Trump to take steps to ban bump stocks

[driftdiver]

You cannot get to a RKBA for individual self defense without a "living Constitution".  Arguably, the right didn't exist until the Heller decision.   Be careful what you wish for.

@Jazzhead
I have about 1000 quotes from the guys who wrote the Constitution that would beg to differ.

In actuality the right existed before the Constitution was written and its only through weasel lawyers that the laws around it have been called into question.

[Smokin Joe]

Justices Thomas  and Sotomoyor recently (in Digital Realty Trust v. Somers) wrote dueling concurrences on how to interpret a statute.   Sotomoyor, like you do,  thinks a statute's plain meaning (or, as here, the words to the Constitution) can be ignored and its "purpose" discerned by reference to Senate and Committee reports (or, as you contend, by the Federalist papers).   Justice Thomas, on the other hand, argued that the Court is "governed by what Congress enacted rather than by what it intended".
 

Justice Thomas reveals why your insistence that the Second Amendment's purpose be gleaned from the Federalist  papers is nonsense.   The Constitution, like a statute,  means what it says.  The RKBA, as enunciated in the 2A , cannot be divorced from the predicate clause, and its plain meaning is that the right is a collective right,  for the purpose of securing the men and materials needed to comprise the contemplated citizen militia needed to secure the "free state".   It is by no means a license for revolution, as you contend, certainly not in the context of a Constitutional Republic.   

The INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms derives from the natural right of individual self defense of home and property.   That right wasn't confirmed for the first two centuries of the Republic, until Justice Scalia's decision in Heller.  A brilliant and necessary decision, but entirely inconsistent with the 2A's predicate clause.   

It is my view that the individual right does NOT derive from the 2A,  but from the same "penumbras and emanations" that led earlier Courts to find individual, natural rights of privacy and self-determination, and ultimately, the right to abortion.

Both the abortion right and the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense are equally susceptible to regulation.   The rights cannot be denied, but they can be made subject to the community's reasonable rules.   In short,  if you contend the community can ban abortion after 20 weeks,  then the community can equally require that your guns be registered and insured.   

You would proclaim that Original Intent can be best determined by the thinking of modern justices than the stated intent of those who advocated the very Amendment we discuss. Poppycock. If you want to know what the founders meant you need go no farther than the writings of the advocates of the Constitution, nor any farther than the plain English of the Amendment itself. The Federalist Papers stated the reason for the protection of the Right, that being the very protection of the Republic. As for how protected, the language is clear:

"...the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

"Of the people" meaning an individual Right (as in all other cases where that reservation is made in the Constitution and Bill of Rights), and "shall not be infringed" (not "may", but "SHALL", implying a more strict standard of compliance) meaning kept without encumbrance.

It IS that simple.

There is no codified "right to abortion", nor would such exist which would fly in the face of the proclaimed unalienable Rights to LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, the document which laid out the very justification for the break with the English Crown, nor can the argument be made that, in an age when many children were lost to disease or misfortune at an early age, and in which those children were valued additions to the family that any "right to slaughter the unborn" would in any be found in original intent, or as one of those Rights granted by the selfsame Nature's God who granted all others.
That alleged "right", which contradicts the unalienable Right to Life declared in the Declaration, is wholly a fabrication of the Court, and not a "right" expressed anywhere in nature where other creatures fight to the death to ensure their progeny.

How do you possibly make the argument that the codified and protected, enumerated Right to freely own the tools needed to protect against tyranny and if necessary, to kill those who would take life or liberty can be infringed on the one hand, and then in the same response advocate the unfettered alleged "right" to slaughter innocent children, just at an earlier age?

There is a serious cognitive disconnect present in those arguments coupled, and a contradiction the Founders would not have tolerated.

[Smokin Joe]

And that's why Hillary and other gun grabbers have been pushing to give survivors and the family members of those killed the right/ability to sue gun manufacturers.  They want to soak them for large emotionally driven civil court penalties in wrongful death lawsuits and run them out of business that way.

The attack on the Second Amendment is a multi pronged attack.

By that logic I could sue an auto manufacturer every time some jackass driver hits one of my vehicles with one made by them. Those are just two-vehicle accidents (most often, impacts with my parked vehicle), and we haven't even touched on the jihad vehicle attack phenomena with multiple pedestrian victims.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead


In actuality the right existed before the Constitution was written and its only through weasel lawyers that the laws around it have been called into question.

Correct - the right to defend one's home and property is a natural right.   The 2A doesn't address this natural, individual right - it is concerned with something else altogether:  ensuring the men and arms needed for a citizens' militia to help secure the nascent Republic.   The predicate clause makes this clear - by its plain meaning - that the beneficiary of the 2A is the "free state" and the collective security of the people.   

The 2A, in my view, has little if anything to say about the natural right.   That right - as well as the natural rights to privacy and self-determination that underpin the right to abortion - indeed existed before the Constitution was written.

The Heller decision - finally, after two centuries - affirms the existence of the natural right.  But it also makes clear that the right, while it cannot be denied, is subject to the community's regulation.  Licensure, registration and insurance, reasonably applied, are all perfectly Constitutional.   Just as regulation of abortion is Constitutional, so long as the right itself is not effectively denied.   

As you know, most gun regulation takes place at the state and local level, not the federal level.   Some of that regulation may well be unconstitutional under the Heller standard,  but it is not the 2A which prevents such regulation.   That ought to be perfectly obvious given centuries of state and local regulation and restriction of the gun right.   

[Cyber Liberty]

On this there is no cherry-picking, except by those who think the only right in the Constitution is an absolute right to do whatever the hell you want with weapons.  In other words, it’s the accessories to murder who are cherry-picking.

I presume by "accessories to murder who are cherry-picking" you are referring to the pro-abortion crowd, because I certainly hope you are not referring to pro-2nd Amendment Briefers that way.

[Smokin Joe]

You cannot get to a RKBA for individual self defense without a "living Constitution".  Arguably, the right didn't exist until the Heller decision.   Be careful what you wish for.

The right to self defense and the RKBA were such a solid bit of common law that dated back to the Magna Carta that they were not believed to be needed to be codified. It was understood in the days of the founders.

It is only with the absolute contortions of logic in the quest for tyranny that the thought that people did not have a Right to arm themselves in order to defend themselves has crept in. Keep in mind, the court may go through the motions of granting Rights, but it does not, in fact, do so. Nor, for that matter does the Constitution or Bill of Rights: those Rights are unalienable, and exist no matter what the Court says or does not. The existence of the court is to determine if those Rights have been infringed and whether a law is compatible with those enumerated rights, not to invent new rights. That there was no ruling by the court to affirm the existence of the right to arm for self-defense is more a matter of that being well enough understood that no ruling was needed until the laws of the Federal District infringed upon that Right. In that sense, Heller did not create a Right, merely affirmed one which existed long before the ruling was made necessary by the actions of those making the laws for the District.

Again, I'll pull out the Ninth Amendment:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

No where in the Constitution is the power delegated to the Government to infringe on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, for any reason short of Due Process associated with a criminal conviction (and even that is arguable), nor is that Right restricted, therefore the RKBA for self defense (as well as defense against tyranny) exists and is retained by the people.

[Jazzhead]

And that's why Hillary and other gun grabbers have been pushing to give survivors and the family members of those killed the right/ability to sue gun manufacturers.  They want to soak them for large emotionally driven civil court penalties in wrongful death lawsuits and run them out of business that way.

The attack on the Second Amendment is a multi pronged attack.

I don't support such laws; they are clearly "work-arounds" because of the failure of libs to pass laws they want to directly regulate the transfer of ownership of firearms.    Everyone knows what a gun is and what it does.   It is ridiculous for a manufacturer to be able to be sued for making a lawful product that is used as intended.   Sue the dealer for failure to background-check a purchaser, and extend the cause of action to private sales under a strict liability theory.  THAT would be efficacious and, IMO, just.    But sue the manufacturer?  That's absurd.   

[verga]

You know what is coming - banning of information. Case in point- The Anarchists Cookbook.

I have often asked the libtards i know what they would do with people like me. Give me a piece of steeland some basic machine tools and I can make a firearm, most of us on this list have enough knowledge to make an IED out of household ingredients or a trip tot he big box store or hardware store. Heck YouTube has several dozen videos on making thermite.

[thackney]

I don't support such laws; they are clearly "work-arounds" because of the failure of libs to pass laws they want to directly regulate the transfer of ownership of firearms.    Everyone knows what a gun is and what it does.   It is ridiculous for a manufacturer to be able to be sued for making a lawful product that is used as intended.  Sue the dealer for failure to background-check a purchaser, and extend the cause of action to private sales under a strict liability theory.  THAT would be efficacious and, IMO, just.    But sue the manufacturer?  That's absurd.

What dealer is selling without running the NCIS check?  It has proved to be the Feds that fall down here by not entering the info into the NCIS database, such as Devin Patrick Kelley.

[edpc]

I have often asked the libtards i know what they would do with people like me. Give me a piece of steeland some basic machine tools and I can make a firearm, most of us on this list have enough knowledge to make an IED out of household ingredients or a trip tot he big box store or hardware store. Heck YouTube has several dozen videos on making thermite.

You could certainly make something as simple as the liberator pistol. The whole idea behind it was one time use at close range to get the better weapon from the bad guy.

[Smokin Joe]

On this there is no cherry-picking, except by those who think the only right in the Constitution is an absolute right to do whatever the hell you want with weapons.  In other words, it’s the accessories to murder who are cherry-picking.

"Do whatever the hell you want" is not part of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

There are laws which govern the use of those weapons. There is a difference between keeping and bearing any firearm and using that arm indiscriminately. No one is arguing for the latter, only that the sort of arm is of no concern among those who will not use that arm for nefarious purposes, and anything from a rock to a piece of scrap lumber or bottle can be used to injure or kill by those who are bent on malice. For that reason, we focus on regulating malicious actions, rather than focus on regulating every device by which malicious actions can be perpetrated.

For that reason, owning a tank isn't illegal (just expensive)--and people do, but the use of that tank is regulated, from road restrictions and highway laws, to very definite rules about operating any armaments on the vehicle.

[thackney]

"For that reason, owning a tank isn't illegal (just expensive)--and people do, but the use of that tank is regulated, from road restrictions and highway laws, to very definite rules about operating any armaments on the vehicle.

You don't have to buy, you can rent.

https://www.drivetanks.com/

[Smokin Joe]

I don't support such laws; they are clearly "work-arounds" because of the failure of libs to pass laws they want to directly regulate the transfer of ownership of firearms.    Everyone knows what a gun is and what it does.   It is ridiculous for a manufacturer to be able to be sued for making a lawful product that is used as intended.   Sue the dealer for failure to background-check a purchaser, and extend the cause of action to private sales under a strict liability theory.  THAT would be efficacious and, IMO, just.    But sue the manufacturer?  That's absurd.

Typical liberal. Forget personal responsibility for the criminal's own actions. Sue/impoverish/incarcerate a person who committed no crime, who hurt no one except by the transitive property of lawsuitdom.

You would have to prove that the person who sold the firearm KNEW that it was to be used for illegal purposes.
Considering the Obama Administration's tender hand in Operations Gunwalker (Fast and Furious) and Gangwalker, and likely Grenadewalker and others, which put arms and even Class III devices in the hands of notorious international criminals and their associates, as well as street gangs in America, that's a hoot.

How about y'all quit feeding the lawyers on contingency and pursue the people who actually did the deed of harming someone?

Otherwise, you can sue the guy who sold the fertilizer and seed to the farmer who grew the grain which was made into whiskey that some fellow drank before he got behind the wheel and killed someone while DUI.

[Smokin Joe]

What dealer is selling without running the NCIS check?  It has proved to be the Feds that fall down here by not entering the info into the NCIS database, such as Devin Patrick Kelley.

I think you meant the NICS check. Likely NCIS has access to that data, too...(I haet tranpsositions, oto!)

[al_c]

Banning a legally owned piece of equipment won't do anything to save children's lives or anyone else lives.

Our supposedly "most conservative President ever" just came down on the wrong side of the 2nd Amendment.

Or maybe he sees this as a simple pacifier for the drooling lefties without doing too much to damage the 2nd. In the grand scheme of things, this is small change.

[WingNot]

I think you meant the NICS check. Likely NCIS has access to that data, too...(I haet tranpsositions, oto!)

Gibbs has the data.

[Cyber Liberty]

Gibbs has the data.

Abbie got it for him.

[txradioguy]

Or maybe he sees this as a simple pacifier for the drooling lefties without doing too much to damage the 2nd. In the grand scheme of things, this is small change.

If only that were true.

Sadly his stances on gun control are well documented.

He's showing now he's beginning to fall back on those New York values when it comes to guns.

[Jazzhead]

Typical liberal. Forget personal responsibility for the criminal's own actions. Sue/impoverish/incarcerate a person who committed no crime, who hurt no one except by the transitive property of lawsuitdom.

Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime",  but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem.   I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability.    And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales.  Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.

I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information.   But that's a separate question.  Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed.  Hell, roamer brags about doing it.  This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys. 

[Jazzhead]

Or maybe he sees this as a simple pacifier for the drooling lefties without doing too much to damage the 2nd. In the grand scheme of things, this is small change.

I suspect you're right, although I think Trump does genuinely feel for the victims of Parkland, and wants to try to do something tangible about it.   

[verga]

When and where was this?

@Right_in_Virginia
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH
You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

[INVAR]

You would proclaim that Original Intent can be best determined by the thinking of modern justices than the stated intent of those who advocated the very Amendment we discuss. Poppycock. If you want to know what the founders meant you need go no farther than the writings of the advocates of the Constitution, nor any farther than the plain English of the Amendment itself. The Federalist Papers stated the reason for the protection of the Right, that being the very protection of the Republic. As for how protected, the language is clear:

"...the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

It is amazing to behold the Priesthood of lawyers and Statists who craft such devious doctrines to circumvent, abolish and otherwise ignore enumerated rights and words written on parchment and ratified into the supreme law of the land. They do this while at the same time, declaring insoluble and indivisible - behavioral "rights" created out of thin air by judicial fiat and decree.  The secular and Collectivist morality being 'made' legal by reading it into the foundational documents.

THOSE they argue are untouchable and inalienable - while enumerated rights that pose obstacle to the imposition of their Leftist state are litigated to mere government-granted privileges.

Sugar-coating the legalistic abolishment of our rights into government-granted privileges with words like 'reasonable', 'regulation' and 'community' while citing court-precedents as superior to the Constitution and the intents of the Founders, is their sinister wedge to prying our rights from our grasp.

I'm done arguing with them.  They insist we accept their demands as 'reasonable' while they declare opposition 'selfish', 'absolutist' and a 'fetish'.   The only truth such people need to understand is that we will REFUSE to abide or comply with any decree,"law" or "regulation" in regards to rendering our gun rights into government-regulated privileges. 

They will have to empower the agents of the state to go out and kill, with guns - many tens of thousands or more who are going to refuse to comply with their disarmament plans.

Which is what the State will eventually do anyway to a disarmed people - as history teaches.

The Advocates for tyranny like our resident Leftist simply need to be reminded that they are going to rue the day they empowered the state to do their bidding. 

Live free, or die means something to us.  Let them test that belief should they be stupid enough to do so.

[Oceander]

It is amazing to behold the Priesthood of lawyers and Statists who craft such devious doctrines to circumvent, abolish and otherwise ignore enumerated rights and words written on parchment and ratified into the supreme law of the land. They do this while at the same time, declaring insoluble and indivisible - behavioral "rights" created out of thin air by judicial fiat and decree.  The secular and Collectivist morality being 'made' legal by reading it into the foundational documents.

THOSE they argue are untouchable and inalienable - while enumerated rights that pose obstacle to the imposition of their Leftist state are litigated to mere government-granted privileges.

Sugar-coating the legalistic abolishment of our rights into government-granted privileges with words like 'reasonable', 'regulation' and 'community' while citing court-precedents as superior to the Constitution and the intents of the Founders, is their sinister wedge to prying our rights from our grasp.

I'm done arguing with them.  They insist we accept their demands as 'reasonable' while they declare opposition 'selfish', 'absolutist' and a 'fetish'.   The only truth such people need to understand is that we will REFUSE to abide or comply with any decree,"law" or "regulation" in regards to rendering our gun rights into government-regulated privileges. 

They will have to empower the agents of the state to go out and kill, with guns - many tens of thousands or more who are going to refuse to comply with their disarmament plans.

Which is what the State will eventually do anyway to a disarmed people - as history teaches.

The Advocates for tyranny like our resident Leftist simply need to be reminded that they are going to rue the day they empowered the state to do their bidding. 

Live free, or die means something to us.  Let them test that belief should they be stupid enough to do so.

[LauraTXNM]

Selling a firearm without performing the required background check may not be a "crime",  but it should expose the dealer to civil suit when the gun is used to commit mayhem.   I'd extend the background-check requirement to all private sales, with strict civil liability.    And, yeah, I do so with the intent that such a rule would effectively stop private sales.  Let folks who want to dispose of their guns do so by means of brokers, who can be appropriately licensed and insured and be responsible to conduct the background check.

I say all of the foregoing recognizing your point that a background check is worthless if the government doesn't follow up on the information.   But that's a separate question.  Too many guns change hands privately without the check being performed.  Hell, roamer brags about doing it.  This seems to be an easy area where a change in the law can help reduce gun violence by bad guys.

I think your post is very well-put.  I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.

[txradioguy]

I think your post is very well-put.  I don't see why universal background checks aren't implemented.

Here's why:

Here are four major problems with requiring background checks for private gun transfers as a policy, as opposed to a political stunt:

1. Expanding the background check requirement makes no sense as a response to mass shootings (even though that is how it has been presented), because the perpetrators of these crimes, including last week's massacre in Oregon, typically either have actually passed background checks or could do so because they do not have disqualifying criminal or psychiatric records.

2. Expanding the background check requirement makes little sense as a response to more common forms of gun violence, since criminals with felony records can always obtain weapons on the black market, through buyers with clean records, or by theft.

3. Expanding the background check requirement, especially if it is coupled with "improved" databases, compounds the injustice of disarming millions of people who pose no threat to others but are nevertheless forbidden to own guns because they use illegal drugs, overstay a visa, were once subjected to court-ordered psychiatric treatment, or have felony records, even if they have never committed a violent crime.

4. Expanding the background check requirement is not the same as actually compelling people to perform background checks for private gun transfers. Many gun owners will balk at the inconvenience and expense of finding and paying a licensed dealer who is willing to faciliate a transaction. In Oregon, which expanded its background-check requirement in August, some local law enforcement officials have publicly stated they do not plan to enforce the new rule, either because they do not have the resources or because they view it as an unconstitutional intrusion. The Oregonian notes that "there is no centralized registry of guns in Oregon...that could be used to track a gun found in a criminal's possession." The federal government has no such registry either, so how can it possibly hope to track transfers and make sure background checks are performed? Even with hefty criminal penalties, widespread noncompliance is a certainty.

Consider: Does the theoretical prospect of a 10-year prison sentence deter gun owners from smoking pot or pot smokers from owning guns?

http://reason.com/blog/2015/10/08/4-reasons-universal-background-checks-ar


Bottom line it's a feel good measure that accomplishes absolutely nothing in reality.