Discussion: The Second Amendment V

[Anubis]

Worst part is, as bad as it is, it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the 90's.

 

[KevanG]

I remember reading about Times Square in NYC in the 80s/90s and that even some cops were afraid to go there.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Basically. They finally got a guy last year who was buying guns in Indiana and selling them to gang members in the City. In Indiana you don't even need to present a FOID card. He just showed them his ID and walked away with a s**t load of guns.

It's not even just Indiana, the areas surrounding Chicago within Illinois aren't as stringent as Chicago tries to be. Chicago often tries to pass laws that are blatantly unconstitutional to begin with, but when no one else, even within your own state doesn't play along, the results are going to be absolutely disastrous.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

It seems like you don't have much firsthand knowledge of gun shows. I have been to many over many years. Any FFL dealer at a gun show is required to follow the EXACT same process as they would at a brick and mortar store, that is, a form 4473 and background check. The ONLY firearms sales that can be done without those things are private sales (in other words, an individual selling a gun from their personal collection). This is not illegal, and happens RARELY at gun shows. The majority of sales like that happen through armslist and other websites designed to help people sell their guns (www.theoutdoorstrader.com is a very popular one here in.Georgia). I would also point out that at the last gun show I went to (May of this year) there were about 30 or more vendors who were FFL dealers (and required by law to perform the background check and proper paperwork) and only 1 private seller (the ratio is typically about like this on almost every gun show that I have attended) and that private seller's "collection " was laughable. He had a few old, rusty tiny semi automatic handguns, and a couple of antique shotguns. I highly doubt that he sold any of them.

Additionally, NOBODY can sell kits to convert their firearms to full auto without facing serious charges. Every gun show I have ever been to has been loaded with police officers and federal officers (including me), both uniformed and non uniformed. So, I will assume that you are referring to the rarely ever sold piece of junk "bump fire " kits which are legal, do NOT make the gun fire full auto (just very fast and typically difficult to control, making it worthless) and generally not worth any price.

Not sure what "other BS" you are referring to, but it really sounds like you are just repeating some general misconceptions about gun.shows.

The one gun show I've been to was like you described, mostly gun stores or other FFL dealers with few private dealers.

As for the full auto kits and other BS, sounds like stuff he picked up from other anti-gun people or stuff he doesn't have first-hand knowledge about.

Yea I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'll just leave this here for you then:

[YT]A51Gr0zpX_c[/YT]

[YT]baPgr_tw79Q[/YT]

[YT]h3a7-s9hKC0[/YT]

Oh boy, looks like I'm just spouting off typical liberal nonsense eh?

 

[mrvlknight21]

Yea I have no idea what I'm talking about. I'll just leave this here for you then:

[YT]A51Gr0zpX_c[/YT]

[YT]baPgr_tw79Q[/YT]

[YT]h3a7-s9hKC0[/YT]

Oh boy, looks like I'm just spouting off typical liberal nonsense eh?

I have seen those videos before and they at least partially reinforce what I said.

In the first 2 videos, the buyers go to private sellers who are not legally required to do any form of background check. They are SUPPOSED to confirm that the buyer is a resident of the state, which they failed to do. However, it is my understanding that does not make the sale illegal. Irresponsible, definitely.

In the 2nd video, the buyer even said that he went straight past the FFL dealers to the private sellers where a background check was not required.

In the 3rd video, which was apparently done by investigators, the FFL dealer clearly commits a felony. I assume this was part of an investigation and would lead to criminal charges, as it should. Unfortunately, this happens with FFL dealers at their own stores as well. I was actually involved with the arrest of a local FFL dealer who was knowingly selling to convicted felons (happened earlier this year, actually). Not every FFL dealer is the smartest or straightest, and it is up to law enforcement to weed those individuals out, revoke their FFL and prosecute them.

Also, I have seen individuals walking around gun shows with rifles strapped to their backs and signs on them advertising that gun for sale. I am not saying it does not happen like that either. My point is, except during the panic which happened after Sandy Hook, it was very rare. I mentioned the outdoorstrader and armslist in my previous post that you quoted because those types of sales (private sales with no background checks or bill of sale) happen DAILY all over the country. So, my point was and is, that gun shows are demonized by the media often because of misnomers and misinformation.

If you are for universal background checks (EVERY sale, private or otherwise requires a background check), I have NO issue with that. If someone takes that position, they have a solid platform to argue their points.
Yes, you CAN get guns at gun shows without a background check (as long as it is from a private seller or some FFL dealer decides to go rogue with his paperwork). I never said that you could NOT do that. But those sales are the same as you can get daily through legal private firearms purchases which happen all the time (much more often than any gun show can compete with).


The other amazing thing to me (on a lighter note now) about those videos, which I was reminded of after watching them again this morning is the OUTRAGEOUS prices that were paid. Asking $1,200 for a used Bushmaster ar15? Laughable. $650 for a used Smith and Wesson M&P pistol? Wow.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Yes I am for universal background checks. I'm not some stupid hippie that thinks banning all guns is the answer. I was 13 when I went through my first gun safety course and got my FL hunters license (which is not required but should be). There are tons of private sales across the country be they at gun shows or not and we posses the technology to curb them and make sure responsible gun owners are the ones making the purchases. I have been to many gun shows here in FL and the amount of private sellers willing to sell anything to anyone willing to pay is what I have issue with

 

[mrvlknight21]

Yes I am for universal background checks. I'm not some stupid hippie that thinks banning all guns is the answer. I was 13 when I went through my first gun safety course and got my FL hunters license (which is not required but should be). There are tons of private sales across the country be they at gun shows or not and we posses the technology to curb them and make sure responsible gun owners are the ones making the purchases. I have been to many gun shows here in FL and the amount of private sellers willing to sell anything to anyone willing to pay is what I have issue with

No problem. I can appreciate your opinion and stance on those issues.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I know this probably isn't feasible without the vocal group of gun nuts losing their minds but I would like to see all sales have to go through a dealer so the proper process is verified and followed as well as all guns registered to an owner so they can be traced. If a weapon you are responsible for is used in a crime you should be held somewhat responsible. I know that will never happen but I think that would go a long way in deterring the sale of guns willy nilly

 

[mrvlknight21]

I know this probably isn't feasible without the vocal group of gun nuts losing their minds but I would like to see all sales have to go through a dealer so the proper process is verified and followed as well as all guns registered to an owner so they can be traced. If a weapon you are responsible for is used in a crime you should be held somewhat responsible. I know that will never happen but I think that would go a long way in deterring the sale of guns willy nilly

Understood. I don't agree 100% but completely understand your stance and respect it.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Senate Approves Federal Welfare for Second Amendment Men

In a rare show of bipartisanship between Republicans, blue dogs, and embattled Democrats facing tight elections, the Senate overwhelmingly approved a bizarre plan to use federal funds to encourage shooting on public land and exempt lead bullets from pollution guidelines.

New constraints on gun use in the wake of mass shootings are a political nonstarter, but 82 senators tripped over themselves to sign onto the "Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014," which—in the words of the befuddled British Guardian newspaper—aims

"to protect and enhance opportunities for recreational hunting, fishing, and shooting" by stipulating that shooting ranges on public land can be used for target practice and exempting shotgun pellets and bullets from environmental rules designed to limit lead use.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a pro-gun group based in Newtown, Connecticut, spoke for its co-religionists in the NRA and other gun-industry lobbyists in hailing the act as "simply the most important package of measures for the benefit of sportsmen in a generation."

And those sportsmen will get government benefits galore! The bill text says that big government intervention in the form of "increased Federal support" is needed "to promote enjoyment of shooting, recreational, and hunting activities." How much support? Well, the bill authorizes states to acquire new land and build gun ranges on it—or to simply build them on federal land in their territory, such as national park land—and bill most of the expense to Uncle Sam: up to "90 percent of the cost of the activity" can be borne by the feds, according to the bill.

The bill also tasks federal officials with carting away any mess caused by the states' gun-range construction on federal lands. That includes disposing of expended lead "shot, bullets and other projectiles, propellants, and primers," which are now exempt from pollution and toxic-substance controls, thanks to a provision in the bill that weirdly is titled "MODIFICATION OF DEFINITION OF SPORT FISHING EQUIPMENT," not "PROVISION TO LET GUN OWNERS DRIBBLE LEAD AMMUNITION COMPONENTS WITH IMPUNITY ACROSS THE FRUITED PLAIN."

How much will all this welfare for armed citizens cost the taxpayer? It's not clear. But it must be a lot less than an extension of unemployment benefits, food stamps, Pell grants, public broadcasting and arts subsidies, or minimum wage raises, because hey, we can't afford all that. As Paul Ryan says, "Washington owes the American people a responsible, balanced budget." And more places to shoot guns!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tmens-act-gun-control?CMP=twt_fd&CMP=SOCxx2I2

Down with big government! Unless they want to build gun ranges and allow us to pollute the Earth!

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The NRA's Top Attorney Was Convicted of Murder in 1964

According to recently unearthed court records, Bob Dowlut—who for 30 years has been the architect of the National Rifle Association's legal and cultural agenda—was sentenced to life in an Indiana prison for shooting a shopkeeper during a robbery before murdering a single mother with the same gun.

"[T]hose who argue that a significant share of serious violence is perpetrated by previously nonviolent 'average Joes' are clinging to a myth," Dowlut—the NRA's general counsel—once wrote in a law journal, citing another author's assertion that "the 'average' gun owner and the 'average' criminal are worlds apart in background, social outlooks, and economic circumstances." But Dowlut's own criminal past raises questions about his qualifications to speak for those law-abiding "average Joes."

Using more than 2,000 pages of testimony—including behind-doors discussions that were never revealed to the jury that convicted Dowlut—Mother Jones' Dave Gilson tells in a mesmerizing longread how the then-Army private with a juvenile gun-crime record confessed to police and led them to a cemetery plot where he had buried the alleged murder weapon: a .455 Webley pistol.

Dowlut was already well-known to police in his hometown of South Bend, Indiana, having escaped jail time after a juvie judge gave him a pass for robbing a local museum of several guns and using them to hold up a restaurant for $135. So when the mother of Dowlut's longtime girlfriend ended up shot twice in the heart and he was caught in a lie about his whereabouts that night, he explained how he'd come to kill her after trying to rob a store and shooting its proprietor in the stomach.

But after serving half a decade in prison, and despite solid forensic evidence matching Dowlut's dug-up pistol to the murder, the Indiana Supreme Court found that police had overzealously violated his constitutional rights in obtaining that confession—they reportedly denied him a lawyer despite multiple requests—and his conviction was overturned. Prosecutors gave up on trying the case again when much of their evidence was tossed out with the confession.

Dowlut went on to reinvent himself as an attorney and went straight to work for the NRA shortly after law school, just as the organization turned from its sporting roots to a more radical agenda:

Dowlut joined the organization just as it was being reborn. In what became known as the Cincinnati Revolt, hardliners had overthrown the NRA's moderate leadership and installed Harlon Carter as executive vice president in 1977. Under Carter, the NRA adopted uncompromising rhetoric and an aggressive political strategy that turned it into one of the nation's most powerful interest groups. Carter also envisioned recruiting "young men and women—lawyers, constitutional scholars, writers, historians, professors—who some day will be old and gray and wise, widely published and highly respected. It will be those individuals—in the future—who will provide the means to save the Second Amendment."

And that's just what Dowlut has become, shifting over the past three decades from defending gun rights to advancing an agenda of exceptional rights for gun owners and militias, one that overturns even the most popular, minimal limits on the purchase, possession, carry, and use of firearms.

As Gilson points out, it's unclear whether Dowlut ever told anyone at the gun group, including close friend and frontman Wayne LaPierre, about his criminal past. Ironically, his and the NRA's rhetoric of demonizing criminals as "not like us" and praising "good guys with guns" is precisely the kind of Manichaean outlook that once led cops to violate his civil rights as a murder suspect. Then again, maybe the cops and the NRA were right. Maybe Dowlut's not a good guy with a gun, but just another criminal lowlife.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/robert-dowlut-nra-murder-mystery

Seems kind of fitting that a murderer would hold high office with them

 

[floreairfoot]

I love Bill Maher's commentary on "gun culture"...

[YT]watch?v=zONMBOFNKXI[/YT]

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

The NRA Tried to Get Rid of This Video Advocating Guns for the Blind

[YT]W6NKwiCGCoA[/YT]

"Do you think you need to see where you're shooting if someone's on top of you, trying to kill or rape you, while their hands are slowly squeezing your neck and they're yelling 'I'm gonna kill you'? I didn't think so." This is the NRA commentator's argument for arming the blind that the NRA just removed from its website.

"Every law-abiding, blind individual should be able to have whatever guns they want," says NRA video personality and local neckless man Dom Raso. (Raso, you may recall, also recently took the media to task for its absurd policy of referring to killings with guns as "shootings.")

Strangely, the National Rifle Association took Dom's video down today, leaving a big fat 404 in its place. But the internet never forgets. Now, what was so embarrassing about this two-minute lesson that not even the NRA could abide by it?

This is probably one of the stupidest things the NRA has ever done or said

 

[mrvlknight21]

I love Bill Maher's commentary on "gun culture"...

[YT]watch?v=zONMBOFNKXI[/YT]

Apparently that video won't play unless its being viewed on youtube.

I would certainly agree that "open carry" is a bad idea and most gun owners I know HATE that these guys want to walk around wal-marts and restaurants with an Ar15 or Ak47 strapped on. Just a dumb plan.

Either way, this certainly does NOT reflect the vast majority of gun owners behavior, in fact, none that I personally know.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I found the reaction from the NRA very interesting.

At first like any sane person, they spoke out against this, then they did a total one eighty.

Though it may have just been one sane staff member overstepping.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I think the NRA should have stuck to their guns and called those nuts what they are. The fact that they are so scared to tell stupid people to stop being idiots with their firearms speaks volumes as to the kind of organization they intend on being now and in the future

 

[hippie_hunter]

Agreed.

 

[Destructus86]

I think a lot of people are looking at this all wrong. We keep trying to make new laws to restrict weapons and when criminals and the like find ways around those laws we want to make more laws...thereby giving government MORE power over us. I don't think gun laws are really the answer at all.

I really think that smart weaponry is the way to go...where every weapon has bio-recognition and can only be fired by one particular person. (the technology exists and in fact has been attempted to be pushed into legislation a number of times and rejected)

We've seen that a large number (i'd say the majority) of mass shootings are done by people who took a gun from someone else. Bio-recognition would make that impossible.

So, maybe the answer isn't so much gun regulation ownership but giving the actual owner of the weapon more power to ensure that their gun is not misused. Obviously this doesn't solve the issue of people who DO own their own gun and do kill someone(s) on their own. But it's a start and would for sure cut down on accidental death and mass shootings.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385109/smart-gun-maker-who-told-holder-frank-miniter

 

[mrvlknight21]

A federal judge in Maryland has issued an opinion on Ar15s, Ak47s, etc, typically erroneously referred to as "assault weapons."

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court-cases/breaking-federal-judge-rules-ar-15s-are-dangerous-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/


Cut and paste from the article:
In what looks to be a terrible ruling for Maryland gun owners a federal judge has essentially ruled that guns that were regulated by the state of Maryland last year, including AR-15 and AK style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms,” according to a 47 page opinion by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.
The case in question is Kolbe et al v. O’Malley et al which named numerous plaintiffs including the Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Maryland Licensed Firearms Dealers Association, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), among others which challenged the constitutionality of Maryland’s strict new gun laws.
Here are some of Blake’s other comments [emphasis mine],
Upon review of all the parties’ evidence, the court seriously doubts that the banned assault long guns are commonly possessed for lawful purposes, particularly self-defense in the home, which is at the core of the Second Amendment right, and is inclined to find the weapons fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual.
First, the court is not persuaded that assault weapons are commonly possessed based on the absolute number of those weapons owned by the public. Even accepting that there are 8.2 million assault weapons in the civilian gun stock, as the plaintiffs claim, assault weapons represent no more than 3% of the current civilian gun stock, and ownership of those weapons is highly concentrated in less than 1% of the U.S. population.


The court is also not persuaded by the plaintiffs’ claims that assault weapons are used infrequently in mass shootings and murders of law enforcement officers. The available statistics indicate that assault weapons are used disproportionately to their ownership in the general public and, furthermore, cause more injuries and more fatalities when they are used.
As for their claims that assault weapons are well-suited for self-defense, the plaintiffs proffer no evidence beyond their desire to possess assault weapons for self-defense in the home that they are in fact commonly used, or possessed, for that purpose.
Finally, despite the plaintiffs’ claims that they would like to use assault weapons for defensive purposes, assault weapons are military-style weapons designed for offensive use, and are equally, or possibly even more effective, in functioning and killing capacity as their fully automatic versions.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

I think a lot of people are looking at this all wrong. We keep trying to make new laws to restrict weapons and when criminals and the like find ways around those laws we want to make more laws...thereby giving government MORE power over us. I don't think gun laws are really the answer at all.

I really think that smart weaponry is the way to go...where every weapon has bio-recognition and can only be fired by one particular person. (the technology exists and in fact has been attempted to be pushed into legislation a number of times and rejected)

We've seen that a large number (i'd say the majority) of mass shootings are done by people who took a gun from someone else. Bio-recognition would make that impossible.

So, maybe the answer isn't so much gun regulation ownership but giving the actual owner of the weapon more power to ensure that their gun is not misused. Obviously this doesn't solve the issue of people who DO own their own gun and do kill someone(s) on their own. But it's a start and would for sure cut down on accidental death and mass shootings.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385109/smart-gun-maker-who-told-holder-frank-miniter

I completely agree with the fact that Smart guns should be the future but considering the gun nuts harassed and sent death threats to one of the owners of a gun shop offering that option as well as to the companies themselves, sadly, I don't think saner minds will prevail there.

 

[SV Fan]

I completely agree with the fact that Smart guns should be the future but considering the gun nuts harassed and sent death threats to one of the owners of a gun shop offering that option as well as to the companies themselves, sadly, I don't think saner minds will prevail there.

I always found it funny the pro gun people seemed to hate smart guns. Shouldn't the goal of pro gun person be the right of choice of any gun a person wants. Something tells me if the federal government tried to ban smart guns, the pro gun crowd would be all pro smart guns claiming how the government is infringing on it's 2nd amendment rights

In what looks to be a terrible ruling for Maryland gun owners a federal judge has essentially ruled that guns that were regulated by the state of Maryland last year, including AR-15 and AK style rifles (as well as other magazine fed, semi-auto rifles with certain features), “fall outside Second Amendment protection as dangerous and unusual arms,” according to a 47 page opinion by U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake.

In theory should the people who are for States Rights 100% of the time claim victory for this one?

 

[mrvlknight21]

In theory should the people who are for States Rights 100% of the time claim victory for this one?

I don't know. It does tell me that this federal judge knows little about the 2nd amendment.

 

[dnno1]

I don't know. It does tell me that this federal judge knows little about the 2nd amendment.

Actually going by the District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case, you just can't ban firearms completely (especially ones most commonly used for defense self family and property), but you can restrict what type of firearm one can own.

 

[mrvlknight21]

Actually going by the District of Columbia v Heller SCOTUS case, you just can't ban firearms completely (especially ones most commonly used for defense self family and property), but you can restrict what type of firearm one can own.

My point was this judge apparently stated that the core for the 2nd amendment was home defense.

 

[SV Fan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...nds-9-year-old-an-uzi-now-hes-dead/?tid=hp_mm

Firing-range instructor hands 9-year-old an Uzi. Now he’s dead.

A 9-year-old girl at a shooting range outside Las Vegas accidentally killed an instructor on Monday morning when she lost control of the Uzi he was showing her how to use.