Another senseless death and an idea whose time has come.
http://www.indyweek.com/news/archives/2014/11/18/after-teens-death-in-raleigh-gun-control-advocates-renew-calls-for-reformAnother gun death caused by a felon who got a gun even though it is against the law for him to have it. How to fix this? Perhaps RI has the right approach.
http://wpri.com/2014/11/11/new-gun-control-unit-targets-illegal-firearms-in-providence-nov14/
The PD has a special unit that tracks down the legal purchaser of guns used by criminals and holds the legal buyer responsible for letting guns fall into the hands of criminals.
For my part the straw-buyer or private seller should occupy the same cell as the perpetrator using the gun they provided.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sancho
(9,103 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)I was taught to shoot at an early age, been around guns most of my life and now have a C&R ffl. I have close to a dozen guns, only one designed after 1900. They are all secured under lock and key. I haven't laid hand or eye on any of them in more than a year. After December 14, 2012 I came to the conclusion that there is no justifiable reason for civilians to have semi automatic firearms of any type and had the semi autos in my collection destroyed as per BATF&E instructions. I never cared for the NRA or other gun clubs/groups. People who belong to these organizations seem to hold guns in an inappropriate special regard.
To your well thought out and reasonable considerations I would add a national registry. Every gun with a serial number was legally owned at least once. Should the legal owner sell to a private party that gun becomes invisible. Tying the gun to every individual who owns it seems the only way to make any other violence reducing attempt possible. Additionally, should a legal gun owner change to a prohibited status a registry would make it possible to recover any and all firearms in their possession.
None of this will happen in my children's lifetime, but perhaps in the lifetimes of my grandchildren.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)just like the shooting at FSU yesterday. Gun safes should be mandatory, etc. I would go for a gun registry too.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but the problem arises with enforcement of such a law, how would it be enforced?
Gun registry? I don't think so, the govt. has no business knowing what I do or don't own in the way of firearms.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)and if so, you should not be able to possess or use a firearm.
If a gun registry is necessary to prevent illegal gun trafficking, then it's no big deal to lawful gun possession. I use guns and have no problem with it. A gun registry should record sales, criminal use of guns, etc.
Regardless, I have a right to know that unstable people, children, untrained people, and criminals cannot possess guns easily, so producing a license at logical points of time: buying and selling ammo or guns, when entering a firing range or hunting area, and when carrying a gun should be required.
My opinion...if you fear a license process more than guns in the hands of dangerous people, then you must have been living in the Twilight Zone for the last few decades.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)No, you don't have that right, no where in the Constitution does it say you have that right, but I do understand why one would want to know that information.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)Is there such a thing as quarantine?
Can you possess a nuclear bomb legally?
Does the state have right to issue concealed carry permits?
Of course the Constitution allows it. To possess a license, you'd have to have show insurance (which may require you to have a secured weapon), or any number of similar rules and regulations.
If you don't, then you are subject to loss of your license, guns, etc. You may have to pay a fine, go to jail, etc. Just like a DUI or enforcement of a quarantine for ebola.
You don't have a right to be dangerous. A license is not proof that you're safe, but it provides a basic measure of safety that prevents the obviously unstable, untrained, and dangerous people from easy access to guns.
Rather than shooting down my obviously legal idea (pun intended), please tell us what YOU would do to PREVENT dangerous and unstable people that should not possess guns from having them. Don't just complain - give us a better solution!
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)how would you enforce a safe storage law without trampling the 4A?
I'm curious to hear your suggestion.
In order to get the license you have to provide proof that you can secure your weapon appropriate to your circumstance.
Maybe a trigger lock, maybe a safe, maybe a fingerprint trigger. It would be part of the process just like any other license.
If you want a truck driver's license it's different than a motorcycle license, but there are requirements.
In Florida, homes are inspected for sink hole activity before you get homeowners. You sometimes have to have a car inspected by an agent to get an auto policy (and they check the VIN). It differs by the state.
Same thing for a license to hunt, fish, or whatever.
You'd simply have a state license that may differ from NY to Nevada, but there would be some common elements as described in the original post. Many gun specific insurance policies would require a safe (if you had children in the home) or some other requirement based on statistical information and the location, type of gun, your training, etc.
Regardless, they could easily require proof or you would not be issued a license. Without the license you could not buy a gun or ammo, shoot at a range, hunt, or carry. If you were caught, you'd be subject to penalties.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Most Americans will resist allowing law enforcement into their homes to see whether or not they have a means of safe storage and SCOTUS would rule that any law mandating cops be allowed to enter a home or predicate a license on allowing that to be unconstitutional.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)There is no law enforcement involved! You go to training, apply for a license, etc. you might self report a safe, or show a trigger guard. If you say you have a secure gun and don't and your 5 year old shoots the neighbor, then you go to jail! If your insurance requires an inspection by the insurance company or a picture or proof that you purchased a safe then you provide it. Have you ever provided proof of insurance to get a car loan (of course)?
If you lie then you are in big trouble. Of course, just like a fire alarm lowers you homeowners rate, having a gun safe or inspection or more training would lower your gun license insurance rate! It would be worth it to me to save money.
Don't be paranoid. To get the license to possess or use a gun you would have to show evidence you were a safe gun owner. If you own a license for a 50 cal machine gun, it may require security inspections! If you have a hand gun and live alone, maybe you have a trigger guard. Your license should show that you have been interviewed, trained, checked, insured, and are reasonably safe to have a license.
You still haven't said how you would keep unsafe people from having a gun other than a license! The rules for the license are debatable, but pretty obvious to any experienced gun user.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)1.) It's ok to leave a loaded gun on the seat of my car with the window open at a tailgate party
2.) It's ok to leave a gun on the coffee table during a sleepover of elementary school kids at my home
3.) It's fine for me to keep a collection of semi-auto weapons in my unlocked garage across the street from the local HS
4.) It's ok for me to carry a loaded handgun to work and put it down on my desk or where ever it's convenient when it's in the way
5.) It's ok for me to go duck hunting and carry my loaded shotgun into the restaurant for breakfast and leave it on the seat beside me while I eat
6.) It's ok for me to allow my teenager with a history of emotional problems to have access to guns sitting in a closet in our home
At some point, you have to admit that it's reasonable for people who possess guns to be responsible for the storage and transport of the guns!! If there was a license to possess and use guns, you would have training that informed you of a proper way to secure and transport guns. A mandatory insurance policy may have rules of you would not qualify for the policy. If you didn't follow the rules, you would loose your license, be subject to criminal penalties, and be liable for lawsuits. Exactly how far does your constitutional rights go??? Can you do anything you want? Of course not. I'm suggesting a license is a way to get a handle on the craziness. If you have a better idea, then let us know what it is...
ncjustice80
(948 posts)Fail the inspection, lose your license and all your weapons.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)exactly what can be done that keeps the dangerous people from easily possessing and using guns.
It's obviously not going to work to have a "background check" at every sale, and besides, the problems are people who are not diagnosed mentally ill or criminal. The problems are the unsafe people without training, unsecured guns that end up in the hands of children or teens, and unstable people who are known to be angry, emotional, depressed, etc.
Those people should not be able to walk into Kmart and buy semi-auto AR15s, boxes of bullets, and whatever they want.
I agree that to get a mandatory insurance policy, there should be proof of secure guns. We have license checks, DUI checks, etc. Insurance companies can charge much lower rates that are dependent on a home inspection or appraisal. I don't think it infringes your right to "bear arms" to require that you bear them safely and appropriately!
If you don't want an inspection, then pay three times as much. If a child accidentally gets your unsecured gun, you should be criminally and personally liable for whatever happens. Even if the law can't require an inspection without a probable cause, they could make it so much worth your while that everyone would have to submit.
branford
(4,462 posts)Many of you points undeniably imply that owning and carrying a firearm is a privilege permitted by the government. Regardless of whether you agree, it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It is akin to freedom of speech and religion, not operating a motor vehicle or renting scuba equipment.
More specifically, I personally would have no problem requiring a test and rules similar to that required to own and operate a car in order to own and use firearms. However, despite your analogy, I doubt you would really agree. In most states, all that is required for a driver's license is a simple test about the basic rules of the road that can easily be passed by teenagers. A simple driving competency test is then required, which is also passed by most teenagers. After these two minor requirements, and payment of a modest fee, you are legally permitted to operate you automobile in all jurisdictions in the United States. Moreover, even without a license, you can still own and operate an automobile on private property. There is no psychological testing, background check, waiting period to purchase a car, you are not liable if someone steals your car and uses in criminally or negligently, and insurance is only required to protect others from your own negligence, not criminal misuse. I would note that you do not need a license to purchase gas, oil or other parts for your car.
Lets analogize: If someone passes a simple test about the rules concerning firearm use and self-defense and a short, practical demonstration that they knew how to use firearms, and pay a modest fee, they would receive a license to purchase, own, carry and use firearms anywhere withing the United States. They would not need such a license to carry and use a firearm on their own property or other private property with permission. No license would be needed for maintenance of any firearm or to purchase ammunition. Although most homeowners and renters policies already include issues relating to legal firearm use, I would have no objection to requiring additional insurance. It's already offered, and it's VERY cheap because statistically the chance a lawful firearm owner will injure another negligently with their weapon is very, very small. Note that you cannot procure liability insurance that covers criminal or intentional conduct, and firearms are not different.
I'm always amused by the insurance requirement, as most who advocate it know little about insurance and/or firearms. Insurance is usually just a recommendation to make ownership more difficult and expense, and therefore discourage it. Not only is such a motivation unlawful (think poll tax), it would be so cheap as to be meaningless, and since the NRA is the entity the offers most relevant policies, it would be a windfall for the gun rights organization.
Your requirement that an individual must provide references from family, friends, employers, etc., no less pass state-mandated psychological testing to prove "gun-worthiness" is impractical, arbitrary and and insulting with regard to a Constitutionally-protected activity. You do not need the permission of anyone to enforce a right. It is already also illegal to possess a firearm if you've properly been adjudicated to be a danger to yourself and others. I'm not about to agree to presumptively criminalize mental illness or deny sufferers their Constitutional rights, including the 2A and due process. Note that individuals who suffer mental illness are normally not dangerous, but they are actually at a greater risk of being the victim of a crime.
Your point 8 unequivocally prevents someone from carrying a firearm for self-defense and other lawful activities outside the home, and is a non-starter. The 2A permits people to keep and bear arms. If you want to discuss the advantages of open vs concealed carry, that is an appropriate discussion.
Safe storage laws should take a carrot, rather than stick, approach. First, since you unquestionably have a right to self-defense in your home, you cannot mandate that individuals keep their firearms in such condition (e.g., unloaded, disassembled, etc.) that such weapons cannot quickly and readily be used for immediate defense. To the extent a safe storage law satisfies the foregoing, as a practical matter, proper enforcement is near impossible. The government cannot force you to waive one Constitutional right, the 4A, to employ another. Simply, the authorities cannot just arbitrarily inspect you home for the safe-storage of your weapons or penalize you if you refuse such inspection. I would have no objection to subsidies and tax breaks for trigger locks, safes, etc., however, to encourage their use.
People also do not lose any rights if they have children or even live with a felon or someone mentally ill. It's already illegal to endanger children or provide felons with weapons, but ownership of firearms, again a Constitutional right, by itself, does not grant the government power over anyone's household.
Also, what's the purpose of a waiting period for someone who already owns one or more firearms?
Sancho
(9,103 posts)Other than a license, how would you prevent dangerous people from possessing dangerous weapons?
Unstable people, emotional people, untrained people, children, people who are by all observers in their lives known to be angry, dangerous, or criminal....
How would you keep them from easy access to guns?
We've had all the legal arguments for years (and there a good books on the legal theories). We already KNOW that carry permits and licenses are legal. We already know that your personal possession of a nuclear bomb is illegal. We already know that we can restrict people from possession of weapons legally. It's not an issue except for how to do it effectively. What we have now is anarchy that doesn't work.
Other than a license or permit or whatever you call it: HOW WOULD YOU PROTECT THE PUBLIC?
Don't post anything else until you actually answer the question. All your arguments have been debated over and over. Who cares? Please give us the answer instead of the same old debate.
branford
(4,462 posts)You cannot wave away the legal requirements, no matter how inconvenient or aggravating. There are a multitude of suggestions that would make our society much safer, more orderly, far less offensive and bigoted, etc., that are simply and unquestionably illegal. Liberty and freedom are very messy and often uncomfortable to many.
The issues are debated in great part because many of the recommendations to protect the public may be or are clearly not lawful. As to who cares, apparently very many, if not the clear majority of Americans, care very much if the proposals by you or others infringe on Constitutional rights.
Rather than lament that the law may get in the way of your ideas, why not try frame your suggestions with the obvious and acknowledged limitations imposed by the Constitution. Alternatively, of course, you are free to advocate the repeal or change of the Second Amendment. However, all the amendment does is limit restrictions on firearms. The amendment could disappear tomorrow, and all that would accomplish is allow Congress or the states to pass greater restrictions. Since most states have generally supported liberal firearm laws and Congress cannot reach consensus on even Constitutional universal background checks, not much would happen in the even of repeal except that the few states with severe restrictions could possibly ban firearms, at least to the extent their own state constitutions and Second Amendment analogs permit such action.
You are the one who wants additional restrictions. Hence, you bear the burden of not only proposing ideas that pass Constitutional muster, but also can achieve sufficient popular support to become law.
As for my suggestions, you already read some. I personally have no objection to clear, non-arbitrary and universal licensees to carry weapons, proof of basic proficiency and knowledge about firearms and self-defense laws, and even universal background checks so long as no registration lists are or can be maintained by the government. If you want to encourage better behavior like safe storage, incentivize it, as I mentioned earlier. I also think the government could do a better job of enforcing the numerous laws already on the books, and will glady support even harsher sentences for the criminal misuse of firearms.
More importantly, I believe the best method to reduce firearms deaths is to stop focusing on the object, and deal with the underlying problems. For instance, a very large portion of firearms deaths are from suicide. It matters very little if someone kills themselves with a gun or other method. Accordingly, better mental health services and financing would help many Americans, and it would not be limited to just firearm issues. Similarly, a better social welfare safety net could provide opportunities and options to many of those who criminally use firearms (primarily young men) before they embark on a life of crime and violence. A reevaluation of our drug laws, and the resultant reduction in the criminalization of much of our populace, certainly couldn't hurt.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)it would simply take the will of legislatures to pass the license statute.
There's nothing but an extension of current laws that require training, background checks, or safe handling. I have a background in mental health. Even without a complete diagnosis of mental illness, a social history, brief interview, check of treatment records, etc. would go a LONG way to prevent easy access to guns for obviously angry, suicidal, and emotional people. Look at the FSU shooter yesterday - just about everyone who knew him reported he was over the edge. Why was it easy for him to buy a gun and ammo? You don't need a major psych workup, all you need is a superficial check for the vast majority of license applicants. If there is a red flag, then the person has to clear it up before they get a license.
You can post whatever you want, but remember that I've been on the front lines of this a gun user for almost 60 years. I've heard all the arguments and they usually claim a right to have a gun, but who argues that unsafe people should have guns? Obviously, there needs to be a filter to sort the less safe people from the rest of us!
Rather than continuing to argue about guns, the types of guns, gun registries, and gun rights - we should focus on the people. After all, "guns don't kill people". I assume you've read "The Second Amendment: A Biography". The interpretation of the 2nd is dramatically different over time.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says a background check for a license could not include a basic assessment of personal stability! How detailed do you want? That's for each law to say, but over time I'm sure that reasonable checks would be included.
Does a carry permit have restrictions on HOW you carry? Of course. It's simply not illegal to require people to meet basic safety storage of firearms in order to possess or use a gun. If you can have a statue that guns are not allowed in kindergartens or football stadiums, then you could also restrict any location to lock em up or get them out.
If you agree a license works, then every state would eventually evolve the details for their own version. NY apartments may have different storage requirements than rural Nevada!
I remember when there were arguments about laws to give fines for littering or starting forest fires! I remember when people thought MADD was crazy to think we'd have DUI laws that would put someone in jail for DUI (even if they didn't have a wreck). If people wanted to require a license to possess weapons, then it would happen and no one would even think about it. The examples of the law following social change is endless.
You background is in mental health, mine is in law. I've been a practicing trial attorney in NYC for 17 years and worked at the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, before I became an attorney. I'm quite comfortable with my very basic and entirely uncontroversial analysis of current law. To the extent any of your suggestions may be lawful, you still also need popular support to make them the law.
A license requirement cannot mandate the waiver of or obviate Constitutional and other legal protections. A "license" is not some magic method to impose any regulation or requirement that you believe is prudent or warranted. Additionally, simply because some restrictions are currently legal, doesn't mean that a little more of the same type of restriction will still remain legal. A universal background check to confirm you're not a felon is undoubtedly acceptable (if not always politically popular for private transactions), but that does not necessarily entitle the government to then inquire or inspect other aspects of a person's life, including certain medical records, employers, friends, family, beliefs, living situation, etc.
Chicago and Washington, D.C. tried to manipulate the license requirement by including a number of your suggestions. These initial laws were mostly held to be unduly restrictive, burdensome, expensive and punitive and unconstitutional. As a result, the courts not only threw out virtually all of the initial license provisions in both cities, but the taxpayers had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees to the Second Amendment Foundation and other plaintiffs. This money will be used by these organizations to fight for less restrictive firearm laws.
For instance, an individual cannot be required to permit arbitrary inspections of their home for safe storage (4A) in order to enjoy his right to own and carry a firearm (2A). More importantly, you clearly want to prevent anyone from carrying an operable firearm, whether open, concealed or anything else. Even the very liberal 9th Circuit rejected such a position.
As for mental illness, it's already illegal to possess a gun if you have been duly adjudicated as a danger to yourself and others, subject, of course, to appeals and other protections. Under your proposals, due process is upended. No one has to prove they are suited to exercise a right. The government needs to a meet a VERY high bar before denying someone Constitutional rights. Moreover, how exactly do you define terms like "personal stability" that satisfies Constitutional scrutiny. Only court of law, not a psychiatrist or psychologist, may be able to curtail a right. I don't even know how you can justify your earlier suggestion that you need recommendations from family, friends and your employer in order to exercise your Second Amendment Rights
Even angry, racist assholes have Second Amendment rights. In fact, denying someone a firearm for such reasons or anything similar would actually be a violation of both their First and Second Amendment rights.
read the book...you still make the current arguments on current legal interpretations that are pretty unstable historically. Regardless, The 2nd does not state that someone has to be adjudicated in any particular way!
Again, it would be possible to create a license that would work, and a license is the most obvious way to screen the dangerous from the less dangerous.
No one is suggesting arbitrary inspections (how many times do I have to say it!!). It might be a simple signed statement that you have secured your weapon. Again, if you lied you might be subject to penalties. It's possible that obtaining required insurance might be subject to inspection or your rate would be much higher!
You exaggerate again. I never suggested an inspection of a person't entire life!! When you get a driver's license, you might take a vision test. There's no MD there, no diagnosis, and no consequence if you fail except you don't get the license until you can see.
If I have a simple screening device or interview, and you report you are depressed, angry, under restraining order, etc., etc. then you don't get the license until you get a clearance. No one cares what your diagnosis is because that's between you and your psychologist, probation officer, etc. This happens all the time when a police officer holds a person because they appear to be a danger to themselves or others. What happens later depends on evaluations, court hearings, etc.
I believe that would catch a majority of obviously dangerous people without medical records, in depth diagnosis, beliefs, etc. Possibly the screening would be part of a required training course. Would it catch everyone? NO. Would it help a lot. YES! Would the screening deny a right? NO. Would it cause the person to get clearance from a court or agency that could deny that right? YES.
People also have a right to be safe so they aren't slaughtered in movie theaters, on the roadways, in schools, and walking from the convenience store! The 2nd doesn't override all other rights either. Don't take things to extreme and it's not problem and perfectly legal.
I don't believe the constitution says it's ok for children, emotionally unstable, and criminals to easily possess guns. Chances are they aren't a well-constituted militia anyway! All we're doing here is finding the mechanism to quickly and reasonably screen the obviously dangerous from the superficially safe.
I still think a license process is the way to achieve this legally. An angry, racist asshole who stated, "I'm gonna kill everyone who isn't white with this gun." might be denied a license or at least lead to a hearing before getting one; but that's not the primary person a license would prevent from easy access to guns. More likely, it would be undiagnosed or untreated emotionally ill people, impulsive teenagers, temporarily angry spouses, or criminals who were avoiding background checks at the point of sale.
branford
(4,462 posts)Ironically, I'm also fairly moderate on the issue of gun control and hardly an absolutist, do not own any guns myself, nor have any current need or desire to buy one, and live in a firearm restrictive jurisdiction (NYC). I nevertheless realize the current state of the law, including trends generally liberalizing firearms ownership and carrying rules, as well as the politics that have recently seen every state have carry options and a Congress that cannot even pass universal background checks similar to those that occur by FFL's, which would, absent very unusual mechanisms, be entirely constitutional. The only restrictions that seem to have gathered any real support at all are background checks of private sales, something most gun owners and supporters have no objection to other than the mechanism (e.g., open NICS to private parties to avoid registration lists, etc.)
Hoping that the Constitutional framework that has increasingly liberalized gun ownership will soon change is not a viable or prudent strategy, nor is quoting some book because it agrees with your perspective. I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that some of you proposals, particularly related to mental health are relatively minor, unobtrusive and little different from other restrictions. Your ultimate motives appears similarly benign. My criticisms are certainly no personal. Neither your personal beliefs or mine, however, form the legal reality, and most of your proposed measure have already lost both in the courts and legislatures. The fact that your ideas may in fact reduce gun crime is also not necessarily of any Constitutional significance. Notably, trying to piggy-back greater restrictions on background checks or licensing requirements has been tried numerous time before and failed, often miserably. Chicago and Washington, D.C. are just a couple of the more recent and very prominent examples of not only the failure of such a strategy, but the resultant power and increased resources gun rights advocates gain from such losses.
There are many methods to deal with gun violence in our country. Some actual firearm restrictions are perfectly lawful, to the extent you can generate sufficient political support to make them law. It is the lack of support, or really more often the strong, near myopic, opposition of gun rights advocates, that prevent most regulation, rather than any Constitutional problems. Ideas that are clearly unlawful or already held to be so by the courts, highly restrictive, or deal with privacy issues, will not be passed, and again heighten the resources of the opposition. Your real opposition is certainly not me or even the courts. You have to convince far more of your fellow citizens and generate the same level of enthusiasm and determination of your opponents.
As you acknowledge, so long as gun ownership is a cultural and legal priority to many Americans, there will be gun violence. However, there are mitigating solutions that gun rights and gun control advocates can find common ground, particularly among Democrats, although they focus more on social issues that guns themselves, yet avoid a continuing culture war. Those solutions include mental health treatment (your area of expertise) and social safety nets and services that most Democrats support, and will have a positive effect with respect to the prevention of all crime and or an overall healthier and happier society.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)And that isn't going to change the conclusion. Those lawyers who argued the cases still come back to the political and social values that drive courts. That book is a good legal summary, but I'm sure there are others. It happens to be current and historically through.
I'm not going to continue to argue what is already written and try to predict the future. Heller opened the door to protect us from dangerous people, even thought the current courts are extreme in interpretation. We all know this..and I've read the same legal arguments over and over. They still don't seem to be able to refocus on the social science instead of the physical gun even thought that's the opening in the law and the logical way to improve the existing problems. Why debate micro stamping of bullets just to enforce existing criminal law? Just make it harder for dangerous people to get bullets to start with!
That's why I'm suggesting people control not gun control..you can see all these exact debates with citations in the bibliography of an army of lawyers in the 2014 book. That book also has a nice list of current articles that support or refute the same cases you mention. I think the political will and follow up with laws will come from acknowledgement that filtering people is not gun control, but it's protecting the public. The exact court interpretation of some of my list are not entirely tested all the way to the supreme court, but if it's popular enough it can happen.
It's reasonable to protect people from any obvious threat: Ebola, guns, etc. That may require curtailing some right (like enforcing a quarantine) or a right to form a militia or use hate speech! People can be prevented from causing a danger if there is acknowledgement that it's not a gun debate but a safety debate. I still think a license to purchase or possess won't restrict your gun rights, but simply protects the public if you are not safe with a gun. My list doesn't name any particular type of gun or prevent you from self protection or require a national database check for every purchase. There is no restriction on speech. The exact requirements of the license will be tested, but as long as they work (such as a screening that prevents shootings) courts will uphold their legality.
branford
(4,462 posts)Just a few very quick points:
One book, not matter how insightful you find its arguments, does not necessarily accurately or completely portray the current state of the law or politics about firearms.
Comparing emergency regulations like quarantines to prevent the spread of an infectious are not analogous to gun ownership for a multitude of reasons, no matter how seriously you or others view the problem.
I believe you would be well served to conduct further research on what restrictions and impositions a license requirement can and cannot legally impose upon a citizen, particularly when it impacts upon a constitutional right.
If a law or regulation is unconstitutional, it's totally irrelevant how effective it may be to achieve an ends, no matter how noble. There are a lot of potential solutions to many social problems that are nevertheless forbidden because of constitutional restraints.
Lastly, as I mentioned, the legal problems many of your suggestions would face are immaterial if you cannot muster both sufficient and determined popular support to make them law. Congress cannot even pass universal background checks which are likely constitutional and purportedly supported by an overall majority of citizens. Other than very basic background checks, most state level gun laws have actually relaxed gun ownership and carrying rules, both due to popular support and judicial order. All this even after the massacre of children at Sandy Hook.
Sancho
(9,103 posts)and that book is not making an argument for a license. Just an FYI..The Second Amendment: A Biography
"By the president of the prestigious Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights.
At a time of renewed debate over guns in America, what does the Second Amendment mean? This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers.
The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the 20th century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun.
The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions.
In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation."
As I stated, I remember when the public was indifferent or opposed to any number of currently accepted laws and changes in the law. So far, very few people (including many of the less radical gun owners) would oppose a license process. You realize of course that the number of people in the US who own guns is consistently going down, while that subset own more and more guns per person. Demographically, it's often a white, male profile that is very Republican. Just like with MADD, medical marijuana, gay marriage, etc. IF there is an acceptable process (in this case a license) that the majority would rally around, you might see enough political energy to see a change. We all know that the well-funded NRA will go after any small attempt to rein them in, so any legal change would have to have local support as Waldman describes.
My license idea would probably test any number of challenges - many have very few court rulings that apply right now like some insurance requirements or exactly what a pre-screening would include or what firearm security is appropriate. I only mentioned the quarantine because it's a current issue of restricting a person's rights to protect others - and the courts appropriately weigh the facts to decided in an order is in force. Even Scalia said, "I'm not crazy." when quizzed about no limits to the 2nd Amendment, and he's as off the wall as one can get. We know that the NRA will fight for anything except the wild west. I think we disagree because I don't accept that "nothing can be done" - and I see a way to get there. I've been part of the "gun community" long enough to see that many don't think the radicals should be in charge, or that dangerous people should have easy access to firearms. If gun owners are turning corner, then maybe the public support is not as far away as you think.