Virginia reenacts one handgun a month law

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Galileo, Aug 10, 2020.

  1. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The deaths in Paris were all innocents. Over half of the gun deaths in the US are suicides conflated into the gun death data with the vast majority of the rest being the criminal element killing each other.
    Removing these from the statistics and accounting for the much larger US population, one might find that the rates of gun deaths are much more similar.
    Also there are already more guns than people in the US and even if there ever were a shortage of guns they would make their way up from Mexico and points south which have a much higher rate of gun deaths.
    One might also keep in mind that even assault rifles are ubiquitous in the Middle East and the rates of gun murders are extremely low.
    The answer is clearly not more gun legislation in the US as the cities with the tightest gun laws are also the ones with the largest gun homicides.
     
  2. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,200
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can claim that, that doesn't make it true.

    Australia has about 200,000-300,000 unregistered guns. Possessing one is a crime, and makes the possessor a criminal. There are far fewer violent crimes committed in Australia each year than there are criminals in possessions of guns.

    The arguments against gun control I support are that I'm opposed to unconstitutional, ineffective and unenforceable gun laws.
     
    Polydectes likes this.
  3. Polydectes

    Polydectes Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    Messages:
    33,908
    Likes Received:
    8,551
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then why bother posting here. If everybody that takes issue with your questioning is being evasive and disingenuous why would you even be here?
     
    cirdellin and Rucker61 like this.
  4. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Firearm-related restrictions do not work when the matter pertains to preventing the criminal acquisition and subsequent misuse of firearms. The matter is truly as simple as that. So long as firearms exist, they will always be accessibly by those who should not have them, so long as said individuals remain free in society. No degree of strictness can ever serve to stop such from occurring. Even the nation of Japan cannot prevent the trafficking and criminal misuse of firearms, as the yakuza organization is heavily invested in such, along with other illicit goods.
     
  5. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,896
    Likes Received:
    7,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Following a strict reading of the united states constitution, the only firearm-related restriction that has the potential to pass the test of constitutional muster would be prohibiting the ownership and use of firearms by prohibited individuals, simply because even the united states constitution notes that constitutional rights can be terminated so long as due process is utilized against the accused, such as a trial by jury and subsequent conviction by an impartial jury.

    However, this is not to say the various firearm-related restrictions currently in place would meet constitutional muster on the basis of being intended to achieve such, as the prohibition on their ability to purchase firearms from a federally-licensed firearms dealer is sufficient enough to prevent this from occurring. The only way a prohibited individual can go about acquiring a firearm after having their second amendment rights terminated is to commit a felony action, which remains illegal no matter what channels or methods might be utilized.

    Whether or not the prohibition on explosive devices would also pass constitutional muster is another discussion for another time.
     
  6. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,200
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Start here:


    “The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). "
    Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016.
    SCOTUS has affirmed that the Second Amendment protects all "bearable arms" (Caetano v Massachusetts) "in common use for lawful purposes" (DC v Heller) or having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia" (US v Miller) , and incorporates those protections against the states (Chicago v McDonald).

    Add Staples v US, Young v Hawaii, Haynes v US, Duncan v Becerra, Murdock v Pennsylvania, Shuttlesworth v City of Birmingham, etc.
     
  7. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Not seeing anything on the Australian Institute of Criminology website that would back up your claim. I am reading things like:
    Numbers like 6 or 8% or even 22% would not indicate "most criminals follow gun laws".
     
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2020
  8. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,386
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You're confusing cause and effect. Of course, the US cities with the most gun violence have the most gun control. Gun laws get passed in response to people misusing guns. However, guns are being trafficked from states with lax gun control to US cities with strict gun control. What the US really needs is nationwide strict gun control. If your boat is sinking you have to fix all of the leaks not just some of the leaks. Look at Australia. It has low gun crime and nationwide strict gun control.

    Many guns that were used in military conflicts in the former Yugoslavia are still in circulation and sometimes they get smuggled into the EU. But lax gun control in the EU would just make the problem worse. There would be a rise in gun suicides, gun accidents, and gun murders in addition to the problems already caused by guns being smuggled into the EU.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
  9. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are a man of faith.
    There are intense drug laws in the United States that even allow for life imprisonment for the third drug offense.
    No one is stopping taking or distributing drugs.
    Legislation doesn’t work in the face of strong demand. Not for guns and not for drugs and not for anything.
    My point is that most gun deaths are suicides. If people want to kill themselves so grotesquely that’s not a good reason to ban guns.
    The vast majority of the rest are gun homicides between the criminal element so I say let them kill each other off because I don’t care.
    The US is a gun culture and so is the Middle East hence the Paris attacks were committed by people from that region.
    Unless you can find a way to change these cultures then you will never get to the root problem.
     
  10. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,386
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/cfi/cfi158
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  11. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’m happy that Australia does not have a serious problem with gun homicides.
    I am happy that the Netherlands does not have a serious problem with gun homicides.
    However the US does as do most points south. Look for a moment at the demographics who are committing most gun murders. This is a demographic that does not substantially exist in Australia or the Netherlands.
    And even if the US made gun ownership a capital crime it’s neighbors to the south would use the porous border to smuggle in weapons because such is the high demand for weapons.
    Never underestimate market forces!
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
  12. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,386
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The Second Amendment says nothing about certain individuals being deprived of the right. It says "shall not be infringed" not "shall not be infringed without due process of law".

    Paul Finkelman explains:

    "Unlike the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, the language of the Second Amendment is absolute: 'shall not be infringed.' If read as an individual right, criminals, convicted felons, pirates, or revolutionaries could all be armed in the District of Columbia or inthe federal territories. Pirates could load up their ships on the Potomac River and sail out to sea. Hunters could trample through Yellowstone or some other national park, guns in hand. 85 Anyone might board a plane, gun in hand, or carry a weapon into Congress, the White House, or any other federal building. After all, what better place to exercise your Second Amendment rights, than in front of your representatives or even in the courts of justice? As absurd as this would be, such people could not be 'disarmed,' at least until they began to commit a crime, if the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms. Taken to its logical extreme, we might argue that just as a federal felon, serving time, has some First Amendment rights to press, petition, and religion, or Eighth Amendment rights not to be subjected to cruel punishment, so too, a prisoner might claim some Second Amendment right. The Fifth Amendment allows the taking of liberty under some circumstances, while the Second, if read as an individual right, does not."
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1105369
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
  13. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,200
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
  14. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,386
    Likes Received:
    387
    Trophy Points:
    83
    "In July 2001 five percent of the Australian adult population had a firearms licence (Mouzos 2002), whereas 20 percent of detainees in 2002 reported owning a firearm in the past year. The proportion is much higher than the general population, and very few of the police detainees reported holding a firearms licence (10%). This is not surprising, as a prior criminal record would automatically exclude a person from legally obtaining a firearms licence. Research on the licensing and registration status of firearms used in homicide also finds a very low rate of compliance with firearms licensing legislation (Mouzos 2002, 1999; Mouzos & Segrave 2004)."
    https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi312

    20% is not most criminals.
     
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2020
  15. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    8,200
    Likes Received:
    3,022
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What were the percentages before 1996? The measure of the efficacy of a law depends on the before and after results.

    Every single of the ~200k banned guns that didn't get turned in after the 1996 laws is held by a criminal. Why aren't they obeying the law?
     
  16. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    20,695
    Likes Received:
    8,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Never understood the need/want of buying multiple guns in a months time, but hey...if that's what floats your boat then you should be able to.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  17. Richard The Last

    Richard The Last Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2017
    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is it possible that fewer criminals are using firearms because they know that fewer of their victims now have firearms for self defense? I live in one of those US states with a very high rate of gun ownership and a very low crime rate. I feel there is a direct correlation.
     
  18. ECA

    ECA Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2018
    Messages:
    20,695
    Likes Received:
    8,538
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I’m not sure how reliable that correlation is. I only say that because I live in a state with a very low rate (probably one of the lowest) of gun ownership and a very low crime rate.
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  19. Enuf Istoomuch

    Enuf Istoomuch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2018
    Messages:
    608
    Likes Received:
    474
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The average time-to-crime for firearms traced by the BATFE in 2018 was nearly nine years, so the idea that guns are often used in crimes of passion or impulsive actions right after purchase is not supported by anything other than anecdotal evidence

    Spend some time here, in the FBI data and you'll learn a few things about the nature of crime and violence.
    https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr

    Purchase limits, waiting periods, it is all "Crime Control Theater". Utterly useless and meaningless. Does nothing about solving any problem. All it accomplishes is to deny a law abiding person the right to do what they, before the law was enacted, could already do without harming anybody.

    To have an effect on crime and violence start looking at the people, at the human issues which are the root causes. All this focusing on inanimate objects and what the non-criminal, non-violent do with those inanimate objects is a mental illness. One that has been preventing advances on violence reduction and crime reduction for decades.

    If you want to make a difference reducing Human Violence in America, look to organizations like this one. They look to the root causes, the deeply human causes and work those. They have success. The double digit reductions in violence, shootings included, that no "Gun Control" law could ever hope or dream to attain:
    https://cvg.org/
     
    Richard The Last likes this.
  20. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    12,613
    Likes Received:
    7,001
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Rucker61 likes this.
  21. cirdellin

    cirdellin Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2020
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If I were still in the states and in a dangerous inner city or in a rural area where the police could not be counted on, I would probably buy the most powerful hunting rifle I could find.

    These will be the last to be outlawed. They are accurate and if I train any weapon on someone intent to do harm to me or my family, my interest would be to eliminate them and not wound them.
     
  22. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My thought are this….

    Finkelman’s problem is he mistakes the language prohibiting infringement to mean the scope of what the amendment protects is unlimited.

    Every case that has ever considered this subject—across every one of our rights—agrees that no right can be unlimited. This includes Heller:

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose….
    District Of Columbia v. Heller,
    554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008)

    His argument presents an either/or scenario: 1. He does not understand this foundational concept of American constitutional law (which would reflect poorly on his scholarship), or 2. He is intentionally conflating the issue to mislead the reader into believing absolute chaos would erupt if the right were defined to actually protect an individual “right of the people” (which would reflect poorly on both his scholarship and his honesty).

    I would not consider him to be an expert on anything 2nd Amendment related. I have read his article, and I see he argues the 2nd Amendment is properly interpreted this way:

    The Second Amendment was designed to preserve the power of the national government in maintaining order, while at the same time reaffirming that the states would always have the power to organize, train, and if necessary arm their militias, so long as they were “well regulated.” (p. 118)

    Every right—and every amendment—in the Bill of Rights was designed to express a limitation on the power of the federal government. His argument which turns this (except for him) universally accepted understanding on its head—which claims that one of these amendments was actually intended to “preserve the power” of the national government rather than expressing a limitation on that power—is not one that I would have ever expected to hear on this side of the looking glass. At least he has company in the argument that the phrase “the right of the people” must somehow really mean a “reaffirmation” of a power or right of the states to have an armed militia—for I have heard that before from others who I believe are similarly wrong.

    Every interpretation of a right in the Bill of Rights requires two elements: 1. An explanation of what the right is; and 2. An explanation of how the placement of the right in the Amendment works to protect it from the power of the federal government.

    If you read his argument you will never see any explanation of how the Amendment protects this “militia only” right he seeks to create. That is because defining the right to eliminate the individual RKBA—by either limiting its protections to a state’s right to have a militia or a “collective” right of the militia members to have arms but only while a part of the militia—directly reads the Amendment in conflict with Congress’ power over the militia’s arms, organization, and training found in Article I Section 8—a power which is made absolute by the Article VI supremacy clause. Congress’ absolute power to bind the states to its will regarding the militia and its arms were well known to Madison. And as for a “right of the people” regarding anything to do with the militia—your only right as a citizen is a power to freely choose whether or not to apply for admission as a militia member. The government controls whether you can be a member, and—if admitted—what weapon you may have, when you can have it, and for what purposes it directs.

    If you limit the RKBA to the militia (as Finkelman does), then you radically transform the nature of what a right is. In every other Amendment the word right describes something that I can do (or be free from) entirely at my choosing, regardless of what my government thinks. Yet this “right of the people” that is limited to the militia means you have a “right” to have whatever arms Congress allows you to have, if Congress allows you into the club to start with, only when Congress allows you to have them, and only for what purpose Congress (or a state government when in operational command of its militia) directs. A right to do exactly what the government allows and tells you to do is not a right at all. At best it is a privilege. It makes a mockery of the words “the right of the people.”

    The only way the Amendment can work is if it is properly understood to protect an individual RKBA outside militia service.

    The “militia only” right he seeks to create simply cannot exist within the structure of the Constitution. Finkelman does not explain how it works because he cannot. And he is not alone. No proponent of the militia only interpretation of the RKBA, including both Justices Breyer and Stevens in Heller, has ever been able to rationally explain how the “militia only” right they say the amendment is limited to protecting can exist within the framework of the Constitution. There is no “right of the people” connected to this interpretation.

    Finally, I suggest another reason no one can explain it is because they have no interest in interpreting the 2nd Amendment into a workable right that operates to check the power of the federal government. Their desire is to explain the Amendment in a way that denies a right rather than to properly explain a workable amendment. They are so busy trying to destroy the individual RKBA that they do not fully realize the Amendment they create for this purpose is unworkable.

    And that, to me, is a hallmark of an illegitimate interpretation of the 2nd. Amendment.
     
    Rucker61 likes this.

Share This Page