Why do criminals in other countries obey gun laws?

{ (empty set) }

 

'Lots of semi-educated BM members will claim MILLER

but the fact remains, Miller was as crook, not a member of any militia. If the collective right approach was adopted by the FDR lapdog court, Miller's assertions would have been rejected on standing grounds

 

yes, the 2A was meant to defend against tyranny. But tyranny comes in many forms. Not just an overbearing government regime, but rogue warlords, bandit groups, even indvidual violent criminals are 'tyrants.' It doesnt matter whether the guy trying to kill you, rape ur wife or take ur stuff has a badge or a uniform or not... he is a tyrant and the 2A was meant for you to have a better chance at taking him out.

 

They would retain the right to own arms. If they can't make one, that's their problem.

 

It seemed to be heading that way about a decade ago, from memory... Again, the principle is not very often tested because an actual bill would first have to get past Congress.

 

Specifically though, the 2A was aimed at governmental tyranny from the Fed.

 

The above is factually incorrect. For such to come about, it would be necessary overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions, which stated that the right to keep and bear arms is not tied to, nor dependent, upon service in some militia organization. Instead they ruled that the two are independent from one another.

Yet again, the above is factually incorrect, as per the Heller and McDonald decisions. The district of columbia prevented the legal purchasing of any handguns within its territory, but the united states supreme court overruled this prohibition as well.

See above.

It is indeed a matter of balance, between those who have not committed any crimes, and who are willing to abide by the rules of society, and those that continue to put others at risk of harm, and make it clear that they have no interesting in abiding by the rules. Which side of the equation must be given most consideration in setting policy?

Noted.

And the united state supreme court has ruled that there is a constitutional right to use deadly force in self defense.

Even though annual motor vehicle-related deaths are higher than firearm-related deaths?

And McDonald incorporated the second amendment against the individual states, meaning it now applies to them as well.

Revocation of rights in the united states, however, requires due process in a court of law. A state cannot simply enact a law declaring that an established constitutional right no longer exists, and that is the end of it.

 

So by currently out of favor you mean "since ratification".

 

Which was true. However the second amendment was incorporated against the states in the McDonald decision through the fourteenth amendment.

 

which creates an interesting problem

the federal government was never intended to have any authority over individual citizens acting in their own sovereign states so the founders never thought that the second amendment would need "interpretation" or "application" to federal laws based on a tortured expansion of the commerce clause

when it comes to the states, the founders certainly believed that the several states-via the tenth amendment-had certain powers to regulate the USE or CARRYING in public, firearms. So now there is a conflict between the second clashing with the police powers of the several states

 

Not quite, Miller indicated a favor of that interpretation.

 

Unless I've misunderstood the thread title then the answer is 'They don't!' If they carry a gun then they'll use it without hesitation if they need to, irrespective of the law.

 

Yes that is correct, the current approach of the Supreme Court will need to be overturned, as in fact happened by Heller overturning Miller. There remains dissenting opinion in both the Heller and McDonald cases, its just a question of prevailing majority.

Well I didn't see that in Heller, it was in relation to private rights of licenced ownership, but whether or not that is the current situation, the discussion was in relation to the process in the event that the favored approach changed, so the existing law is not relevant to this part of the discussion because Heller would need to be overturned in any event.

A similar absolutionist approach had been tried before in Britain, and what happened was that because there was little difference in punishment between stealing a loaf of bread and murder, it was worthwhile for criminals to kill to avoid being caught stealing bread. So in the interests of public order, a proportional and gradated approach to punishment is necessary.

OK, so are we finally in agreement that the main purpose of a gun is to kill?

Yes. An interesting indication of the difference is that the manufacturers try to make cars as safe as commercially reasonable, whereas gun designs are to make them as deadly as commercially reasonable.

For the timebeing. If there is no private right to bear arms other than in the militia setting, then this aspect would not longer be relevant.

 

Back on OP topic - you're right. A general prohibition would reduce the general availability of guns to criminals in the populace (loss, theft, legal ownership prior to becoming a criminal), but it also decreases their need for one.

SO would you rather be stabbed or shot? I think I would fancy a better chance against a knife.

 

Yes, reading the majority in the MacDonald case, it seems to empower the federal government against the states, which is not what I figured was the view of the Founders and certainly not what I read as the underlying purpose of the 2A

 

Heller did not overturn Miller. Miller pertained to what firearms were legal for private individuals to own, and held that it applied to firearms that were in common use at the time, which a sawed-off shotgun was not.

If firearms cannot legally be purchased, they cannot legally be owned, thus meaning the exercise of that right is prohibited in an indiscriminate fashion without due process. Federal law prevents an individual from purchasing a firearm outside their state of residence, meaning the residents of the district of columbia could not legally procure firearms from neighboring states. Without federally licensed firearm dealers being allowed to operate within the district, no one would be able to exercise their constitutional rights.

And yet the discussion must return to the fact that simply possessing an illegal firearm would still constitute a felony offense, just as robbery would be a felony offense. How is a graduated approach to punishment utilized for the same level of offense?

It is acknowledged that firearms are used for such purposes. But ultimately that does not mean they were designed for such purposes from the ground up. Considering how so many individuals are shot but do not die as a result, the argument could be made that firearms are not well suited for such uses. Killing requires proper placement of ammunition that results in disrupting the central nervous system, or perforation of vital organs that results in a rapid loss of blood. Neither is guaranteed simply because someone is shot. Some make full recoveries, some are physically crippled, but not everyone dies.

Motor vehicles are made safe for the operator and passengers. Not the public that may have encounters with them. Such safety standards will not protect anyone who is in the path of a motor vehicle and about to get struck by the front end, or otherwise rolled over and crushed by the tires.

Beyond such, out of curiosity, how are firearms designed to make them as deadly as commercially reasonable? What exactly is this standard, and what features would offset such?

Due process of law and its application to constitutional rights would still remain relevant.

 

Being stabbed is no guarantee of greater chances of surviving a criminal encounter. If you are stabbed in the kidney for instance, your body will shut down from the rapid loss of blood. Without immediate medical care, you would die in very short order.

 

You say tomato...

Stevens argues that, in adopting the individual-right view, the Court had granted a “new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes” (Id., at 2846) and had overturned long-standing precedent in Miller.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0578.htm​

that's not true, they can be already owned, inherited, gifted or made.

You raised that if gun ownership should be prohibited because it presents a general risk, then a criminal should remain in prison indefinitely in order to protect the community, to which I argued that this would also breach the prisoner's rights and also be counterproductive to social order due to the need to gradate punishments. Neither of these are applicable to private gun ownership.

On this separate issue you now raise, I would assume a prohibition of gun ownership would carry similar penalties to carrying without a licence. In fact that is probably what the crime would be, just the licence conditions change.

OK, I would disagree but can we settle on "kill or injure"?

Good point. I would say the "commercially reasonable" takes account that the manufacturers are selling to the driver and not to the public, and so the emphasis is not on public safety as much as we may like. Nonetheless, public safety does appear in the scheme of priorities, if not particularly highly, if for no other reason than to avoid being sued for downright recklessness.

Depending on the type of firearm, there might be better sights, rifling for accuracy, automatic re-loading etc etc. Just about every feature that would make the firearm "better". One might even argue about a more comfortable grip so that it can be used to kill (OR INJURE ) in greater comfort.
As the primary purpose of the firearm is to kill or injure, it is difficult to think of an off-setting feature that would not be detrimental to the performance of the weapon, as those two objectives are diametrically opposed. Child-proof safety locks maybe?

Yes, but not as applied by the majority in MacDonald

 

Yeas, but you have a chance of blocking or deflecting a knife thrust, and an assailant would ordinarily be within be reach of a good punch.

 

​

Stevens was a dissenting supreme court justice, however. While their dissent provides an interesting read, it carries no actual legal weight.

Meaning the legal exercise of the right to keep and bear arms would be limited exclusively to those that already owned them prior to the prohibition, and their immediate families. It would not be a right of the general public, but a select few.

It would appear that two entirely different points have been confused, and being addressed as one. One point pertains to the notion of crimes involving a firearm qualifying for the death penalty, and how such might cause the situation to become worse. The other point pertains to the balance between the rights of the convicted, and the rights of the public who are victimized when these individuals are released in accordance with the laws in place.

In most of the united states, there is no requirement to possess a license for ownership of a firearm. More and more states are moving towards not requiring a permit in order to legally carry a concealed firearm in public. And even when someone is illegally carrying a firearm, specifically a prohibited individual, there is rarely ever a firearm-related charge being sought at trial.

Perhaps.

Is it possible to present some evidence pertaining to public safety and the manufacture of motor vehicles? Such is not being found on the part of myself.

How does any of the above make a particular firearm more deadly than another, when all firearms are classified as deadly? Would not caliber be of greater importance than sights or rifling, which have been in existence for centuries?

Which does not actually affect the firearm itself. For such locks to be used, it is necessary that the firearm actually be unloaded from the start, meaning it is already in a condition that cannot result in death or serious injury.

Would such not depend entirely on how strictly or loosely one may interpret the standard of "militia service" for the sake of discussion?

During the administration of Barack Obama, one issue that arose regarding government overreach was the degree of interpretation a regulatory agency would take regarding the rules and laws that authorized them to do their duties. The ATF, for example, tried to read the prohibition on armor piercing ammunition to include rifle ammunition as opposed to strictly handgun ammunition.

Assuming such a matter of differing degrees of interpretation were engaged in for the sake of discussion pertaining to the unorganized militia, the private ownership of firearms, could not the case be made that the current standard in the united states is already that of the people carrying arms in execution of militia services? An oath of office generally involves a swearing to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Could it not be argued that any time a dangerous individual is killed in a justified act of self defense, the one responsible was defending against a domestic enemy, since said individual would likely victimize countless others if they were not stopped? Would not every rape, robbery, mugging, arson, and home that is stopped by someone who is legally carrying a concealed firearm, be considered an act of militia service, depending on how strictly such service is defined? Would career criminals with extensive histories of bad behavior be considered a domestic enemy?

Beyond such, it is necessary to get into logistical discussion pertaining to how one may bear firearms in a militia sense, if the firearms they own are not well suited for such purposes. How does one bear a small, concealable pocket pistol, or a hunting rifle in an odd caliber, in a militia sense, if that is all that is owned?

 

It carries some weight, and leaves open the door for future reversal of the decision.

There's still gifting and making.

Not quite, I'm saying that prohibiting guns is different than locking up all criminals for life (in terms of public safety), because the criminal has rights and the public would be less protected from general crime if the criminal didn't care about potentially making things worse for themselves.

That's short-sighted, in my view. But its up to the state...

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/automobiles/making-cars-safer-for-pedestrians.html?_r=0

Depends on the user of the unit. For a small, weak person, a high calibre weapon would make it more difficult to accurately fire. The same could apply for a weapon designed to be concealed and used at close range.

OK, as I said, I am struggling to find features that decrease effectiveness without inhibiting effectiveness...

Membership of the National Guard. Maybe some other militia units could be established.

A vigilante posse maybe?

 

'
the founders did not have a mandate to change the powers of the states past the point what the states agreed to

 

If a state fails to provide for this individual right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court says they should, but they ingore the ruling, who's going to enforce against the state?

 

who did LBJ send to guard black students trying to attend U Miss?

the fact is the "progressives" completely screwed up the boundaries between state and federal power

 

You'll have to tell me I'm afraid...