English Common Law:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/maltrad.htm

According to this source, British scholars have held that the original common law right was an individual one, but that it wasn't as expansive as the one envisioned by those who wrote the constitution. That is understandable - aftger all, they had jsut been through a revolution based, in part, on the attempts to disarm the colonists to make them more amenable to the whims of the crown. (Think 1774 decree banning importation of arms and powder to the colonies...)

It appears that, in order to believe in the Collective Rights version of the 2A, one must
1. hold that the term "the people", when used in the 2A (and ONLY when used in the 2A), doesn't refer to an individual right
and
2. assert that the founders (most of whom were Englishmen with a firm belief in the rights of Englishmen) somehow sought to take an individual right and limit it to militia members only.

Add to that the fact that both sides in Heller agreed there was an individual right. The difference was that the dissenter held that the individual; right only applied to members of the militia. (How it can still be an individual right is hard to understand, but hey - that's another, of a long list, of reasons why I haven't been appointed to SCOTUS!)

Finally, the whole "Collective Rights" theory is strictly a 20th century invention. There are no cases in American law (that weren't overturned on appeal) that refer to a collective right until the 1930's. I'll be glad to examine any cases you can find, but I seriously doubt you'll have much luck finding anything before 1930.

Feel free to scoff at me. Just be gentle...

[guillaumeb]

123. We must agree to disagree on this.

As to the Second Amendment, one important distinction, at least to me, is to remember that unlike England, with a large standing army, the Founders of this new country made no provision for a standing army. I highlight it to emphasize that crucial difference.

So with no standing army, it was important that some people have training in handling arms. I emphasize some because the Framers and Founders never intended that this right of The People would apply to all people. Like the franchise, it did not apply to non-whites, it did not apply to women, it did not apply to indentured whites.

The Second Amendment freedoms, like so many of the freedoms enshrined in the US Constitution, applied to white males of property. And in the case of the militia, it applied to males between 17 and 45. All of these factors combine to convince that the Framers and Founders did not intend this right to be an individual right.

As to the English, did the rights written in the Magna Carta apply to all Englishmen, or to the non-royal nobility?

[Marengo]

140. Where free white women as a group prohibited from owning firearms?

[HoneyBadger]

180. In Plymouth, well before the Second Amendment, it appears that free blacks could own guns

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/do-black-people-have-equal-gun-rights.html

http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/long_road_to_freedom.htm

In 1684, African-American Robert Trayes, probably also a free man, was indicted for having shattered a man’s leg with a gun blast; the man died as a result of his wounds. Robert Trayes was found guilty of negligence (but not of murder). He was reproved and fined.

http://www.histarch.illinois.edu/plymouth/Domestic.html

In July of 1684, Robert Trayes was presented to the court in that he did "feloniously, wilfully, and presumtrously fire of a gun att the dore of Richard Standlake, therby wounding and shattering the legg of Daniell Standlake, of Scittuate, of which wound, and cutting of his legg occationed therby, died" (PCR 6: 141). Once again, like Betty, Trayes was found guilty of "the death of Daniell Standlake by misadventure" (PCR 6: 142). For his action, he was fined three pounds to be given to Richard Standlake, Daniell's father, and either fined two pounds or to be whipped "for the negroes wrong that hee hath don in takeing away, or being an instrument in takeing away, Daniell Standlake out of the world, although by misadventure" (PCR 6: 142). To receive three pounds in exchange for the death of a son, somehow seems unfair. Once again, though a murder was committed, the punishment only amounted to a total of five pounds or a whipping and three pounds. That is extremely lenient considering the consequences of Trayes' actions.

It seems that in cases of murder, if the intent could not be absolutely proven, execution was not carried out, regardless of the race or gender of the offender. The word "willful" mentioned in the original laws combined with "misadventure" upon sentencing, is a combination which prevented many executions in Plymouth Colony.

[guillaumeb]

184. An interesting article, but how does it relate to the Second Amendment?

This has more relevance to English law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

185. You seem reluctant to address this point

You claim that "...the Founders of this new country made no provision for a standing army." In Article II Section 2 of the Constitution the President is designated as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. That was in 1787. In 1789 on September 29, Congress passed an act which designated the military force inherited from the Articles of Confederation as the US Army. A bit over 26 months later the Bill of Rights was ratified. Many of those same Founders were members of the Congress which passed that act.
>>How can you believe that your 'Founders made no provision' statement?<<

At the time of the creation, adoption and passage of the Second Amendment, the US HAD an Army. In laws and writings contemporaneous with these which founded the US, the militia was established with limits to who were mandated for participation. In 1903 the militia was divided into the National Guard and the unorganized militia.

The Founders, in the Constitution, left open the options for the People, via their representatives in Congress, to determine specifics about the military.

Basically the 2A, like the rest of the BoR, expresses an individual right and names a reason for protecting it at the federal level.

It is important, now and always as it was then, that a significant portion of the population be familiar with the use and regular maintenance of firearms.

From Federalist #46 by James Madison:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

From George Mason, Founder:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."

A RIGHT is a RIGHT. I find it reprehensible that you suggest that within the same piece of legislation a word, so important and central to the Bill as to be included in the name of the Bill, would have a different meaning in various places throughout.

[guillaumeb]

186. Provisions for an army had a 2 year limit.

The Framers intended that the militia would be called up when needed to address issues that were specified in the Constitution. The only standing military institution was the Navy.

And calling up the militia is not quite the same as every white male citizen always walking around carrying weapons for no particular reason.

And every right has a responsibility attached to that right. There is no such thing as an unencumbered or absolute right.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

187. A 2 year limit does not preclude a standing army

The budget must be appropriated and approved every 2 years, yes. The army has been around continuously since 1789.

Absolutely! Responsibilities are attached to every right. If they weren't, murder wouldn't be a crime; inciting riots wouldn't be a crime...

IMHO, laws are made as criteria by which criminal guilt can be determined at a trial. Laws that aim to control will generally be unsuccessful. I believe a campaign for responsibility regarding guns and minors would have more positive effect than new laws. I believe ending the war on drugs would help many aspects of violence as well as property crime. Improving mental health treatment options and destigmatizing that treatment would improve society overall in addition to improving problems of violence and suicide.

[guillaumeb]

188. My point about the army goes to original intent.

A philosophy that Scalia claimed to embrace.

No matter what we discuss, it is undeniable that guns make killing much easier. And guns make mass killing much easier simply because high capacity magazines provide more ability.

And the NRA reflexively opposes any restrictions on guns, magazines, types of weapons, and registration. It is a lobbying organization devoted solely to increasing the profits of the gun manufacturers at the expense of the victims of gun violence.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

206. Your point about the army is a conclusion you've drawn

The evidence and history do not agree with that conclusion.

None of us here has control or means to influence the NRA-ILA. Many organizations act in much the same manner.

Guns make killing easier only if the person in possession has murder or suicide in mind. A gun is a tool and its effect is determined by the user. A man with a gun can rob a dozen people. A man with a briefcase can rob millions.

There are better places to start than with restricting guns.

[Marengo]

143. As your "scholarship" is so superior, please provide an example of a Federal court ruling...

Militia membership as a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by free citizens.

[ileus]

122. So 200 plus years isn't precedent?

[guillaumeb]

125. Other than Heller v. DC, what SCOTUS precedent

supports what Scalia so coincidentally and fortuitously discovered? Fortuitous for the NRA lobbyists and the weapons industry. Not so fortuitous for the millions who are less safe.

But Scalia was always a good servant of the 1%.

[Marengo]

141. When and where has a Federal court ruled that militia membership is a prerequisite for the private..

Ownership of firearms by free citizens?

[ileus]

148. So you'd argue befor heller no individuals owned firearms?

[trc]

9. Interesting question.

I am a progressive who owns a small 45 for conceal and carry (which I don't) and several long rifles I have inherited from one source or another. I firmly believe this country would be less dangerous if handguns had been banned after say, 1900, but they weren't. It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns, but that will not happen, The 2nd Amendment however, is not fully incorporated into the Constitution like speech or warrantless searches. That is why the laws concerning guns vary state to state. So we have situation where local governments with the consent of the governed have put in place laws that seem to conflict with the 2nd amendment, but really do not. If you are a Democrat running for office, say, in most of California you will not have to worry about gun control even being an issue. But rural America (I am in Texas), that is another thing altogether. As a Democrat, embrace gun control/banning if you desire, but a better choice for most of us would be to profess our respect for the rights of fellow Americans while pushing for more diligent gun ownership. For example, your child gets a hold of your gun, you go to jail for a bit, make gun ownership have consequences. Eliminate the stand your ground laws that make it open season simply because you "feel" threatened; work with police to stop open carry laws that are used simply to intimidate. But talking about outright bans will get you no where in much of rural, red America, and like it or not, we need to win rural, red America...at least some of it.

[Berlin Vet]

12. Assault Weapons Ban

Lawmakers have introduced a bill in the Washington house to ban "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. It probably won't pass but Democrats running for office will take the heat for this we may loose seats in the state and guarantee that Republicans stay in office. It certainly won't play well in rural areas to be sure.

[yagotme]

192. Same as 1994?

That worked real well for us, too.

"Sarcasm".

[Berlin Vet]

198. CT and NY

One of the two bills resembles the laws in NY and CT. Since those have been held to be constitutional that's probably why they were copied. The WA state Senate is controlled by Republicans with some rural Democrats so this my die there.

[yagotme]

201. The thrust of my post was on a national AWB,

tried in 1994, and was found wanting. At the cost of the House, per WJC.

Not recalled, but allowed to die a silent (mostly) death.

[democrank]

11. Old Liberal female here who supports the Second Amendment.

Guns are definitely not my thing, but l support gun ownership. I believe in background checks, gun safety classes for minors, loss of gun ownership privileges for anyone who leaves a loaded, unattended gun which results in death or injury.

I don't want to see guns in the hands of: domestic violence perpetrators, people with severe mental health issues, those convicted of violent crimes, or those who are a threat to national security.

[Berlin Vet]

13. Mental Health Issues

This is probably the hardest to implement due to privacy issues. But I think it could be done if details are left our. For instance I go and see my mental health provider and tell her I am very depressed and I'm thinking that I have no future. Could she enter into a national database that I should not be allowed to purchase a firearm, merely stating "Do Not allow purchase". When I get better it could be deleted.

[pablo_marmol]

16. Re. mental health issues, "progressives" reward lip service, ignore *complete* malfeasance.

This essay is both enlightening and depressing. From a pro-gun rights source -- meticulously cited:

http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf

[democrank]

22. Sorry, Berlin Vet, for my not-so-clear attempt regarding "mental health issues"

Originally I wrote about severe mental health issues. I was thinking about several cases we've seen where many questioned why those close to the (mentally ill) perpetrators didn't remove the weapon or alert someone who could intervene.

I'm not in favor of ALL those with mental health issues losing their rights to gun ownership.

[yagotme]

193. Out of the 4 you list,

those are pretty much already covered by current law.

The mental health issue needs a good bit more work, but the Lautenberg Act covers the 1st, criminals have already been covered for eons, and the no-fly/Patriot Act have been clamping down, more or less, on the last. I think more work needs to be done on defining the "national security" aspect, though. Chances of abuse abound there.

[sarisataka]

15. A progressive Democrat

Should support the Second Amendment just as they support the other Amendments.

[Berlin Vet]

17. Should Say It Often

and be proud of it!

[yagotme]

194. I just can't wrap my head around the fact,

that a "progressive Democrat" would be so anti-progressive against one right, and herald all the others. Subliminal fear against an object/person they can't control?

[HAB911]

237. I have to ask

If I don't trust anyone behind the wheel of 4K lb auto, around my wife, my child, or small farm animals, how can I trust anyone with a gun and why should I be forced to trust anyone in a bar mixing alcohol with with apparent paranoia?

serious question

[friendly_iconoclast]

239. Precrime is a regressive fantasy- all of us have to trust *everyone* we interact with

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

240. The very idea of "earning" or "qualifying for" trust is anti-rights n/t

[HAB911]

241. LOL!

TOO FUNNY

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

242. YMMV

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2017, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds."

ETA: For some of us, rights aren't a laughing matter.

[yagotme]

243. Agreed.

Those rights enumerated in the Constitution were so listed to give us a measure of protection from an overbearing government, so that we may enjoy those rights, along with those not listed.

What I think is becoming really funny, HAB, is those comments from some people here that say, on one hand, that those of us that own firearms think "we can overthrow the government with our puny rifles, against tanks and drones." Then, after Cheeto got elected, a lot of them are saying "I need a gun to protect myself against the alt right crazies." I see a little hypocrisy, there. Just a tad.

[pablo_marmol]

18. As GE has mentioned, UBCs can only aspire to create very slight improvement.

Liberal criminologists James Wright and Peter Rossi discovered that criminals with felonies obtain guns from licensed dealing in 1 of 6 cases. (in-depth prison interviews/survey) The vast majority of crime guns are obtained on the street or via straw purchases.

Edited to add: In fairness, it is possible that criminals without felony convictions behave significantly differently that hardened criminals, to the detriment of the survey's accuracy. It's hard for me to imagine, however, that this potential flaw completely invalidates survey findings.

Their book 'Armed and Considered Dangerous' deserves to be a must-read for all who insert themselves into the gun violence debate, particularly gun restriction supporters. But of course this issue is the only one (as far as I can tell) where "progressives" give themselves permission to ignore the verdict of empirical evidence.

[hack89]

19. Yes. Nt

[doc03]

25. I don't agree with your last point about requiring guns to be in a safe,

secure room or have trigger locks. That sort of kills their use for home protection. I don't think people should
have a gun that fires more than 10 rounds without reloading.

[Phoenix61]

29. what would you recommend if there are children in the home?

Just curious as that can definitely be an issue.

[gejohnston]

49. on my to buy list once the grandkids are created

https://www.amazon.com/BARSKA-AX11224-Biometric-Safe/dp/B002AQ0PFW

[doc03]

51. You could secure most of the guns in a safe. If you want

a gun for self defense that you could get quickly they make a locked box that will open with a fingerprint.
That would require what would be a lot of money for many people though.

[oneshooter]

81. My grandfathers M92 Winchester carries 13 rounds. It was built in 1911.

You are way too late,

[democratisphere]

28. Sure you can.

[Phoenix61]

30. Personally, I would like to make handguns illegal

and send anyone to prison for 5 years if they are caught with one but..never gonna happen so...
I would like to see mandatory registration/background checks for all handguns/owners and severe penalties if caught with an unregistered handgun.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

33. If someone is shot and killed...

...with a registered gun, are they less dead?

[Phoenix61]

41. No, but criminals aren't going to have

registered guns. I realize they aren't the only ones shooting and killing people and I know the facts about the risks to family members when their is a gun in the home but so many don't and don't want to. If Dems want to win they are going to have to compromise on that issue. I live in an area where spring break is huge. There were a lot of folks coming here to prey on stupid, drunk college kids. The police confiscated an insane number of unregistered guns but not a whole lot of folks went to jail.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

167. What's the purpose of having laws...

...and prescribed penalties if prosecutors never or seldom actually enforce them.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

"Certain violations of the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. 921 et. seq., are punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or up to a $250,000 fine."

New laws won't cause ineffective prosecutors to improve their diligence.

[yagotme]

195. If your local police were confiscating unregistered guns,

therefore I assume there is a law against them, and a lot of them didn't go to jail for breaking that law, what makes you think another law is going to be more effective/enforced? Piling on complicated laws that aren't enforced makes it a lot harder for the average citizen to comply with the law, and the criminal to ignore them.

[SecularMotion]

38. No, if you support the NRA interpretation of the 2nd amendment you're a RW nutjob

There is not one Progressive or Liberal organization that supports weakening gun regulations.

The only Democratic officials that support weakening gun laws are in deep red districts.

[wincest]

59. "There is not one Progressive or Liberal organization that supports weakening gun regulations."

does that make the liberal gun club http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/who-we-are/ and the pink pistols http://www.pinkpistols.org/about-the-pink-pistols/ right wing illiberal orginzations?

[SecularMotion]

61. Not progressive, not liberal

We are geared towards typical ‘liberals’ who also happen to enjoy owning and using firearms; however, our members come from every political ideology – Libertarian, Independent, Democrat, Republican, Green, etc.

[wincest]

62. what is your defination

of a progressive liberal? i'm sure whatever it is, there are many people on this site who would disagree with you.

i'm more of a classical liberal https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/classical_liberalism.htm
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

[hack89]

71. Can we at least agree the 2A protects and individual right? Nt

[SecularMotion]

92. As long as you agree that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

2. 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

[hack89]

93. I have never believed otherwise

Even Scalia believes that - read Heller.

The 2A is not the reason that gun control is a smoking wreck. It is a lack of public support.

[SecularMotion]

94. Now you're just being delusional

Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks

Ninety-two percent of voters, including 92 percent of gun owners and 86 percent of Republicans, support background checks prior to all gun sales, according to a new poll from Quinnipiac University.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211321-poll-most-gun-owners-support-universal-background-checks

[hack89]

95. One issue has broad support

contentious issues like AWBs and registration do not have have wide spread public support. Out right bans have little support. There is widespread support for concealed carry.

[HAB911]

238. Correct

[Kaleva]

46. Very few people are progressive, moderate or conservative on all issues.

[RoadhogRidesAgain]

52. Yes

This administration is proof that the second amendment is out only tool in defending our rights from a crazy government. I personally believe gun control should be dropped entirely from the dem platform, and we should focus more on economic and social populism.

[Zambero]

53. As originally written, or as demagogued by the NRA et al?

The first answer would be YES. Responsible gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is a Constitutional right.
The second one doesn't apply, since what is being portrayed by them as "Second Amendment rights" is actually an unregulated free-for-all, not in line with original intent.

[HassleCat]

54. Yes, and it's not even difficult.

Liberals are generally big supporters of gun control. Progressives not so much because we see the Constitution as a package deal. You buy the package, including the parts you might not like.

[sagetea]

55. I'm sure this has been said a thousand times...

Duh!!! It is a constitutional right. Personally, I do not like them, I'm good, damn good shooting them, but I don't like them. And I would never take that right away, however, there needs to be strict laws on them. They have an ability to take a life, and that needs to be considered. We need to remember how precious life is.

Ho'
sage

[Worktodo]

57. Gun debate a microcosm of our national psychosis

1. it's important to internalize that the wording and meaning of the second amendment is completely immaterial. It's a completely emotional issue for most people and beyond all fact or reason. (See also "Are pitbulls a dangerous breed or best dog ever?&quot

2. use 2nd amendment rights to help people understand the importance of their other rights. What use is a gun if you don't have your 1st, 4th, or 14th? What does the right to vote mean when a congressional district is gerrymandered?

3. equal protection under the law. Most rights are better protected within proximity of government. 2nd amendment is opposite. Why can people concealed carry in the grocery store but not the state house? It's outrageous.

4. Stop taking "the other side" in the gun "debate". There is no debate. That ship sailed four atrocities ago. As a prominent national issue this needs to go back in the cupboard so folks can win races. (Except for the points above. Rs are so hypocritical on gun issues.)

[gopiscrap]

85. No fuck all gun humpers!!!

[hack89]

98. This is going to to be a difficult time for you, isn't it?

Just get all that rage and frustration out. You will feel better and then you can join us in fighting Trump.

[wincest]

244. i accept your offer

we can meet at the range, and play with our pistols. then back to your place for a few drinks, and see what happens

[Berlin Vet]

97. Reason For This Post

The reason why I posted this was to solicit ideas, thoughts, and opinions of DU’s about the Second Amendment and gun control. I recently became a Democratic Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) and volunteered to work in the Agricultural and Rural Caucus (ARC). The Chairman of the ARC then tasked us to come up with issues that affect people in rural areas that Democratic candidates could use to help them get elected. My county is so red that Republicans run unopposed and we want to change that. Having a well thought out position on the Second Amendment would help them challenge these Republicans in addition to wanting to help working class Americans and not Corporations.

After the Sandy Hook massacre and the lack of a response to it at the Federal level, I realized that gun control would be solved state by state and it has. Here in Washington State bills were recently drafted to ban magazines over 10 rounds and “assault weapons” will be harder to get and would require an “extensive” background check and a yearly license. This probably won’t pass due to Republican control of the State Senate but it may come back as an initiative. But the Republicans will spin this as “The Democratic city people want to confiscate everyone’s guns because they are evil and people that own them are mentally ill”.

Like it or not the Second Amendment will not be repealed in my life time (I’m 58) but there is a chance that it may go the other way. How? If Trump is able to put in a couple more Supreme Court Justices, could the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934 be ruled unconstitutional? I don’t think this will happen but it is possible and scary to think about.

Again I would like to thank those that provided some great input and links.

[SecularMotion]

104. I checked your website and found no mention of guns

https://arcwashdems.wordpress.com/?s=guns

[Berlin Vet]

106. ARC

As I said the ARC Chairman tasked us to come up with issues and I thought of because it affects rural people. Whether it will be adopted is uncertain since the new ARC officers were just elected in Jan.

[SecularMotion]

107. Did you ask them the same question?

What was the response?

[Berlin Vet]

110. No

I have not asked their opinion since I was asked to come up with issues that affect people living in rural areas. I am also researching rural internet access which you won't find on the ARC site either.

I'm curious what exactly are you asking?

Thanks

[SecularMotion]

111. Do they know you're using the name of their organization to pimp gun rights on DU?

Should I send them a link to this thread?

[Berlin Vet]

113. Feel Free

Isn't that the purpose of this Group, to discuss the Second Amendment and gun control? i appreciated the many well thought out responses and gathered some great links.

How exactly does my post "pimp" gun rights? I stated that I was in favor of our current system (background checks),and secure storage of guns.

Feel free to send them a link. I'm doing research and asking for comments.

[Marengo]

142. Are you attempting to silence that poster with a threat? Sure appears that way to me.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

112. He might be asking if...

...you're a "real" Democrat.

[Berlin Vet]

114. I See

So "real" democrats want to get rid of all guns (said in jest).

[yagotme]

196. Some posters here, yes.

If you meet the "purity" challenge. ;}

[Mike Nelson]

101. Yes...

...of course. Conservatives, who are all about "original intent," do not apply it to the 2nd Amendment.

[ileus]

121. You can't be a progressive and NOT support the 2A.

Supporting rights is what we're all about here....or at least we should be.

[aikoaiko]

124. yes, especially if you consider that the Bill of Rights protects civil liberties.

easy.

[bluecollar2]

130. yes

I a both a fervent Democrat and I support the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

[Paladin]

144. In theory, yes. Reality is a tougher proposition.

The 2nd Amendment and pro-gun rights were long ago co-opted by the far right wing. It's the sort of ugly company you keep that repeatedly knee-caps you when you're hanging out at a Democratic talk site. Happens over and over, here.

I say all of the foregoing as a lifelong Democrat, a gun owner for the past 60 years, and a proponent of rigorous controls on gun ownership and use---as opposed to banning guns themselves.

[TXCritter]

157. Depends. Can we agree on a definition for "Progressive Democrat"

In America you can be a christian yet never read the bible much less follow it.
You can be a Republican who supports ... what do they stand for again?

You can be a doctor who denies medical research

You can be a meteorologist who denies climate change

You can be a journalist who works exclusively with alt-facts

You can be POTUS and a puppet of the Russian Czar at the same time.

So, yes.. I can be a progressive Democrat and support the 2d. I'm not actually sure what any of that means but I can do it.

[Berlin Vet]

159. Thanks

Good points all.

[TXCritter]

160. OK, an actual answer to your strategy question

First, consider when the 2d was ratified. It was 1791.
At that time, the States had more autonomy than they have today. Since then the 14th Amendment was ratified which limits States' power in the same way that the Federal Government is limited.

So, I contend that prior to the ratification of 14th Amendment, the States had more freedom to regulate guns than they have now.

I live in Texas and if I were running for federal office my position would follow that analysis. I would take the position that I will not support further FEDERAL limitations on gun ownership. I would then allow for support of an Amendment which unbinds the States from the limitations of the 2d. i.e. Make gun control an explicitly States' rights issue and forever remove it from the federal election cycle.

The argument is simple - the needs of Texas rancher and the needs of coastal urbanite are extremely different. Population density, culture, educational approaches - all of these factors make a one-size-fits all approach to gun control impossible.

The only people served by the federal gun-debate cycle are the arms dealers who laugh all the way to the bank every time a democrat is elected POTUS.

Take this issue away from the federal cycle and the Republicans have nothing left to stand on.


Now, if I were running for STATE office my position would vary depending on the state I live in. Different solutions will serve different states better.

[Berlin Vet]

165. Thanks for your response

I really like this idea. The hard part would be getting that Amendment passed to unbind the States from the Second Amendment. Overall the idea best suits the needs of people living in different circumstances.

[TXCritter]

173. Yes but now there's two of us

Supporting the idea. All we can do is push the idea.

[Rucker61]

217. What Other Federally Protected Rights

would aciton this give the states the power to infringe?

[brush]

162. Yeah, and I'm as progressive as it comes but I'm like Scalia on this, a strict constructionist...

(God, I can believe I just wrote that)

My meaning by strict constructionist a la, Scalia, being "a well regulated militia", yes — the National Guard, not camo- wearing wingers with whatever high-powered weapon they can get their hands on.

No automatic weapons for that matter, but shot guns and perhaps a rifle for home protection as the founding fathers, living in the time of muskets, had no way of knowing what rapid-fire destruction was down the road at a price, and not well-regulated at all.

Hands guns? I lean towards total ban except for target pistols and for LEOs as they are designed to shoot people.

Do we really need that capability, especially when there is no regulation to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

163. Re: "...there is no regulation to keep them out of the hands of the mentally unstable."

Yes there is.

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics/about-nics
"The federally prohibiting criteria are as follows:
A person who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year or any state offense classified by the state as a misdemeanor and is punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than two years.
Persons who are fugitives of justice—for example, the subject of an active felony or misdemeanor warrant.
An unlawful user and/or an addict of any controlled substance; for example, a person convicted for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past year; or a person with multiple arrests for the use or possession of a controlled substance within the past five years with the most recent arrest occurring within the past year; or a person found through a drug test to use a controlled substance unlawfully, provided the test was administered within the past year.
A person adjudicated mental defective or involuntarily committed to a mental institution or incompetent to handle own affairs, including dispositions to criminal charges of found not guilty by reason of insanity or found incompetent to stand trial.
A person who, being an alien, is illegally or unlawfully in the United States.
A person who, being an alien except as provided in subsection (y) (2), has been admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa.
A person dishonorably discharged from the United States Armed Forces.
A person who has renounced his/her United States citizenship.
The subject of a protective order issued after a hearing in which the respondent had notice that restrains them from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner. This does not include ex parte orders.
A person convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime which includes the use or attempted use of physical force or threatened use of a deadly weapon and the defendant was the spouse, former spouse, parent, guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited in the past with the victim as a spouse, parent, guardian or similar situation to a spouse, parent or guardian of the victim.
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year."

[brush]

164. How do the mass killers get them then, all thru the gun show loophole? We both know that's not true.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

166. - $$$ not being spent to keep the database updated,

- state laws that don't mesh well with federal reporting
- family members, friends and neighbors not getting help for those that need it
-...

[hack89]

208. They have to be adjudicated first.

we are not very good at identifying potentially violent people - the state of mental health care in America sucks plus the vast majority of people with mental health problems are not violent.

[HoneyBadger]

177. The founding fathers used handguns for more than target shooting

[brush]

179. Oh, I forgot, those one shot jobs, right, certainly not full-auto uzis or even glock semi...

automatics of today?

[HopeAgain]

176. Sure, if you are part of a well regulated militia. Nt

[MedusaX]

178. License & registration

Treat firearms just like vehicles...
Vehicles have titles...& Identification numbers associated with ownership
Plus
You have to have a license to operate the vehicle

There are Various classes of vehicles-- as there are various classes of firearms--
Each class of vehicle requires a different license /endorsement which can only be obtained by demonstrating
1. a certain level of safety/usage related knowledge
2. A certain degree of usage proficiency

You take drivers ed classes to acquire knowledge & receive instructions on how to operate the vehicle..
And you can easily require the same for firearms...

You simply include a provision in the law that prohibits the seizure and or confiscation of any firearm which Is in the possession of the (properly licensed) owner as indicated on the title -- the exception being cases in which there is a warrant issued in association with a specific crime involving the firearm and/or its lawful owner.

Individuals sell cars... dealers sell cars
Same processes for transferring titles could apply for firearms... it's a state thing

[Berlin Vet]

181. Thanks

Another great idea that makes sense. Here is Washington state you can apply for a concealed carry permit without have demonstrating any real knowledge of gun safety. There is no test to see if you even know how to safely use your weapon. I grew up in Michigan and had to pass a hunter safety course be you could get a hunting license and that made sense.

[hack89]

183. A license good in every state in the union? Sounds good.

You do realize that you don't need to register a car unless you plan to drive it on public roads. It does not need to be registered if it stays on private property. I had an unregistered car sit in my drive way for over a year and it was perfectly legal.

[samnsara]

202. heck yeah!!!

our local Dem Party is starting a 2nd Amendment Dem group and we are gonna challenge the GOP to shooting matches. I have a Glock..with a laser.. so I don't miss. And I have a Lady S/W. I LOVE shooting!!

[Warpy]

205. Depends on what you call "support."

If you think military style weapons and semi auto pistols belong in the hands of every lunatic, felon, abuser. and toddler, then no.

If you think people have a right to keep long guns for hunting and defense of livestock subject to background checks to make sure they're not one of the above groups, then yes.

[hack89]

209. So self defense is not a valid reason to own guns? Or recreation?

I have a safe full of AR-15s I use for competitive target shooting. That ok with you or do I have to start hunting to keep them?

[wincest]

210. what are military style weapons?

you do realize every firearm is based on a military weapon? for example the mossberg 500 and remington 870 are used by our current military. just about every modern bolt action is a copy of the mauser 98. all flintlock and matchlock firearms were at one time top of the line in military technology.

are crossbows, bows, and swords considered military style weapons?

edit to add: i have no problem with preventing people who have been deemed a threat to themselves or others from possessing weapons.

[pablo_marmol]

219. Sorry, but you've been conned re. "military style weapons".

They are not more lethal than other semi-auto rifles. We can keep brazenly & stupidly lying on this matter and continue to lose elections, or we can STFU in hopes of regaining a bit of our credibility. I vote for the latter.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

229. Of course you can

The Bill of Rights is most basically a twofold foundational document. It provides a summary of individual rights and it protects those rights and others implied.

Your points:
1. Fine by me
2. I'm not in favor of FOID type systems
3. Guns should be secured. While on the private premises inside a building, the owner locks the door, locks the gun or both as he sees fit. While in areas of public access, guns remain either on your person or within reach or they are locked and secured.

I am in favor of having local law enforcement (sheriff's office, police district, precinct...) offer as a voluntary option to private sellers, a free BGC of the buyer.

[yagotme]

231. In paragraph #1,

you use the word "ensures". Unfortunately, it doesn't, unless they don't lie. Criminals breaking the law, imagine that. Thus, passing even more restrictive laws will most likely have little effect on actual criminals, and making criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens that get "caught up" in a complicated law.

[Berlin Vet]

232. I'm Confused

I always understood that after you fill out the BATFE Form the dealer calls it in and if you have a felony conviction that stops the process. So if a criminal answers no on the form, but he/she is a convicted felon, the process still stops the purchase. Have I misunderstood this?

[yagotme]

233. No, if the conviction is actually registered in the system,

the sale will be denied. However, human beings being what they are, not all system reporting is done, due to various reasons.

[Straw Man]

234. You've got it right.

As I see it, the main purpose of having them fill out the form, i.e. giving information which will be duplicated by the background check, is to discourage the ineligible buyer who might otherwise be tempted to simply roll the dice in attempting a purchase. Lying on the form is itself a crime, and therefore such a buyer has something to lose in the attempt.

However, no one seems to be at all interested in prosecuting falsification of 4473 forms. Therefore, the deterrent effect is nil.

[Berlin Vet]

235. Thousands?

I seem to recall that hundreds and maybe thousands of people are turned away from purchasing but you never hear about any punishment. Kind of defeats the whole purpose.

[yagotme]

236. Not all turn aways are for criminal reasons,

like the Patriot Act, sometimes a name comes back for denial, and it's not the actual buyer. Some are turned away that are criminals, and supposedly very few are actually prosecuted. Like I commented earlier, what good is a new law, basically, if you don't enforce current ones, making life harder for the average joe.