Gun Legislation

[O Really]

Well, the Brady Law has been around since '94 or so, and hasn't been found unconstitutional - not even seriously challenged, and it puts background check requirements on purchase of firearms from dealers. In addition, in NC, you have to get the Sheriff's approval and a purchase permit for a handgun. The Sheriff is required to determine that the applicant is "of good moral character" among other things, and there is a fairly long list of things that can get the applicant turned down. I don't know what if any appeal procedures are available for a person getting turned down, but it's a lot of power in the hands of the Sheriff as to whether you get to buy a handgun. IMNVHO, I seriously doubt that adding a training requirement would be any more of an "infringement" than those restrictions already in place. Then, if you do get a permit to buy the handgun, you actually do have to go to something euphemistically called "training" if you want to carry it concealed. There are also unchallenged age restrictions on purchase of firearms. So requiring attendance at a free class on gun safety and relevant law seems a bit of a stretch to consider it unlawful "infringement." In any case, I still say pass it and let 'em challenge.

[Roland Deschain]

Well, the Brady Law has been around since '94 or so, and hasn't been found unconstitutional - not even seriously challenged, and it puts background check requirements on purchase of firearms from dealers. In addition, in NC, you have to get the Sheriff's approval and a purchase permit for a handgun. The Sheriff is required to determine that the applicant is "of good moral character" among other things, and there is a fairly long list of things that can get the applicant turned down. I don't know what if any appeal procedures are available for a person getting turned down, but it's a lot of power in the hands of the Sheriff as to whether you get to buy a handgun. IMNVHO, I seriously doubt that adding a training requirement would be any more of an "infringement" than those restrictions already in place. Then, if you do get a permit to buy the handgun, you actually do have to go to something euphemistically called "training" if you want to carry it concealed. There are also unchallenged age restrictions on purchase of firearms. So requiring attendance at a free class on gun safety and relevant law seems a bit of a stretch to consider it unlawful "infringement." In any case, I still say pass it and let 'em challenge.

You are now talking about two different things. Are you talking about "training" in order to purchase, or "training" to carry concealed? You see, if you are talking about the latter concealed carry already requires training, including live fire. In addition I can't find the "right to carry concealed" in The Constitution at all. If anything The Constitution protects open carry, more than concealed.

[neoplacebo]

Roland the Thompson gunner will never alter his views with regard to firearms; even if a convicted felon or mental hospital escapee kills everyone he loves and lets him live. You bet'cha.

[O Really]

Let's take the actual text and apply Roland's ummm "reasoning" to it:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right of "the people" - doesn't say anything about age restrictions, felons, loons, just "the people."
"to keep and bear arms" - Roland seems to think that requiring a permit to "bear" a weapon concealed is not an infringement. I don't see anything in the original text that says I can be "infringed" on by having to jump through hoops to carry my handgun under my coat.

Taken literally, as Roland is (mostly) doing, any restriction or condition whatsoever could be considered unconstitutional. I'm sure some of his friends would probably like that. But there are lots of restrictions, and most of them have either been upheld as constitutional, or haven't even been challenged. There is no strictly logical argument that says requiring a training class and a permit to carry your firearm under your jacket is not an "infringement" on the "bear arms" part of the Second Amendment. But actual practice and legal decisions find that while it may be a literal "infringement", it is not a legal "infringement" in violation of the Amendment. If we had some Members of Congress with balls (literal or figuratively), they'd bring it up.

[Ombudsman]

He doesn't like you.

He has to learn to like himself first.

[Roland Deschain]

Let's take the actual text and apply Roland's ummm "reasoning" to it:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The right of "the people" - doesn't say anything about age restrictions, felons, loons, just "the people."
Already laws against felons, loons and others owning guns. Why do we need more and that is also, what did you call it..reasonable regulation
"to keep and bear arms" - Roland seems to think that requiring a permit to "bear" a weapon concealed is not an infringement. I don't see anything in the original text that says I can be "infringed" on by having to jump through hoops to carry my handgun under my coat.
I do not see any language saying "bear concealed" it just says "keep and bear arms"...which is why I said it actually covers open carry

Taken literally, as Roland is (mostly) doing, any restriction or condition whatsoever could be considered unconstitutional. I'm sure some of his friends would probably like that. But there are lots of restrictions, and most of them have either been upheld as constitutional, or haven't even been challenged. There is no strictly logical argument that says requiring a training class and a permit to carry your firearm under your jacket is not an "infringement" on the "bear arms" part of the Second Amendment.
I've never said that it was infringement for concealed carry, but we were talking about your original position of requiring training to purchase.

But actual practice and legal decisions find that while it may be a literal "infringement", it is not a legal "infringement" in violation of the Amendment. If we had some Members of Congress with balls (literal or figuratively), they'd bring it up.

It never ceases to amaze me how you liberals will writhe like a snake in order to keep the argument in your corner even after having it debunked......somehow your argument that training was needed to purchase has morphed into training for concealed carry, which is ALREADY REQUIRED

[O Really]

Actually, it's more trying to keep the argument on track. Let's see if I can get it any simpler:
1. I think it would be a good idea to require gun safety and basic gun law training as a requirement to purchase a firearm.
2. I know that's not now the law and realistically won't be. I still think it's a good idea.
3. I know there is a "training" requirement for a concealed carry permit. I have one.
4. You said requiring training for firearm purchase would be a legal infringement.
5. I disagree, and offered other examples of literal infringements that aren't considered legal infringements.
6. The concept of there being a difference in carrying concealed vs. carrying open is relatively recent, and isn't found in the Second Amendment at all. Therefore, to create a difference, would have been an "infringement" on the right to "bear" arms.
7. The Supreme Court and apparently most everybody else didn't see it that way.
8. Therefore, there is a possibility that if a law were passed requiring training in gun safety and basic gun law as a requirement to purchase, it might also be found to be Constitutional.
9. I understand there are laws prohibiting felons, loons, etc. from owning guns. Those aren't very enforceable if there are no meaningful ways to identify who they are, particularly the loons, and if the sifting process doesn't apply to all gun transactions.

I'd be happy as one step simply to apply the NC requirements to get a handgun purchase permit to all firearms.

[Roland Deschain]

Actually, it's more trying to keep the argument on track. Let's see if I can get it any simpler:
1. I think it would be a good idea to require gun safety and basic gun law training as a requirement to purchase a firearm.
2. I know that's not now the law and realistically won't be. I still think it's a good idea.
3. I know there is a "training" requirement for a concealed carry permit. I have one.
4. You said requiring training for firearm purchase would be a legal infringement.
5. I disagree, and offered other examples of literal infringements that aren't considered legal infringements.
6. The concept of there being a difference in carrying concealed vs. carrying open is relatively recent, and isn't found in the Second Amendment at all. Therefore, to create a difference, would have been an "infringement" on the right to "bear" arms.
7. The Supreme Court and apparently most everybody else didn't see it that way.
8. Therefore, there is a possibility that if a law were passed requiring training in gun safety and basic gun law as a requirement to purchase, it might also be found to be Constitutional.
9. I understand there are laws prohibiting felons, loons, etc. from owning guns. Those aren't very enforceable if there are no meaningful ways to identify who they are, particularly the loons, and if the sifting process doesn't apply to all gun transactions.

I'd be happy as one step simply to apply the NC requirements to get a handgun purchase permit to all firearms.

Ok, so how would requiring the local Sheriff to 'sign off' on every gun purchase and making the purchaser wait truly address the problem of gun ownership by those who are legally prohibitd from owning guns. Keep in mind now, that once approved by the Sheriff the purchaser must still undergo a NICS check from the federal level.

[O Really]

The state must have thought there was some value in requiring permits for handgun purchases, to wit:
"Under North Carolina law, it is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to sell, give
away, transfer, purchase, or receive, at any place in the state, any pistol, unless the purchaser or
receiver has first obtained a license or permit to receive such a pistol by the sheriff of the county
where the purchaser or receiver resides, or the purchaser or receiver possesses a valid North
Carolina-issued concealed carry permit. This requirement to obtain a permit prior to the transfer
of a pistol applies not only to a commercial transaction typically at a sporting goods store but also
between private individuals or companies throughout North Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
402(a).
In addition, this State law has been interpreted to require that a pistol permit be obtained by
the receiver of a handgun when such person inherits a pistol as a result of the death of another
person. The permit should be given to and retained by the seller or donor of the handgun. In
such a case, the permit should be given to the executor or receiver of the estate of the deceased
person. If the purchaser or receiver uses a North Carolina- issued concealed carry permit for the
transfer, the seller should reference such permit on a bill of sale."

The reasoning seems to be that a review of eligibility, and a restriction on the number of firearms that can be purchased at a time, conducted by local law enforcement and with a residency requirement has some value. The state of NC puts that restriction on sale (or gift) of all handguns. Why shouldn't that apply to all firearms, not just handguns? And why shouldn't all transfers of firearm ownership nationally be similarly reviewed? We do want to make a good faith effort to make it more difficult for the felons, loons, and domestic violence perpetrators, don't we?

[Roland Deschain]

The state must have thought there was some value in requiring permits for handgun purchases, to wit:
"Under North Carolina law, it is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to sell, give
away, transfer, purchase, or receive, at any place in the state, any pistol, unless the purchaser or
receiver has first obtained a license or permit to receive such a pistol by the sheriff of the county
where the purchaser or receiver resides, or the purchaser or receiver possesses a valid North
Carolina-issued concealed carry permit. This requirement to obtain a permit prior to the transfer
of a pistol applies not only to a commercial transaction typically at a sporting goods store but also
between private individuals or companies throughout North Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
402(a).
In addition, this State law has been interpreted to require that a pistol permit be obtained by
the receiver of a handgun when such person inherits a pistol as a result of the death of another
person. The permit should be given to and retained by the seller or donor of the handgun. In
such a case, the permit should be given to the executor or receiver of the estate of the deceased
person. If the purchaser or receiver uses a North Carolina- issued concealed carry permit for the
transfer, the seller should reference such permit on a bill of sale."

The reasoning seems to be that a review of eligibility, and a restriction on the number of firearms that can be purchased at a time, conducted by local law enforcement and with a residency requirement has some value. The state of NC puts that restriction on sale (or gift) of all handguns. Why shouldn't that apply to all firearms, not just handguns? And why shouldn't all transfers of firearm ownership nationally be similarly reviewed? We do want to make a good faith effort to make it more difficult for the felons, loons, and domestic violence perpetrators, don't we?

Quite the disertation but you didn't answer the question other than to say "the state must have thought there was some value". I asked a direct question as to how requiring the Sheriff to sign off on all purcahses would limit guns going to those who should not have them? You talked a whole bunch but did not say a thing. So try again and tell us how this would actually address the problem.

[O Really]

Wasn't much of a dissertation, it was mostly a quote from the NC DOJ. But it seems to me that having to ask the Sheriff for a permit to buy a firearm would be more of a deterrent to someone who had skeletons in his closet than someone such as you and me who breeze through any level of checking. It would likely discourage some who might otherwise buy a gun on the spur of the moment, but wouldn't discourage anyone who really wanted or needed one. It would likely increase understanding that buying and owning a gun isn't like buying a basketball, and that it comes both with rights and responsibilities. And sure, some bad guys will try to steal a gun, and some bad guys will blackmarket sales. But if illegal possession got upgraded from a class 2 misdemeanor to a felony, and committing a crime with a gun added another 5 or 10 years to whatever sentence you might have otherwise received, it would probably make a difference.

[Roland Deschain]

But if illegal possession got upgraded from a class 2 misdemeanor to a felony, and committing a crime with a gun added another 5 or 10 years to whatever sentence you might have otherwise received, it would probably make a difference.

Now you are starting to make sense!!!!

[neoplacebo]

What about our own illustrious former sheriff? He's a loon, and I'd bet everything I have that he's got enough guns for two sheriffs.

[Ombudsman]

What about our own illustrious former sheriff? He's a loon, and I'd bet everything I have that he's got enough guns for two sheriffs.

Seems to be a common problem with sheriffs. Sheriffs are elected to the position. No experience necessary. Why would a populace who distrusts lawyers and politicians trust a sheriff?

[Stinger]

But if illegal possession got upgraded from a class 2 misdemeanor to a felony, and committing a crime with a gun added another 5 or 10 years to whatever sentence you might have otherwise received, it would probably make a difference.

Now you are starting to make sense!!!!

Florida has had a 10-20-Life gun law on the books since 1999 with no attributable drop in gun crimes. Carry a gun in commission of a crime -- mandatory 10-year sentence. Shoot the gun in commission of a crime -- mandatory 20-year sentence. Shoot someone in commission of a crime -- mandatory life sentence.

And we have had the weird cases where someone fired a warning shot in the ground and was mandated to get the 20-year sentence.

[O Really]

Florida has had a 10-20-Life gun law on the books since 1999 with no attributable drop in gun crimes. Carry a gun in commission of a crime -- mandatory 10-year sentence. Shoot the gun in commission of a crime -- mandatory 20-year sentence. Shoot someone in commission of a crime -- mandatory life sentence.

And we have had the weird cases where someone fired a warning shot in the ground and was mandated to get the 20-year sentence.

Good point. I remember reading the warning shot case - outrageous. But part of the problem with the Florida law is that is has aspects of the "zero tolerance" crap, taking away judges' discretion and resulting in ridiculous situations. Florida also gives a mixed message between 10-20-life and "stand your ground" and "take your guns to work" legislation.

Additional sentencing isn't a cure-all, but it bothers me to read about instances where some scum bag is arrested for a bar fight or something and "oh by the way he had an unlawful firearm". It shouldn't be a "by the way" it ought to be an opportunity to get one of the "outlaws with guns" off the street for a while. Pursuing unlawful possession as a significant crime itself would be helpful.

[Roland Deschain]

Pursuing unlawful possession as a significant crime itself would be helpful.

Agreed!!!

[Roland Deschain]

But if illegal possession got upgraded from a class 2 misdemeanor to a felony, and committing a crime with a gun added another 5 or 10 years to whatever sentence you might have otherwise received, it would probably make a difference.

Now you are starting to make sense!!!!

Why are you such a cheerleader for punishment after the fact when universal background checks will deter many felons and loons before the fact? I'll bet you run around closing barn doors long after the livestock is gone. By your "reasoning" we should do away with driver training and testing in lieu of just hammering the ones that wreck.

Because it has already been proven that background checks and restrictions do not work. All they do is place additional restrictions on legal buyers who have no criminal records or intent and as long as the criminals skate on light punishments there is no deterrent against continuing.

[Ombudsman]

But if illegal possession got upgraded from a class 2 misdemeanor to a felony, and committing a crime with a gun added another 5 or 10 years to whatever sentence you might have otherwise received, it would probably make a difference.

Now you are starting to make sense!!!!

Why are you such a cheerleader for punishment after the fact when universal background checks will deter many felons and loons before the fact? I'll bet you run around closing barn doors long after the livestock is gone. By your "reasoning" we should do away with driver training and testing in lieu of just hammering the ones that wreck.

Because it has already been proven that background checks and restrictions do not work. All they do is place additional restrictions on legal buyers who have no criminal records or intent and as long as the criminals skate on light punishments there is no deterrent against continuing.

So in light of the fact that another mass shooting was caused yesterday by a person known to have diagnosed mental health issues, who easily obtained guns, what is your solution?

[Stinger]

So in light of the fact that another mass shooting was caused yesterday by a person known to have diagnosed mental health issues, who easily obtained guns, what is your solution?

If everyone there had had guns, the loon would have gone down immediately



... as would a number of innocent bystanders.

But, more guns. Definitely more guns.