Murder rates: Constitutional carry vs may/no issue states

Maybe YOUR guns need controlled...the rest of us are just fine, thanks.

 

First prove that gun control reduces crime.

 

any law that only changes (i.e. further restricts) the legal environment for LAW abiding people should be unconstitutional when it comes to gun issues

 

what do you NEED it for

to prevent crimes-nope, that is like saying you need a colonoscopy to treat nasal bleeding

to harass gun owners-yeah it works for that, why do you need to harass law abiding gun owners?

 

he never said that, he merely said he needs more gun control. and for what he has constantly hinted he needs it for, he is correct Gun control is designed to harass lawful gun ownership.

 

The real meaning of the term to us, means improving our ability to place rounds precisely down range.. or where needed. So, yeah I am all for more personal gun control.

 

Clint Eastwood ?

"I am in favor of Gun Control,
If there is a Gun around,
I want to be in Control of it !!!!! -

 

Wait, let me guess: And since you think that criminals will ignore and not be affected by any gun regulations, therefore ANY gun regulation is unconstitutional!

Right?

 

federal gun control does violate the tenth and second amendment. The commerce clause nonsense is dishonest but even the most honest supreme court justices are loathe to overturn the FDR nonsense because it would be all sorts of societal upheaval. Laws that prohibit unsafe use of firearms are constitutional at the state level. so are some laws on 18 restrictions or felon restrictions at the state level. laws like magazine bans, or banning any firearms (as opposed to rockets, bombs etc-weapons that are not individual weapons citizens would normally own or weapons civilian police departments don't have) are unconstitutional. so are laws based on your past exercise of your rights

the federal government doesn't get any power to tell you how many guns you can own or buy because that means it gets power based on your prior actions that were constitutional

 

Thought so.

By the way, on what do you base the distinction between "firearms" and "rockets, bombs, etc."? For instance, given that the Revolutionary War began with a British attempt to confiscate the CANNON belonging to the Concord and Lexington militias, how do you construe the Second Amendment only applying to firearms? How do you construe it not including RPGs, for instance? The "normally own" or "weapons civilian police departments do not have" qualifier has no basis in the language of the amendment.

Similarly, colonists used throwable incendiary and explosive devices. So why would the Second Amendment not allow private ownership of hand grenades?

 

there are dozens of articles that talk about something you can keep and bear

now some weapons of modern design blur the line and I cannot tell you exactly where that stops or starts but I do know there is no rational argument for banning civilians from owning the same firearms that CIVILIAN police use in the same environment and for the same defensive purpose against criminals. Once we get rid of the idiotic bans on current made select fire rifles, SBRs then we can talk about portable grenade launchers or SAMs

I have yet to see a legitimate or rational argument that a governmental unit can say that a UZI or a MP 5 is perfectly suitable for civilian cops to USE and carry on our streets but a law abiding citizen cannot even be trusted to own one at home

 

Maybe that applies to cannon. Except the historically common fact of privately owned cannon would suggest that the "bear" distinction is nonsense. For one thing, why is "bear" considered a necessary modifier of "keep", while the entire "well-regulated militia" phrase isn't? Second Amendment purists don't seem to care about that contradiction.

And it certainly doesn't apply to things like RPGs, machine guns, and hand grenades -- or things like shoulder-launched AA missiles.

Wait a minute. You are so sure that federal regulation of firearms is illegal, but now you're not sure what weapons should be legal and what aren't? Come on. If you are so sure what the Second Amendment means, then surely you can stand behind your interpretation of it, and the logical results of that interpretation.

Before we can talk about what weapons are legal and what weapons aren't, we need a consistent interpretation of the Second Amendment. Otherwise, what is the basis for declaring a weapon legal or illegal?

I see very little consistency from gun-rights advocates in that regard. Anti-gun activists do plenty of stupid things -- banning weapons based on looks, for instance, or seeking restrictions without much regard for efficacy -- but at least they're fairly consistent about their interpretation of the Second Amendment: essentially, the pre-Heller consensus that the more militarized and destructive a weapon was, the more it could be regulated, thanks to the "well-regulated militia" clause.

Heller more-or-less destroyed that consensus, so what now is the basis for limiting the ownership of RPGs?

Not my argument, but I can certainly see trained, professional, supervised LEOs having weapons that Joe Nimrod probably shouldn't be trusted with. That one doesn't seem particularly complicated.

 

Easy enough. See: Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano.

Actually, the more militarized it is the more it's covered under Miller.

NFA 1934, same as it's been for 83 years. "In common use for lawful purposes" seems to cover it.

Under what legal basis should some civilians get access to certain classes of firearms while other civilians are denied that right?[/quote]

 

Why?

 

Yes, that was Miller, and Heller claims that standard still applies, but it's not entirely clear how -- or where to draw the line.

When the "well-regulated militia" part still applied, you could justify restrictions on anything that didn't have a strong sporting or recreational purpose. But post-Heller, we don't have that anymore.

What constitutes "dangerous and unusual" weaponry is a judgement call. All weapons are dangerous, so obviously that part is a matter of degree. Why is a hand grenade more dangerous than a semi-auto sniper rifle? Good luck defining that.

That leaves "unusual." But in terms of modern military applications, neither hand grenades, nor machine guns, nor RPGs are "unusual" -- they are, in fact, standard weaponry in infantry units. If the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to combat tyranny, why are those common weapons denied to civilians?

Which leaves us with "in common CIVILIAN use" -- which is a really effed-up standard, when you think about it.

For instance, arguably the only reason machine guns and hand grenades are "unusual" for civilians is that they were severely regulated starting in 1934. That's a circular argument: we banned them, so they're not common, so they're okay to ban.

If any weapon not in common use can be banned or heavily regulated, then the government could simply ban every new type of weapon the minute it is invented, thus ensuring it is never "in common use" among civilians. That, clearly, is not what is intended by the Second Amendment.

See above. And what is a "lawful purpose"? For gun-rights advocates, the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to combat tyranny. So I can justify ANY weapon ownership by citing that "lawful purpose." Thus the restriction you cite is no restriction at all.

No idea. That's what Heller has done to us -- removed any aspect of common sense from gun-related issues. Weapon that should only be used by trained professionals? Too bad. If the cops can have it, so can Joe Dipshit. I guess we could militarize the police, thus making them not "civilians" for Second Amendment purposes. Wouldn't that be awesome?

 

And there are more mosquitos in constitutional carry states.

Since we're looking for premises that have no relation to the conclusion.

 

I don't have much use for contrarian evasive arguments. I told you what weapons are clearly protected by the second amendment which is a bit different than what weapons the government has Article one Section 8 powers to ban.

BTW I bet I can outshoot 99% of the law enforcement officers in the USA in ANY kind of shooting contest and I bet I know more about the laws concerning deadly force than Any of them. In fact my then 16 year old son annihilated the best LEO police shooters in ohio when he went up against them in a match that required speed shooting, reloading speed and shoot/don't shoot scenarios, So spare me the crap about LEOs being so much more trusted with weapons. THEIR DUTIES are why we allow them to carry and possess firearms in areas where other civilians cannot.

claiming that "well regulated" somehow gives the government powers to ban a weapon owned by private citizens is one of the most massive fails of constitutional understanding I have ever seen

 

because in a free society, passing laws just to hassle people who don't buy into your political agenda is not legitimate. If gun control laws don't decrease violent crime, there is no rational reason for them and thus they should be struck down as failing a rational basis test, (as well as the more proper strict scrutiny test)

 

Asking "how do we know what weapons are allowed and what aren't?" is not a "contrarian evasive argument."

... without providing a basis for that claim.

Only a bit, though. Without knowing what weapons the government has the power to ban, how can you determine what weapons are legal?

Yay for you. Completely irrelevant to my point. Unless you wish to deny that Joe Nimrods exist, or that your average police officer is better trained than your average citizen, or that SWAT units are CERTAINLY better trained than your average citizen.

Where did I claim that? I'm the one asking how we can justify banning ANY hand-carried weapon after Heller.

 

tell us what firearms you think are protected by the second amendment and why. I don't believe the federal government has any power to ban any firearm owned by a private citizen. the only weapons that the federal government has a plausible power to ban are weapons that if used, would clearly have interstate or international ramifications

your turn

 

BTW the average CCW holder is better trained in shooting and shoot/no shoot than the average cop. that isn't even subject to debate given cops shoot far more innocents in confrontations that private citizens do and private citizens are more likely to hit the intended target.

 

I don't know who "we" includes, but in Kalbe v Hogan, Shew v Malloy and Friedman v Highland Park, the 4th, 2nd and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals justified banning firearms by ignoring strict scrutiny, ignoring Miller and Heller, creating definitions for "dangerous and unusual" and allowing that banning firearms "may increase the public's sense of safety: "If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit."

 

can you imagine if a state banned gay anal sex during the AIDS crisis on the grounds that it "reduces the perceived risk of AIDS transmission and makes the public feel safer as a result"?

 

Hey, I asked first. I'll give my opinion once we've nailed down yours. I don't want the discussion to get diverted into an argument about whose opinion is "right"; I just want to establish what the opinions are.

Why just "firearms"? On what basis do you limit the protection to that? Why not machine guns, RPGs and hand grenades?

What does that even mean? What kind of weapon has "interstate ramifications"? What differentiates such a weapon from a weapon that doesn't have such ramifications? And what is your Constitutional basis for making such a distinction?

 

"We" means Americans, as a group.

I suspect you don't support the idea of banning particular guns or features because they "scare people". I don't either, actually. So let's ignore what we both consider a stupid ruling and talk about what I'm trying to talk about -- what is the Constitutional basis for banning some hand-carried weapons and not others, especially in light of Heller.