1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

A worthy Gun Control Article

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by JACK, Feb 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,742
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped00214-chapman-20130214,0,873729.column

    This from notable libertarian Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune.
     
  2. Remstar311

    Remstar311 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    942
    Unfortunately it seems you have to be a subscriber to read the article.
     
  3. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,742
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    Hmmm... the link worked fo rme. Let me see if I can copy/paste the article.
     
  4. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,742
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    Steve Chapman
    February 14, 2013



    The debate on gun control lately has been going like this: Liberals propose various restrictions on allowable firearms, acceptable owners and approved ammunition. Conservatives exclaim, "Second Amendment!" And the debate, at least in the mind of the latter group, is over.

    The Second Amendment, they believe, is not just one important provision of our basic government document. It's the first and last word on the subject of firearms.

    Viewing the proposals offered since the Sandy Hook massacre, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., concludes the supporters intend "to completely GUT our Second Amendment rights." The Utah Sheriffs Association warned President Barack Obama, "No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them."


    Steve Chapman

    .

    Bio | E-mail | Recent columns



    Ads by Google



    The logic is simple: The Second Amendment protects the rights of gun owners. Gun control laws violate those rights. Therefore, any such measure is unconstitutional.

    But that's not quite how constitutional liberties work. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech — but the government may require permits for a political protest, outlaw child pornography, forbid incitement to violence, allow libel suits and more.

    The First Amendment does not protect your right to tell an airport security screener you're fond of bombs. Yet some Second Amendment champions see no limit to the scope of their favorite freedom.

    It's odd that they regard it as so vulnerable to abuse. For a long time, this provision was treated as an irrelevant antique. Until 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court had never interpreted it to protect an individual right to own or use guns for self-defense. Now that the "right to keep and bear arms" has gained full recognition, however, its admirers treat it as perpetually in peril.

    Many of the old fears, though, are no longer warranted. Limits on "assault weapons" will lead to bans on handguns? No way. Registration of guns will end in house-to-house confiscation? Not in a million years. The Supreme Court has established firm limits on how far gun control can go — and it's not terribly far.

    But there's another side to it. The Second Amendment does not preclude general regulation of firearms. And it doesn't disqualify some of the favorite ideas of gun control advocates.

    That's not simply the view of liberal academics and anti-gun groups. It's also the view of many distinguished conservative legal experts. I called two, Eugene Kontorovich, of Northwestern University law school, and Eugene Volokh, of UCLA law school. Though they do not concur on all particulars, they agree that many common ideas would likely pass constitutional muster.

    The most popular idea at the moment is expanding federal background checks to include all private sales. "I think the courts will say it's permissible," Volokh told me. "No problem, assuming the criteria are legitimate," Kontorovich said. The reason: It's a minimal obligation that does not substantially interfere with a person's right to obtain a gun for self-defense.

    An assault weapons ban? Volokh suspects this law would be upheld mainly because it's so ineffectual. Outlawing certain guns that might be used for self-defense is probably OK because many other virtually identical weapons would remain legal.

    Kontorovich thinks a limit on the size of magazines would be struck down because it could inhibit an individual's ability to stop multiple attackers. "Limiting magazine capacity is like saying a print magazine could be only 32 pages," he says. What would not be allowed in the context of press freedom should not be allowed in the context of gun rights, he says.

    Surprisingly, both think the Second Amendment would allow some laws that are far more ambitious. A law mandating the mere registration of all guns, says Volokh, would probably be seen as no more objectionable than an ordinance requiring a permit for a parade.

    Requiring a license to buy a gun or ammunition (as Illinois does), Kontorovich believes, would be "relatively unproblematic" as long as the goal is not to discourage such purchases. Neither regulation would deprive ordinary people of their right to obtain guns for protection, which is the core of the Second Amendment.

    In practice, the Second Amendment allows many things — and many of the things it forbids could never be passed anyway. So gun rights supporters, a group that includes me, had better focus on explaining why the great majority of gun control ideas won't work. The Constitution won't save us from all bad ideas. It's not supposed to.

    Steve Chapman is a member of the Tribune's editorial board and blogs at chicagotribune.com/chapman.

    schapman@tribune.com

    Twitter @SteveChapman13
     
  5. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    He makes a lot of assumptions.
     
  6. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,747
    There may be assumptions in the article, but there are plenty of assumptions going around.

    This article basically is what I have said all along. Though I always have the "Anit-gun" tag applied.

    I think that the points the article make are spot on as far as facts, and past proceedings that where allowed. If those assumptions are based off of those past rulings and proceedings, I think they may be a solid basis for the alternative argument in which he mentions at the end of the article. Rhetoric, and assumptions of what the reasoning is for the proposed laws, after a while loose their credibility. If the laws proposed have been upheld in the past, or other restrictions where not deemed to be against our Second Amendment right, what good does the repetition of saying they infringe on your Second Amendment rights do?

    Example; You have to get a background check buying a gun from a FFL dealer location, but feel that having to submit to a background check to purchase a gun from a private, in State individual, or gun show infringes on your right of the Second Amendment. That argument has no basis of fact, because if it was true, there would be NO background checks allowed. If you argue the fact that it just does not do anything to stop gun crimes from happening, you just might have a legitimate argument. This argument of course would have to be backed up by facts, and known statistics that could be proven. How could that happen without a survey handed out to likely criminals, or the mentally ill asking whether or not this law actually detoured them from committing a crime, or going on a killing spree?
     
  7. spritc

    spritc Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Indiana
    Stl Flyn,

    The real point is always missed, criminals don't abide by the laws and therefore any gun legislation, as before, will have no positive effect on crime. However, gun banners don't care about the facts, they make-up their own and try to push their gun ban agenda off on lawful individuals. Doesn't make any sense to lawful people.
     
  8. rpeerless

    rpeerless Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2009
    Messages:
    3,694
    Statistics bear out that higher gun sales yield lower crime rates.
     
  9. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,747
    See, I guess the article does make sense. It's working.

    My point is, how do we know that the statistics are in fact related, or the cause, to those statistics either up, or down? How do we know those statistics did not coincide with other factors simultaneously, like the economy for example? How do we prove it?
     
  10. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    When one is drowning in "facts" and "reasonableness" this singular fact remains:

    It has been nearly half a century since the gun control act of 1968. During all those decades the greatest volumes of criminal violence of all kinds has been in those areas where the leftist, anti-gun zealots in and out of government have had the most influence and the most control. It wasn't the second amendment people who created gun free killing zones, it was the elitist and "intellectual" left. For all their proclamations of love for their fellow man, the leftists have proven themselves to be nothing less than evil masquerading as good.
     
  11. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,747
    While that may give a very clear vision of your political stance, and hatred, it hardly does anything for the cause, to curtail new gun laws.
     
  12. spritc

    spritc Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Indiana
    Amen, wireguy!
     
  13. h92064

    h92064 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    235
    "if" any additional or overzealous gun control actually "worked" - Chicago and Washington DC would be the safest places on the planet........yet - both have some of the highest crime and violence statistics in the nation.

    In the wake of all the tragic occurrences involving gun-violence, the answer seems to consistently be "more" gun control from the left-wing. Why? Because they feel they have to "do something" - whether or not that what they "do" is relevant to the issues. Take the tragic events with Sandy Hook, Ct. The guns used were owned by a law-abiding citizen, who apparently allowed unrestricted access to those guns by her mentally challenged son. Are the guns at fault there?

    Blaming guns for gun violence is like blaming cars for drunk-driving......
     
  14. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    "but feel that having to submit to a background check to purchase a gun from a private, in State individual, or gun show infringes on your right of the Second Amendment. That argument has no basis of fact, because if it was true, there would be NO background checks allowed."

    Ask yourself a question is it the background check for a private sale that everyone is against? Or it the fact that a private sale has no federal form. To fill out so some type of form will need to be made up. Does that form now incorporate the names and addresses of both seller and buyer. If so what will be done with these forms after the background check.

    Will they become part of a list that says that Stl Flyn now owns this Gun and this gun and this gun. If it does how will that not be gun registration. All the Authorities will need to do is look you up to know what you own. The same also holds true to find you if they want to confiscate those guns. That is what I am concerned with what I am against. Not the background check. I have gone through background checks before and never had a problem so why would I worry/care about that?????

    Bob Lawless
     
  15. h92064

    h92064 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2007
    Messages:
    235
    Ivanhoe/Bob -

    gun registration already works as you describe for handguns and assault type rifles now (ffl transfer, background check, and registration) - so what you are really saying that you are against is the same treatment for the remaining long-guns "not" currently covered under the same registration and FFL requirements, currently allowed via private party sales - i.e. shotguns, actual hunting rifles, etc...

    Not sure that argument will hold water....
     
  16. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    "gun registration already works as you describe for handguns and assault type rifles now"

    What are you saying that they already have a list of all the guns you own now?????

    If so how are they listed by name, or by number. Remember there are no guidelines in any of these proposed legislation explaining how the forms will be filed. All the forms I have seen for any new guns I have bought have numbers on them.

    Bob Lawless
     
  17. quick403b

    quick403b TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    The main problem in the argument is that it is based on the gun control advocates terms. By their labeling past infringements as “normal” or “reasonable” we are then forced to defend against new infringements instead of them arguing for the constitutionality of the new regulation. The constitution is clear on this when it says “…Congrees shall pass no law…” However over the years (especially after the civil war) we have turned the original intent on its ear. It is simply ludicrous to think that any of the founding fathers would cede the authority to regulate individual gun ownership to the newly formed federal government. If you doubt this, please read some of the ratification arguments!! It was (and still should be) a state or local government issue. Unfortunately, the NRA did not do us a favor in the Heller case in this matter either. By using the 14th Amendment’s Incorporation wording in their Supreme Court case, they have helped set the table for more regulation and probably registration which will and eventually lead to confiscation.
     
  18. Stl Flyn

    Stl Flyn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2010
    Messages:
    8,747
    Bob,

    Next time you fill out a Form 4473, take a look at the section that the FFL must fill out, or go to the ATF website and take a look. Look at the top of page three (3). If all gun transactions, or transfers, including private individual in-State sales, are to go through a FFL, the buyer will need to fill out a Form 4473 at a FFL holder location.

    Those forms must remain in the FFL's possession indefinitely. When they close their business they then must turn in all forms to the ATF. Also the ATF at any time may call a FFL holder up, and request information of a serial numbered gun that they transferred. They will want to know what the information is that you filled out. So in a sense, you are already registering your guns every time you fill out Form 4473. The ATF just does not know exactly what gun it is, until they need to. They will ask what type of gun though, when the background check call is made. Jon
     
  19. JACK

    JACK Well-Known Member Supporting Vendor

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    14,742
    Location:
    NW Wisconsin
    Stl Flyn is right you know... And if yo uknow anything aobut computers, you know that the ATF has been lying all along about disposing of or not keeping 4473 data. All it takes is to hit the "enter" key and it goes into their server/data bank for some future use. They lie about disposing of the data. They hit "enter". Do I have proof? Does Holder lie? This is not your transparent government. Guns are on their radar, BIG TIME.
     
  20. ivanhoe

    ivanhoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    7,539
    Location:
    Oxford MA
    Who is going to keep track of non FFL sales between private citizens??? How are they going to keep track of who has had a background check and who hasn't??

    What will happen to a gun owner that doesn't have a firearm that the Giverment says he owns. At least through background check records???

    There are many questions that are not answered. I am not in favor of waiting until the Giverment get around to telling everyone how it will work. Tell me up front before the bill becomes law.

    They are leaving to many things up in the air until later. Lastly I don't trust any of these politicians as far as I can throw them.

    Flyn you said,

    "That argument has no basis of fact"

    Well you see it one way I see it another. I see that what the Giverment wants is what ever they can get away with. They aren't giving any fact yet you guy seem to expect everything will be an honest deal. Talk about leading the sheep to the slaughter.

    Bob Lawless
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Search tags for this page

gun control