Is owning a gun a right or a privilege?

[Bron357]

First up, I’m Australian and I’m trying to understand why many Americans are so against any rules or regulations that would limit / restrict gun ownership.
In America if you want to drive a car, don’t you have to be of a certain age and don’t you have to sit an exam / driving test to make sure you understand the rules relating to driving a car?
If you have been drinking or taking drugs and you operate a car, aren’t you committing a criminal offense and can have your driving license suspended or taken away or even be sent to jail?
Aren’t there rules about what type of car you can drive? Aren’t there special licenses for driving big trucks? And you aren’t allowed to drive a Formula 1 car around your local streets at 200 miles an hour - too powerful, too dangerous to be driven safely by anyone without specialized training and experience.
Aren’t there rules about were you are allowed to take or drive your car - like not inside buildings or through children’s playgrounds?
So if there can be rules and regulations about cars why can’t there be rules about guns?
Yes, cars kill people. No one is suggesting that cars should be banned, just as no one is suggesting guns should be banned.
But it was the introduction of rules and regulations like speed limits, safety devices, restrictions on how big, how fast and where cars could be used that reduced the number of deaths.

 

[monarch64]

Money
Power

The end.

 

[Missy]

It may (for now) be a constitutional right but how about the right to be safe on the streets and the schools and the shopping centers and the playgrounds? How about the right to live one's life free from the fear of murder, free from harassment and free from irresponsible danger? How about the right not to get murdered?

Owning an entire arsenal of high power weapons should never be a right. IMO.

What a country.
Owning a gun is a constitutional right but having competent healthcare is a privilege.

 

[Missy]

Why do the rights of gun owners trump (hahaha and blechhhh) the rights of people who want to live their lives free of fear and danger from those gun owners? The rights of a few are trumping (blechhhh) the rights of the many.

 

[redwood66]

Hi @Bron357

It is number two in our Bill of Rights which are amendments to our Constitution. Restrictions can, and have been, placed on those who can purchase weapons. Some states require a permit to purchase a gun of any kind however others do not, they use the NICS - National Instant Background Check system for any dealer purchases of firearms. There are places where firearms are prohibited and, depending on the state, it may be court houses, schools, federal buildings, etc. I understand how people from other countries would be puzzled at such a right when their country does not have the same. But this amendment was not enumerated by accident or without forethought. The preponderance of legal gun owners are law abiding people no matter what you may read in the media or other comments. That said, there are people who should have no access to firearms whatsoever which includes the ones that commit violent crimes on a daily basis, not just ones committing the school/mass shootings that make the news.

I hope this helps and is only meant to give you information for discussion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Driving a car on public roads is a privilege (not a right) in the US but you do not need a license or insurance to operate on private property. You do need both to operate on public roads.

 

[arkieb1]

The thing is that the "right" to bear or have and carry guns is a part of the US constitution and as such gun ownership has been ingrained in the psyche or belief systems of many Americans representing a certain level of freedom and liberty they believe they are entitled to. We don't have the same set of values or beliefs tied up to gun ownership in Australia.

Secondly they have a bucketload and I mean literally a zillion more guns than we ever had. So when a lot of Aussies and people from other countries (not you specifically I'm just making a generalisation here) talk about lessening guns in the US I'm not sure they fully comprehend how near to impossible a task that would actually be.

As to better rules and regulations - IMHO much of that is on the NRA, who for decades have bought off politicians and have attracted a very vocal and active group of gun owners in the US that believe better, stricter regulations are somehow a violation of their civil rights and core belief systems.

The protests of young people right now gives me hope that finally after decades of inaction maybe, just maybe, the next generation are going to call for more, and slowly but surely it will happen. Sadly however, while Trump is in power and being bought off by the NRA, I don't expect to see big changes.

 

[Matata]

It is a right that needs to become a privilege.

 

[TooPatient]

Right.

BTW, the best discussions I have seen about restrictions that should be in place have been amongst my gun club friends. Every time restrictions are mentioned in open forums, it quickly turns to bans or restrictions that would be exceptionally difficult to keep from slipping into a loss of the right to own. (Such as one conversation I watched that suggested psychologists evaluate each person but every psychologist I know holds the opinion that the mere desire to own a gun makes a person not mentally sound.)

 

[Bron357]

I do understand why Americans love their guns and want to keep them but I just think society has really changed and many events that happen today, like mass shootings, were previously rare or unheard of.
There just isn’t the discipline or respect in kids today that used to exist. I’m not suggesting we go back to “beating kids” and the like, but I sure remember growing up (in Australia) with respect for rules, the law and adults in general. Any adult could give you a “clip behind the ear” if you were caught acting up. When the teacher said “shh” you shut up. If you fell over and hurt yourself, or “weren’t chosen for the team” or came “last” you
Picked yourself up, had a cry and got on with it.
These days, geez, if you get hurt, who can we sue, everyone has to be a winner and the parents instead of making Johnny do his homework, or try harder or just accept that dear Johnny isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, parents berate, even attack, teachers as if it’s all the teachers fault.
We just aren’t as nice, as well behaved, as considerate or as respectful as our parents and grandparents were.
I fear we only have ourselves to blame.

 

[arkieb1]

Actually Bron, now you raise that, it is an excellent point, society has had to evolve and change after 9/11 for example all the security screening at airports got much tighter, who can actually gain access to runways became much stricter, the rules of what you can and can't do when you fly a plane and who can do what in a cabin of a plane all changed too around the world not just in the US.

Groups like the NRA were not buying off politicians and influencing the mindsets of some gun owners that their way of life was under threat in some way in the airport and aircraft examples so therefore change could occur. Getting the NRA to agree to change willingly or the rest of American that doesn't have guns or want to have guns to take back control of influencing government policy making and law making surrounding gun laws would be a big step forward.

 

[monarch64]

Bron, the gun-loving right would absolutely agree with you regarding discipline. The pro-gun control left would disagree. Please advise, as a third, unbiased party, what the U.S. just hadn’t been able to figure out. I know it must seem an easy solution looking from the outside in.

 

[YadaYadaYada]

Well if it was a privilege then maybe someone could have stepped in before the Sandy Hook tragedy and confiscated the guns from the mother so her son didn't have access to them. Where is the common sense? If you have a kid who is that disturbed what business do you have having guns in the house? Even ONE gun. Oh because it's your RIGHT. Well I have a right to send my kids to school without worrying about them getting shot to death but apparently the constitutional right to gun ownership overrules that.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I learned something new tonight and I will try to pass it along. The second amendment has been tested in the Supreme Court and (don't remember the year) and determined that handguns were covered under the second amendment. It was Justice Scalia who rendered the majority opinion.
The last sentence of his brief also said, "This right is not unlimited".

Guess what folks. Other types of guns are not covered under the second amendment. The NRA has tried three times in the recent past to get the Supreme Court to hear their bid to expand gun rights to include other types of guns other than handguns. The Supreme Court has declined to even hear the case. So, the NRA and other gun supporters keep using the 2nd amendment as their argument for the use of these guns. This right does not exist. Do not believe this nonsense of 2nd amendment rights for A15 guns. Don't listen to the NRA.
The 2nd amendment can be changed, although with difficulty, I admit. But its there. 3/4 of the states are needed to ratify.

Not all guns are covered. What do you think of dem apples.

Annette

 

[rainwood]

Many people assume the right to bear arms is clear under the Second Amendment but, like most constitutional issues, is actually a matter of interpretation over which legal minds can and do differ. The Second Amendment states in whole:

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.

Lots of people forget the first two clauses and that, if put in historical context, the language could be interpreted very differently. At the time the Constitution was written, the U.S. was a colony without a standing army of its own. Those who fought on the side of the patriots needed to bring their own firearms for much of the Revolution because there was no army so the citizens needed to own guns in order to form a militia. Once the U.S. became a country and had a standing army, there was no longer a need to have a militia to provide security for the country so it would no longer be necessary for citizens to have "Arms" to protect the state. To me, that's a much more accurate interpretation than ignoring the first two clauses that state the purpose of people having firearms. Many conservatives say the Constitution should be interpreted by figuring out the framers' intent, but ignore that principle when it is convenient, including the interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court could, one day, interpret the Second Amendment quite differently. There are other interpretations as well that would regulate the ownership of guns.

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

Bron, the gun-loving right would absolutely agree with you regarding discipline. The pro-gun control left would disagree. Please advise, as a third, unbiased party, what the U.S. just hadn’t been able to figure out. I know it must seem an easy solution looking from the outside in.

Just going to throw this out here, I'm quite left but also VERY pro discipline. Not in a beat your kids way, but I think people should have a handle on their kids LONG before it gets to that point. Behavior training is a HUGE part of my job.

 

[House Cat]

I believe gun ownership should be the heaviest of burdens. Nothing less.

 

[TooPatient]

Well if it was a privilege then maybe someone could have stepped in before the Sandy Hook tragedy and confiscated the guns from the mother so her son didn't have access to them. Where is the common sense? If you have a kid who is that disturbed what business do you have having guns in the house? Even ONE gun. Oh because it's your RIGHT. Well I have a right to send my kids to school without worrying about them getting shot to death but apparently the constitutional right to gun ownership overrules that.

It is already something they could charge her with. Gun owners are just as responsible for damage done using their firearms as anyone is if they have their car stolen while it is warming up in the driveway unattended. That is one of the things that needs to start being enforced NOW since it is already in place. It won't stop all problems, but it would be an immediate step towards the right direction. So many of the news stories involve a kid getting hold of the parent's gun. The need to secure them would be a lot more interesting to those currently ignoring that if the prosecutors started charging in these situations.

(Notice I said first step. There is more to do, but this could be done immediately with the way things are already written.)

 

[Missy]

I have not yet read this article but sharing it here fyi.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/world/middleeast/israel-guns-mike-huckabee.html


JERUSALEM — Nir Barkat, the mayor of Jerusalem, knows a thing or two about taking on assailants. A former Israeli paratrooper with combat experience, he packs a Glock 23 semiautomatic pistol as a civilian.
In 2015, after a series of stabbings in the city by Palestinians, Mr. Barkat urged Israelis with licensed firearms to carry them at all times, saying they should think of it “like military reserve duty.”

In Israel, armed guards stand outside movie theaters and shopping malls, and off-duty soldiers go to the beach or the bar with an M-16 slung over their shoulders. The seeming availability of guns, savvy intelligence gathering and the can-do, tough-guy image of Israelis like Mr. Barkat have impressed some American gun-rights advocates.

Indeed, after some of the most horrifying school shootings in the United States, gun-rights supporters like Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, and Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, have cited Israel as a potential model.

In fact, contrary to the advocates’ arguments for more guns, Israel has strict gun control. Those citizens who are licensed to own a personal weapon have generally undergone some military training. Guns are not seen as a hobby, but as a tool for self-defense, and if necessary, to help protect others from terrorism. And while Israel has sophisticated policing and intelligence aimed at stopping terrorism, it has little experience with the kinds of civilian mass shootings that have become the source of anguished debate in the United States.


Even Mr. Barkat, who once told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” that Americans could benefit from armed civilians and “smart” profiling, sees a big difference.
“There’s no misuse of rifles and guns in Israel,” Mr. Barkat said. “On the contrary, they give extra measures, extra security.” That, he said, was “exactly the opposite” of what was happening in the United States.

The issue came to the fore again last week. Mr. Huckabee was visiting Israel when a gunman killed 17 people at a high school in Parkland, Fla. On Twitter, he said that Israel had “pretty much eliminated” school shootings by “placing highly trained people strategically to spot the one common thread — not the weapon, but a person with intent.”

After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Conn., in which 28 people were killed, Mr. LaPierre praised Israel for placing armed guards at schools. “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” he said.
A 2012 study by Janet E. Rosenbaum, an epidemiologist at SUNY Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn, examined the perception of many gun-rights advocates that Israel and Switzerland were “gun utopias” that had fairly permissive firearms laws and widespread gun ownership, and encouraged armed civilians to intercept shooters.

She found that gun ownership was in fact far lower in Israel than in the United States. In the United States there are roughly 310 million firearms in the hands of civilians, nearly one for every adult and child. In Israel — which has a population of about 8.5 million, not counting about 5 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and Gaza — about 135,000 citizens are currently licensed to own guns. Of those, 37,500 work as guards, according to the Ministry of Public Security, which issues the permits.

The United States considers handgun ownership a constitutionally protected right, while Israel considers gun permits a privilege, granted by the Ministry of Public Security strictly on the basis of need.

It is true that Israelis tend to exhibit more comfort with firearms than, say, civilians in countries like Germany and Japan, where handguns are almost impossible to obtain.

Most Jewish Israelis are conscripted for mandatory military service at 18 for a period of at least two years, and receive at least some formal firearms training. Soldiers are issued guns only for their period of service.

“As we are a people’s army, a lot of the population has at least undergone basic training and knows how to handle and conduct themselves with a weapon,” said Simon Perry, a criminologist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “We don’t have a gun fetish here,” he added.
Israelis who have completed military service or national service may apply for a gun license at 21; others must wait until 27. Those who are eligible include civilians who live or work in areas considered dangerous; people working in security and emergency services or as civilian security guards; and some farmers, tour guides, veterinarians and registered hunters.

Applicants must go through background checks and need a signed bill of health from their doctor. Gun licenses have to be renewed every three years, and require an annual practice at a shooting range. Many requests are refused.
A majority of the licenses are granted for 9 mm pistols. The few licenses for automatic rifles are reserved for people who need them for ongoing security roles. Annual bullet supplies are limited to 50 per licensed individual, or 100 for security guards.

The gun death rate in Israel is low by international standards: about two homicides per 100,000 people in Israel, according to Arye Rattner, a criminologist at the University of Haifa. Some years in the United States the rate has been four or five times higher.
“I would say that for many males, especially, military service serves as a kind of catharsis for their aggressive emotions, therefore much less of it is being expressed in civilian circles,” Dr. Rattner said.

Civilians who carry licensed guns are expected to use them if confronted with a dangerous situation, but “only if in a life-threatening situation can they open fire,” said Micky Rosenfeld, a police spokesman.

Israel has had horrific experiences with gun violence, but nearly all of them in the context of political violence.
Yigal Amir, the right-wing extremist who assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, did so with a licensed gun. There have also been occasional nationalist attacks against Palestinians by armed Israelis, such as the massacre perpetrated by Baruch Goldstein in Hebron in 1994 with an army-issued automatic rifle. He was an officer in the reserves.

Palestinian gunmen carried out deadly terrorist attacks on a school in Maalot, near the border with Lebanon, in 1974 and at a rabbinical seminary in 2008. But both attacks were in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Licensed commercial security firms guard schools; contrary to some perceptions, armed civilians have not been deployed as school guards on a large scale since the 1970s.

At times, civilians have used guns to stop attacks. Last year, a tour guide was among those who opened fire at a Palestinian driver who plowed his truck into a group of soldiers in Jerusalem. But on other occasions, a civilian response has caused harm, as when a civilian guard shot an Eritrean asylum-seeker during a Palestinian attack at the Beersheba bus station in 2015, mistaking him for one of the assailants. And occasionally, Mr. Rosenfeld said, security guards had used their work-issued weapons to commit deadly acts of domestic violence, prompting new limits on taking weapons home.

Amid the upsurge in Palestinian stabbings, shootings and car rammings that began in the fall of 2015, the Ministry of Public Security eased the criteria for obtaining a gun permit, but maintained the same levels of supervision and control.
Among Israel’s Arab minority, which makes up more than 20 percent of the population, there is a proliferation of illegal weapons, mostly kept for self-protection or used for criminal purposes or in internal feuds.

That has been worrying police and community leaders. In June 2017, Muhammad Barakeh, a then lawmaker and the chairman of the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel, said after a week in which six Arab citizens were murdered, “There is no structured decision within the government and police to control crime on the Arab streets.” But he added, “We also bear responsibility internally regarding education, conflict resolution and more.”

Earlier this month, a 17-year-old student was shot and wounded by masked men inside a school in the Arab town of Jaljulya in central Israel.

Still, Israelis tend to reject any comparison with the United States.
“We don’t worship guns, we don’t sell assault rifles to people, we don’t have a genius creation like the NRA, we don’t regard every bunch of guys a ‘well regulated militia’ and we’re pretty much done fighting the British,” Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli diplomat who has advised several foreign ministers and served as his country’s consul general in New York, wrote in a sarcastic tweet responding to Mr. Huckabee.

 

[redwood66]

Here is the most recent opinion on the Second Amendment by SCOTUS. Sure it could be reinterpreted one day but so could any of their previous decisions. That will not remove the Second Amendment though which must go through the process that includes a ratification which requires at least 38 states to agree. An attempt to nullify a right using the Supreme Court is one of the reasons the NRA exists in the first place. It is one of the three oldest civil rights groups in the US. I am not an NRA member because I hate lobbyists, including AARP and others, but I agree with this fight. I just don't agree to some of their tactics and other points like not agreeing to higher age restrictions and background checks for private purchases. I would never sell a weapon without one. Destroying the NRA will not remove 2A either and attempts may increase their numbers.

As TooPatient said there are plenty of laws already that should be enforced and prosecuted. Especially people doing straw purchases for others who are not allowed to have weapons. Of the thousands of cases found by BATFE, four on average are prosecuted. Why is that? These people are breaking the law and selling to people who should not have firearms.

Thanks for the article @missy and yes the comparison to other countries should stop.

District of Columbia v Heller
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/opinion.html

 

[Arcadian]

I won't add much voice to this convo though I am reading it. Y'all know where I stand on this one.

 

[tyty333]

It is already something they could charge her with. Gun owners are just as responsible for damage done using their firearms as anyone is if they have their car stolen while it is warming up in the driveway unattended. That is one of the things that needs to start being enforced NOW since it is already in place. It won't stop all problems, but it would be an immediate step towards the right direction. So many of the news stories involve a kid getting hold of the parent's gun. The need to secure them would be a lot more interesting to those currently ignoring that if the prosecutors started charging in these situations.

(Notice I said first step. There is more to do, but this could be done immediately with the way things are already written.)

AGREE...THEY NEED TO START CHARGING. The girl who bought the guns for the Colombine shooters got off scot free because she cooperated.
I dont think it would have been that hard to figure out where the guns came from (without her cooperation) and she should have in no way gotten
off the hook.

Here is what the girl said that bought the guns for the Colombine shooters. Kind of says it all when she says she didnt want to put her name on something
that she was not going to have control of??? THen why do it at all I ask???

"Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had gone to the Tanner gun show on Saturday and they took me back with them on Sunday. I remember this as being in November or December of 1998. When Eric and Dylan had gone the previous day, a dealer told them that they needed to bring someone back who was 18. They were both 17 at the time. This was a private dealer - not a licensed dealer. While we were walking around, Eric and Dylan kept asking sellers if they were private or licensed. They wanted to buy their guns from someone who was private - and not licensed - because there would be no paperwork or background check. At one point Eric was interested in a gun from a licensed dealer. The dealer asked me if I would fill out some paperwork and I said, "No, I didn't feel comfortable with that. I didn't want to put my name on something that I wasn't going to have control of."They bought guns from three sellers. They were all private. They paid cash. There was no receipt. I was not asked any questions at all. There was no background check. All I had to do was show my driver's license to prove that I was 18. "

I think all sells should consist of a background check...Private or otherwise. Like TooPatient said, the government controls the sell of
a car more than the sell of a gun. Why can people who want to sell a gun show up to the DMV (or Department of Gun Control) with
the buyer. Have the buyer go through the background check...then if everything is ok proceed with the sell of the gun.

Its not going to stop everything but it is one small step that needs to be taken.

 

[redwood66]

Hi @tyty333 - anyone wanting to sell a weapon can already do a private transfer through an FFL dealer with no new agency to establish. Both show up at the dealer's location, the buyer fills out the 4473 form with an id, and a background check is done on the buyer. That is what the FFL dealer in the girl's story was doing at the gun show, though if he knew she was buying for the boys he should never have agreed to let her do it. That is another problem and is unscrupulous, and also against the law for which he should have his FFL taken and be prosecuted. She was breaking the law by buying for another person who was not legally allowed to purchase a firearm. These straw buyers and unscrupulous dealers are not prosecuted which makes the laws ineffective. And which counts for many hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of guns in the hands of people who should not have them.

 

[TooPatient]

Hi @tyty333 - anyone wanting to sell a weapon can already do a private transfer through an FFL dealer with no new agency to establish. Both show up at the dealer's location, the buyer fills out the 4473 form with an id, and a background check is done on the buyer. That is what the FFL dealer in the girl's story was doing at the gun show, though if he knew she was buying for the boys he should never have agreed to let her do it. That is another problem and is unscrupulous, and also against the law for which he should have his FFL taken and be prosecuted. She was breaking the law by buying for another person who was not legally allowed to purchase a firearm. These straw buyers and unscrupulous dealers are not prosecuted which makes the laws ineffective. And which counts for many hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of guns in the hands of people who should not have them.

Required or not, this is how all of my gun owning friends do things. That way there is a background check, waiting period, and official transfer of ownership. We may think we know someone but this makes sure it is someone who can legally purchase.

 

[redwood66]

Required or not, this is how all of my gun owning friends do things. That way there is a background check, waiting period, and official transfer of ownership. We may think we know someone but this makes sure it is someone who can legally purchase.

I wouldn't do it either. I want to know the person I am selling to is legally allowed to purchase, as I already said. Your friends are responsible gun owners.

 

[TooPatient]

I wouldn't do it either. I want to know the person I am selling to is legally allowed to purchase, as I already said. Your friends are responsible gun owners.

I would be very upset if my FFL didn't follow through completely. I do my best to keep responsible friends and only buy/sell carefully. Going through them should add to my confidence. If not, they should not be in business.

It is FFLs like the one you mentioned who give everyone a bad name. They should definitely have to answer for their part in what happens.

 

[Austina]

I don’t think it’s either, I think it’s a madness.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I just checked what laws are available in Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles. Chicago had a handgun ban which was overturned by the Supreme Court. But now the three cities above have had a ban on Assault Weapons, which has not been overturned by the Supreme Court. So, I am restating that the second amendment does not cover Assault Weapons,.

Hi Red,--I feel a bit obliged to let you know that a while back you did give me new insight into gun ownership in which I came to understand your position and for a while was convinced it might be OK due to this issue of increased crime etc.. But, I can't continue to believe that Assault weapons are all OK. This is so you don't think I'm a flip-flopper. Our society, 50-60- yrs ago and before was not a gun culture, but people had guns and handed them responsibly. It just isn't the case now. Mental Health facilities are a bit of a joke Even if they were tip top, people don't seem to have control of their emotions as well as they used to.

So, in conclusion, it is the Congress and perhaps state legislature that must begin the ban. I really do feel these men and women are murderers now. Definitely-dirty hands. They can change the law to ban Assault Weapons.

Annette

 

[tyty333]

Hi @tyty333 - anyone wanting to sell a weapon can already do a private transfer through an FFL dealer with no new agency to establish. Both show up at the dealer's location, the buyer fills out the 4473 form with an id, and a background check is done on the buyer. That is what the FFL dealer in the girl's story was doing at the gun show, though if he knew she was buying for the boys he should never have agreed to let her do it. That is another problem and is unscrupulous, and also against the law for which he should have his FFL taken and be prosecuted. She was breaking the law by buying for another person who was not legally allowed to purchase a firearm. These straw buyers and unscrupulous dealers are not prosecuted which makes the laws ineffective. And which counts for many hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of guns in the hands of people who should not have them.

From what I posted this is clearly not what happened. She claimed she filled out no paperwork hence no background check was completed.

Ignoring the fact that she was buying these guns for someone that was not her, was it a legal transaction? If it was a legal transaction without a
background check then I think this process needs to be fixed along with shoring up a process for no guns for people with a problem history or a history
of mental issues.

 

[redwood66]

Hi,

I just checked what laws are available in Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles. Chicago had a handgun ban which was overturned by the Supreme Court. But now the three cities above have had a ban on Assault Weapons, which has not been overturned by the Supreme Court. So, I am restating that the second amendment does not cover Assault Weapons,.

Hi Red,--I feel a bit obliged to let you know that a while back you did give me new insight into gun ownership in which I came to understand your position and for a while was convinced it might be OK due to this issue of increased crime etc.. But, I can't continue to believe that Assault weapons are all OK. This is so you don't think I'm a flip-flopper. Our society, 50-60- yrs ago and before was not a gun culture, but people had guns and handed them responsibly. It just isn't the case now. Mental Health facilities are a bit of a joke Even if they were tip top, people don't seem to have control of their emotions as well as they used to.

So, in conclusion, it is the Congress and perhaps state legislature that must begin the ban. I really do feel these men and women are murderers now. Definitely-dirty hands. They can change the law to ban Assault Weapons.

Annette

@smitcompton I always appreciate your reasoned comments and the ability to discuss these more difficult subjects. As far as firearms that are called Assault Weapons, personally I don't like them. We have an AR and it is a very expensive one but it rarely gets used. DH is a former Marine and is familiar with their operation but I do not like them, preferring more simple mechanically operating weapons. If the people decide that a ban on the AR is what they want then it will happen but the stats from the FBI don't bear out that it will do much of anything with regard to violent acts committed with guns as most are done with handguns - very few are with rifles of any kind. These school shootings are horrific and make me so sad about the state of society in general. The thread about millennials and boomers discussed this a bit. To your last paragraph some states already have very strict gun control with registration and bans through their legislatures, and it's their right to do it. More should be done to enforce the laws that currently exist and require that all states/agencies report criminal convictions to the NICS system. Right now it is not happening and that is unfathomable to me.

 

[redwood66]

From what I posted this is clearly not what happened. She claimed she filled out no paperwork hence no background check was completed.

Ignoring the fact that she was buying these guns for someone that was not her, was it a legal transaction? If it was a legal transaction without a
background check then I think this process needs to be fixed along with shoring up a process for no guns for people with a problem history or a history
of mental issues.

I was talking about the licensed dealer that wanted her to fill out the paperwork. Currently private transfers aren't required to do the background check by the federal government but they may be by certain states. I don't know for sure. I am in agreement with private transfers being done through FFL only. I won't sell one without it.