Gun Legislation

[O Really]

The NRA's theoretically strongest argument against firearm registration is that it is "unconstitutional" as a violation of the Second Amendment and ridiculously repeating that "registration leads to confiscation."

Somebody needs to tell the NRA that there are a lot of uncontested (Constitutionally) firearm registration laws on the books.

Some of them require that prospective firearm purchasers obtain a permit or license prior to purchase. These laws are sometimes known as “permit to purchase” licensing schemes. Other places require a license to own a firearm. Unlike a permit to purchase, a license to own or possess a firearm generally has a longer duration and entitles the holder to possess firearms so long as the license remains valid. There are many state variations, but as a starting point:

States that Require a License or Permit for Purchasers or Owners of All Firearms
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey

States that Require a License or Permit for Handguns Only
California
Connecticut
Iowa
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island

The Constitutionality of requiring a license or permit would appear to be settled and, as far as I see, isn't under serious legal challenge anywhere. I'd vote for making it universal.

[O Really]

...because if the sum of YOUR understanding of home/auto/boat fire protection is "buy a fire extinguisher" than that is not a very fire safe home/auto/boat.

That is true. And it does not apply to me. But thanks for supporting my point on the guns.

[Mad American]

The NRA's theoretically strongest argument against firearm registration is that it is "unconstitutional" as a violation of the Second Amendment and ridiculously repeating that "registration leads to confiscation."

Somebody needs to tell the NRA that there are a lot of uncontested (Constitutionally) firearm registration laws on the books.

Some of them require that prospective firearm purchasers obtain a permit or license prior to purchase. These laws are sometimes known as “permit to purchase” licensing schemes. Other places require a license to own a firearm. Unlike a permit to purchase, a license to own or possess a firearm generally has a longer duration and entitles the holder to possess firearms so long as the license remains valid. There are many state variations, but as a starting point:

States that Require a License or Permit for Purchasers or Owners of All Firearms
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey

States that Require a License or Permit for Handguns Only
California
Connecticut
Iowa
Michigan
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island

The Constitutionality of requiring a license or permit would appear to be settled and, as far as I see, isn't under serious legal challenge anywhere. I'd vote for making it universal.

Obtaining a license or permit for purchase is not the same a firearm registration. I have pulled several purchase permits that have gone unused. There is a difference between purchase permits and ownership registration and if you think registration is not a first step in confiscation then you need to look at Missouri and it's newest proposal.

[O Really]

Obtaining a license or permit for purchase is not the same a firearm registration. I have pulled several purchase permits that have gone unused. There is a difference between purchase permits and ownership registration and if you think registration is not a first step in confiscation then you need to look at Missouri and it's newest proposal.

No, a license or permit for purchase is not the same as registration. The point being, however, a registration requirement is not unconstitutional. See, for example, Hawaii.

Can I have a hint where to go to "look at Missouri"?

Nevermind - you're talking about the Ellinger bill that has no chance. Neither does this one...
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/missou ... ans-75533/

[O Really]

Score one for the good guys..

This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants show “a special need for self-protection” does not violate the Second Amendment. In Kachalsky v. Cacace, the court explained that the requirement of a showing of need is substantially related to the government’s important interests in preventing crime and guaranteeing public safety. The court found that the requirement is consistent with gun regulation that has existed since the nation’s founding, noting, “[t]here is a longstanding tradition of states regulating firearm possession and use in public because of the dangers posed to public safety.” New York has required a showing of need for carrying a concealed weapon for 100 years.

[Mad American]

Obtaining a license or permit for purchase is not the same a firearm registration. I have pulled several purchase permits that have gone unused. There is a difference between purchase permits and ownership registration and if you think registration is not a first step in confiscation then you need to look at Missouri and it's newest proposal.

No, a license or permit for purchase is not the same as registration. The point being, however, a registration requirement is not unconstitutional. See, for example, Hawaii.

Can I have a hint where to go to "look at Missouri"?

Nevermind - you're talking about the Ellinger bill that has no chance. Neither does this one...
http://www.theglobaldispatch.com/missou ... ans-75533/

It may be that the bill has no chance. However, it is a blatant attempt at confiscation:

4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:

(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;

(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or

(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.

So, with a stroke of a pen the governor could have made hundreds, if not thousands, of previously legal gun owners criminals if they refused to turn in or destroy their private property? The question then becomes how would the authorities KNOW who had what if it was not registered. I won't even get into the asinine description of what constitutes an "assault weapon" in that bill.

[Wneglia]

Note to self: Don't store handgun in oven.

[O Really]

Y'know, Mad, state legislatures all over the country have a lot of idiots. It's not just limited to Florida, North Carolina, and Texas. Just because one of the idiots introduces a bill doesn't mean it's ever going to see the light of day. And if pigs flew into the legislature and it did pass, it's got significant legal challenges, not necessarily just from Second Amendment issues.

[Apache]

One of ours here in SC, wanted us to have our own currency, now thats funny! or sad

[O Really]

Note to self: Don't store handgun in oven.

The article said, "Sandy wasn't charged because he had a proper concealed weapons permit..."
He wouldn't have needed a "proper concealed weapons permit" to have the gun and its ammunition in the house. But once again, somebody does something stupid and irresponsible that gets somebody injured but because it's gun-related, he gets by with an "opps" defense. I wonder if they could have come up with something to charge him with if he had stored propane or gasoline in the oven.

[O Really]

So today some gun ummm "enthusiasts" are going to have a rally at Pack Square in "support of the Second Amendment." I suppose that makes almost as much sense as those who gather on Cadillac Mountain to help the sun rise, and they'll likely be a lot quieter than the screeching preachers and draw less of a crowd than the topless women. They've emphasized in every statement how "peaceful" and "law-abiding" they are. That might be a lot like the people who start a sentence with "I'm going to tell you the truth" and you wonder what they've told you before. It will be interesting to see if they remain "law-abiding" with regard to the restriction on open carry in city parks.

[Stinger]

Goofy analogy, Mad American. First, society is not debating the downsides to widespread fire extinguisher possession since there aren't any. Second, for almost all people almost all of the time there are alternate strategies and technologies to using a gun for self-defense. That cannot be said of fire extinguishers. Try again.

What would be your alternate strategy for a home invasion?

[O Really]

Goofy analogy, Mad American. First, society is not debating the downsides to widespread fire extinguisher possession since there aren't any. Second, for almost all people almost all of the time there are alternate strategies and technologies to using a gun for self-defense. That cannot be said of fire extinguishers. Try again.

What would be your alternate strategy for a home invasion?

Not to speak for Vrede, but in my case an alternate strategy is to avoid letting them in the house. If they select my house despite its not looking like an easy target, get past the electronics and the dogs, I'm happy to shoot them. But you'd probably be surprised at how many people think their gun is the first choice, not the last.

[O Really]

I thought Mad was supporting my point, that in addition to guns, there are other things people buy in fear and ignorance, never realizing that without some understanding of when and how to use they might be less than worthless when you need it. Was that not his point?

[Stinger]

Why is it that the same people who state that outlawing guns cannot stop people possessing guns also try to claim that outlawing abortions will stop people from having abortions?

[O Really]

Why is it that the same people who state that outlawing guns cannot stop people possessing guns also try to claim that outlawing abortions will stop people from having abortions?

I think a lot of those people think more laws will cut down drug use and bigger fences will cut down border-sneaking. They seem to think laws will affect everything except gun usage. Actually, I don't disagree with them all that much in fact...no law is 100 effective. But in logic, well, not so much.

[O Really]

I've noticed most of the hard-core gun ummm, "enthusiasts" can't or won't stay on the topic of guns at all. It's "well if we're going to licence guns, how about licencing [insert list here]. Or jump off to cars, abortions, baseball bats, yada - anything but restrictions on gun usage.

[O Really]

What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding

http://www.propublica.org/article/what- ... picks=true

[Boatrocker]

Gun "enthusiasts" in Tennessee.

[O Really]

Forida ummm, "enthusiasts" ...