What is reasonable?

[dkiefner]

Niteshift kindly rephrased my question to spider, but I would like to put it forth for general discussion:

"What measures not already being done do you think we need to adopt?"

I have heard much ado in the gun-control camps, using words like "reasonable", "sensible", "common-sense", etc. to describe needed legislation. Please let us know what you believe this means, and refrain from the usual slogans.

For those in the pro-gun camp, then please refrain from the usual RKBA slogans, and say what is on your mind.

This can be a fruitful discussion if everyone keeps a civil tongue about them. BTW, I am not interested in propoganda from either side - just what folks here think.

------------------
Dave Kiefner
[i]Die Wahrheit ist eine Perle. Werfen sie nicht vor die S

[G30man]

I kinda answered this in the thread I started, but here goes.

There are no reasonable gun laws, each law is sponsored by folks who only intend to ban firearms. So anything they sponsor is not reasonable. IMHO, we have more than enough laws on the books already, we don't need anymore.
"Common sense" is used as an intimidation term, it implies that if you don't agree, then you don't possess common sense.

The Brady law has accomplished very little. The proponents knew this and will use it as an example of why we need stricter gun laws, since the "common sense" measure of a background check did not work.
They are in it for the long haul and know that their goal of eracication of firearms from American society will take decades. They are ready for the long fight to take them, are we ready for the long fight to defend them????

The views expressed are my own, I am not a member of any pro or anti firearms organization.

Mikey

[This message has been edited by G30man (edited 08-31-2000).]

[Niteshift]

I will say that some are reasonable.

Certainly, we don't want felons to have guns, so an instant background check is reasonable to me.

I know that there are ways around it, but it doesn't prevent a law-abiding citizen from the purchase, so it doesn't weaken your rights and it DOES prevent that particular sale.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Jessica]

I think anti-gunners are grasping at anything that will end the turmoil of violence. I agree that the violence on our streets is out of control, but disarming the law-abiding citizen is not the answer.

The youth of today seem to lack compassion and caring for others. Their pride stems from their prestige and accomplishments inside the realms of a gang. There have always been gangs and they have always practiced violence, but today their capabilities are at a greater level and population. I think the youth of today are fed up and they are fighting in the only ways they

[G30man]

I will agree that instant checks sound good, but here is the problem I see. There is no database to prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing a weapon. We had a major wacko purchase a handgun after her instant check and go shoot 3 people at different locations, killing 2. http://www.officer.com/ubb/frown.gif http://www.officer.com/ubb/frown.gif http://www.officer.com/ubb/frown.gif
Maybe a waiting period would have helped prevent her crimes, but who knows.

Mikey

[Jessica]

They have data bases for ex-criminals, it seems like a data base for the criminally ill wouldn't be so hard.

Perhaps it would have kept Lizzie Borden from buying an ax ! http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif Sorry...had to throw that in there.

[Nancy]

The problem with instant check is that it is unconstitutional, it is a back door gunowner registraton. Register criminals , Not law abiding citizens!

See what Gunowners Of America has to say about it. I agree 100% with them!
http://www.gunowners.com
========
Look at what LSAS (Pro 2A Lawyers think of it:
-----------------Begin LSAS Article----------------
"Instant Check": Why Doesn't the NRA Check The Constitution?
Article in the LIBERTY POLE By Daniel Schultz of Lawyers Second Amendment
Society

The NRA has publicly offered its support of the so-called federal "instant
check" legislation that would purportedly create a computerized system to
check to see whether the purchaser of a firearm had a criminal or other
record that prohibited the purchaser from obtaining a firearm. The NRA
apparently believes that such a system would not be used by the government
to keep track of which citizens own firearms, how many firearms, and of what
type, accepting the assurances of the proponents of such a system. Such
trust flies in the face of common sense and the history of governmental
abuse of power in this country and elsewhere. But whether one trusts the
federal government to obey the law is not really the point. An "Instant
Check" system is beyond the authority of the government. Article I, Section
8 of the US Constitution delineates the subjects of congressional
legislative power. Nowhere in Article I, Section 8 is the power granted to
the federal congress to police the sales of firearms. Indeed, the text of
the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, the writings of John Jay, James
Madison, and Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers make clear that the
federal government was to have no local police powers , and certainly no
power over the citizen's unalienable right to keep and bear arms.
One positive thing resulting from President Clinton's many travails is that
reporters are having to examine the text of the Constitution in order to
write intelligently about the constitutional issues he has raised, be it his
assertion of "executive privilege", the meaning of the term "high crimes
and misdemeanors" or the procedure for impeachment. Likewise, on the
subject of gun registration and confiscation, the proponents of "instant
check" should first read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which
clearly provides no police power over citizen's inalienable right to keep
and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment.
Months ago I wrote the NRA, asking it to provide me with evidence that the
US Congress has authority under the constitution to police firearms
purchases of law-abiding citizens. To date, I have not received a response.
I am a life member, but I part company with it when it becomes the advocate
for gun registration, which historically has always preceded gun
confiscation. From now on the money and time I would have given NRA will be
used to support Gunowners of America, which actively opposes "instant check"
legislation. I urge you to do the same.
-------End of LSAS Article----------

[Niteshift]

Nancy, background checks are not registration. You can do the check, then decide you don't want the gun.

Why are they unconstitutional? They do not prevent you from buying the gun unless you are a felon etc. I didn't see in my copy of the Constitution any mention of background checks, only infringing the rights.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[THE BRONZE]

I support the instant background checks, and wish they would start prosecuting those who are caught illegally possessing firearms. Before any background checks, instant or slow, are successful at preventing felons from getting firearms, however, the driver

[Monty Ealerman]

Niteshift:

The primary constitutional objection in the article cited by Nancy has to do with the first article of the Constitution, not with the second amendment to it.

The objection is that the specification of what powers the Federal Government was to have do not include any authority to regulate local transactions, including gun sales.

The Constitution also says that any rights not expressly granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belong to the states, and to the people.

That means that the only lawmaking that Congress is allowed to do is in the areas reserved to it by the Constitution, and all other rights, whether they are rights to make laws or some other rights, belong to the states and to the people.

The Bill of Rights extends the restrictions on government further, by specifying rights they may not violate even in the areas in which the Constitution does permit them to make laws.

Regarding the matter of background checks:

Yes, you can do the check, and then decide you don't want the gun, and the background check authority presumably has no way to tell whether the sale occurred; however, it has a permanent record that the check occurred, and it's not likely that a sales clerk would run the background check before finding out whether he had a serious purchaser.

In order to do the background check, you have to identify the person being checked. Once that is done, and the background check request is submitted, a central authority has a record that tells that a particular person is interested in buying a gun.

The BATF has records of how many guns the dealership bought, because dealers have to register their purchases with the BATF.

The reason Congress is allowed to regulate gun dealers in this way is that they typically engage in interstate commerce, which the Constitution expressly permits the Federal Government to regulate.

In general, gun stores sell about as many guns as they buy.

Knowing how many guns the store buys, and how many background checks it requests, allows calculation of roughly what percentage of background checks the store requests result in gun purchases.

That figure can be attached to the background check record, so that the record says not only that a certain individual was interested in buying a gun, but also how likely it is that he bought it.

In like manner, probabilities can be established for what kind of gun it was, etc..

So the background check turns out to be a de facto partial registration taking the relatively benign appearance of a mere non-criminality check. I think it's fair to call that "back door registration".

Credit reporting agencies include in the credit record the number of times a credit check was requested. Some lending agencies view a high number of inquiries as grounds for suspicion.

Do you think a high number of gun purchase background checks would not raise any eyebrows?

I'm glad you keep a copy of the Constitution handy.

Regards,

Monty

[This message has been edited by Monty Ealerman (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Niteshift]

Actually I DO keep a copy handy, along with a copy of my State Constitution.

Fortunately, my state was smart enough to specify in their version that you have the right to keep firearms for self-defense.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Nancy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Niteshift:
[B]Nancy, background checks are not registration. You can do the check, then decide you don't want the gun."
-----

They are back door registration. Go read what GOA has to say about it.

The information you give in a BGC is being kept by the ATF.... whether you keep the gun or not..
---------
"Why are they unconstitutional? They do not prevent you from buying the gun unless you are a felon etc."


Did you read what the Pro 2A Lawyers said about it?

Instant checks, are unconstitutional (not legally possible under the constitution as written or amended) because of the Second Amendment. It
allows no means of preventing the general public (militia) from owning
(keep and bear) firearms (rifles, shotguns, pitsols, etc.). NICS (Insta
check) is both a means of preventing the public from purchasing, if it is
"unavailable" you can't buy, and a back door (hidden) means for licensing.
All it says is "yes, no, checking." We have only their (The known to lie,
FBI) word, as to _why_ the rejection took place. We also have only their
unsupported word that "mistakes" are corrected. There are no penalties, for
"false" information or denials.


There have been several cases where indivuals are kept from buying a firearm because of "mix ups"..... similar names to felons, there have been some refused for minor traffic incidents.

==========

Gun sales interrupted
Repetitive background check
disruptions blamed

By Jon E. Dougherty
WorldNetDaily.com

The firearms industry has lost over eight days worth of gun sales since December 1998 because the FBI system used to conduct instant background checks has been repeatedly been down.

A report released by the National Association of Federally Licensed Firearms Dealers said the NICS system -- an acronym used to denote the FBI's instant background check database in West Virginia -- has been "shut down" or "out of service" some 84 times in six months.

The outages have amounted to "unacceptable losses of revenue from legitimate businesses".

What other industry would tolerate such dramatic and constant damage to its business? The most amazing aspect is the absolute silence from the mainstream media, "where a mere five-hour outage at amazon.com makes national headlines."

The instant checks, which are required by the so-called "Brady II" gun control law, have decreased overall gun sales some 4.45 percent over the period. That, has amounted to an overall loss in profits for legal gun dealers.

At least two full weekend-days, when many gun shows are conducted, have been lost in July alone, bringing the overall total loss to ten days. But, "that does not include outages at the state level, which would account for even more lost time."

NICS system outages do not just hamper gun sales at established firearms businesses. The outages, "also affect sales at gun shows."

Lawmakers, in anticipation of possible intentional outages of the NICS system perpetrated by the FBI, wrote into the Brady legislation that dealers could sell firearms without subjecting buyers to an instant check if the system were down.

However, most dealers are not challenging the loophole because they're afraid the government could use bogus charges to revoke their gun licenses altogether.

The law sure seems to protect you, that language was deliberately placed there during drafting for this very reason.

"The fact that (the law) has a penalty for avoiding NICS -- but only if it's running -- might not stop bureaucratic bullying or worse from officials who openly violate other gun laws, such as the ban on recording innocent gun buyers' names.

A number of dealers are "rumbling" about a possible class action lawsuit against the FBI for repetitive outages of the system.

Critics of the NICS system believe the Justice Department may be trying to alter the system's stated purpose of stopping criminals from buying guns to stopping all gun sales.

[Nancy]

Monty, I like what you said , Thank you http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Nancy]

Background checks can (and do) lead to gun registration

* Justice Department report (1989) -- "Any system that requires a criminal history record check prior to purchase of a firearm creates the potential for the automated tracking of individuals who seek to purchase firearms." (43)
* Justice Department initiates registration (1994). The Justice Department gave a grant to the city of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University to create a sophisticated national gun registry using data compiled from states' background check programs. (44)
* More gun owner registration (1996) -- A new computer software distributed by the Justice Department allows police officials to easily (and unlawfully) register the names and addresses of gun buyers. This software -- known as FIST -- also keeps information such as the type of gun purchased, the make, model and caliber, the date of purchase, etc. (45) The instant background check will be a key component in registering this information in the computer software. (46)
* California -- State officials have used the state background check -- required during the waiting period -- to compile an illegal registry of handgun owners. These lists have been compiled without any statutory authority to do so. (47)
* Nationwide. Highly acclaimed civil rights attorney, researcher and author, David Kopel, has noted several states where either registration lists have been illegally compiled from background checks or where such registration lists have been abused by officials. (48)
* BATF -- During the late 1980's and early 1990's, there were reports that the BATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) was compiling an illegal gun owner list by going to dealers' stores and copying the 4473 forms which are kept there.(49) It would appear that the BATF violated federal law by copying these forms, which contain the name and addresses of gun buyers.




------------------
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound

[Niteshift]

I really don't have the time or inclination to argue this with you Nancy. I am a very big believer in the RKBA, but I am a realist. They BATF or FEMA or whomever could just put undercover clerks in every gun store too or hidden cameras. http://www.officer.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif

I don't see a problem with background checks. I support them. It doesn't mean I'm giving up, it means that I'm realistic. We have to be somewhat reasonable about it.

I appreciate your zeal, but I think it needs to be tempered a bit. This is not much different than some of the discussions going on in the drug law forum. Some people over there are content with simply legalizing marijuana, while others have the more unrealistic goal of legalizing all drugs. We're too far gone to make this a strict "no government intrustion" society. Agreeing to a few minor measures, like instant background checks, is a reasonable way to make us look less like zealots and more like reasonable people who want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and in the hands of law-abiding citizens.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[Nancy]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one then, nightshift, because a compromiser I am not.....

------------------
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a
woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound

[Niteshift]

I guess we will then. I don't see the huge intrusion that you do. I've never been stopped from buying a gun because of background checks, nor have any of my friends. Further, I know that the BATF has no idea if most people own a gun or not. So I guess I'm just not seeing the threat.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[THE BRONZE]

I

[Joe Horn]

I know I'm a "Junior" member in this forum, but I did 8 years in the US Army, one tour in the middle east 61-63, on tour in SEA in 63-64, two more in SEA from Dec 65 to April 68, went in the SO in June 68 and am now retired with 38 years experience in the Army and Coppers.

I do not practice voodoo like so many city governments and politicians do. Guns, cars, knives, ball bats, tire irons, ash trays, blunt objects, belts, chains, etc. ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MISUSE BY HUMAN BEINGS.

I have never feared the lawful possession of any small arms by honest citizens. It is their civil and human right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family and community. As cops, we are armed by their delegation of that power to us, the representatives of the Executive Branch.
I resent the patriarchal attitude of many cops who think that citizens don't need firearms. It's not up to us.

Reasonable law? Anything which punishes severely and swiftly any crime committed with ANY weapon, not just a firearm, now that's a law I'll support. Most regulatory laws are crap.

Instant Checks? Bogus and B.S...300,000 criminals attempted to buy weapons via brady and were identified. None were prosecuted, save 6.
What is the point, but to control and herd honest citizens around..There damned sure is little control of recidivist criminals.

We had an old saw in the Academy: "Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongfully confined."

Better the risk of living in a free state
than wrongfully denying one citizen the right to self defense with the most
effective means of such: Small arms.

I have busted Adam Henrys with machine guns and upon calling BATF, I would be invariably told: Ah, you only have 1,2,3,or 5, machine guns? We only do pallet loads, handle it locally.

I know how gun laws are enforced, and I've found that people in South central and East LA NEED guns more than folks in Beverly Hills or Pacific Palisades. Every cop knows that bad guys and rich people will always have guns, so will the cops and the military.
Where does that leave the honest citizen?

Armed, I hope. Owning a firarm is not a licensable right or privilege, it is a human and civil right. Letting the government that brings you the US POst Office, the bay of Pigs, the Somalian debacle, the Vietnam war, our Nuclear Security and the Chinese tech theft, is not trustworthy with oversight of any of portion of the Bill or Rights. Never.
That's OUR job as citizens.

Gun locks and storage laws? Two kids got pitchforked to death in Calif by a wacko who was empowered and enabled by the father's decision to comply with a bad law and lock up his guns, even from his 14 year old girl, a gun trained farm kid, who could only flee as her 7 and 6 year old sisters and brother were butchered by this piece of human garbage.

I have contacted innumerable citizens whho were packing iron illegally and when I stoped them for a traffic matter, they would tell me they were armed, thinking it the right thing to do. I would always advise them to NEVER burden a civil servant with more information than he can process in their favor, and them have them sign the warning or whatever and move on. They were smart, disobeying a law that places them at risk.

As for the second amendment, the "right of the People" does not mean the right of the state, brothers of the bacon, army or anything else. People means people. Me. You. Any citizen with good record and character.
They can spoin it all they want. People means us, not THEM.

We all know that cops are never where they're needed, which is where the old joke "no body ever got robbed in a donut shop" started, although I understand that that a cop was robbed in a donut shop, so now, no one is safe.
My point is, cops do not have a duty to respond to the individual citizen's 911 call, (Pr USSC)
so if we're busy and can't get there, what does mom do to resist a home invasion? OPh yeah, call 911 and lock yourself in the closet mam...........Stupid beyond belief.

Perhaps we could just enforce the existing laws (hah!) against existing scumbags and leave the honest citizens alone? I have noticed, during my career, but most politicians haven't that Criminals never obey the law. That's why we call them criminals, Al...duh.......
BATF says there are between 300 and 400 hundred million guns out there between some 70,000,000 souls. That works for me. I hope we never anger even a small percentage of them.

I have discussed bans and confiscation orders for years with my comrades and we long ago came to the conclusion that while a ban could happen, total confiscation woyuld never happen. Logistically impossible as things stand. But, if I or my fellows had ever received those orders, we'd have, would still and will throw our badges at them and go home.

I've sworn 4 oaths to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Nothing in the Constitution about waiting periods, instant checks. Nothing in the 2nd mentions the word reasonable. The human and civil right to resist crime or tyranny has nothing to do with reasonable in any form.


Joe Horn
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.
Ret.,
I am not a member of the NRA.
My time, my computer, my ideas.

[THE BRONZE]

I resent the patriarchal attitude of many cops who think that citizens don't need firearms.

It

[Don]

Joe,

I certainly know where you are coming from. I sat in a class at LASO and had a Chief Deputy tell the class that NO ONE OTHER THAN ON DUTY LE OFFICERS should be armed. That includes hunting. That includes off duty LEOs.

His beliefs as stated were that the NRA was one of the biggest, if not the biggest threat that America had ever encountered. He then wanted to know if anyone else had a different opinion.

As I was the only non LASO member there, I decided not to get into a confrontation with someone that appeared to me to be unreasonable at best, and an egomaniac at worst. I had no desire to create problems between departments. I have often thought that I was wrong to just sit silently through his tirade and challenge. Of course, none of his troops were going to challenge him. The ones that I spoke with after class were genuinely embarrassed by his tirade.

It is truly frightening to me that this attitude is not only felt, but taught to young officers in a major metropolitan area.

I might add that this guy also went off on a tangent about several other things, but by that time I was taking EVERYTHING he said with several grains of salt.


------------------
Stay safe out there,
6P1 (retired)

[Joe Horn]

posted 09-03-2000 04:04 PM
It

[THE BRONZE]

Unfortunately, as I travel north, some of the original 13 have laws resembling California,

[dkiefner]

So Jim - I know that VT is the 14th, but this is where ya oughtta be spending your vacation money! Stop in - we'll tip a couple. http://www.officer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[Niteshift]

We honor a lot of other states permits down here, or will sell you one of ours. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif

Besides, there's not one decent amusment park anywhere in VT. http://www.officer.com/ubb/tongue.gif

Ask Dave where HE went on vacation. http://www.officer.com/ubb/tongue.gif

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[THE BRONZE]

I dated a girl from VT years ago. Ever since, I have felt I should pay the state a visit. http://www.officer.com/ubb/smile.gif But I gotta go through those other states to get there.

As for Florida, I'll be headed back to West Palm if I can ever get my wife scuba certified.

------------------
Jim

[Niteshift]

The girl from VT has probably moved to FL by now, everyone else has.

Dave is the only guy that went from here TO VT.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna

[THE BRONZE]

Is that why I see soooooo many Florida tags in North Carolina?

------------------
Jim

[Niteshift]

Yeah, if they're southbound, they're moving here permanently (already have the tags because they wintered here for the past 5 years).

If they're northbound, that's your signal to call your drug dog.

------------------
Niteshift-
Perseverate In Pugna