Why can't we propose our own gun control laws?

[JALLEN]

It is very hard, almost impossible, to pass a gun control law without running into the problem of "infringing."

The only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that has made sense to me is that "keep and bear" limits the Constitutional protection to arms that can be borne, carried, individually. This excludes bombs, explosives, battleships, shoulder fired missiles, stealth bombers, etc.

As it stands now, someone convicted of a felony of any kind may not own or possess a firearm, whether it is a Mafia hit man or Martha Stewart.

The present interpretation seems to exclude a flat ban on possession by otherwise law abiding citizens, but so far the kind of restrictions some states have enacted, California for example, are apparently OK. That is the danger. All of those type regulations, magazine capacity, types of weapons, length of barrels, suppressors, restrictions on carry, whether open or concealed,"infringe." I don't think we ought to be a party to aiding and abetting infringement.

[Thomas]

There are already too many laws, enforce the ones already on the books and impose stiff sentences.

I think that most people think that if politicians don't pass some new law, they aren't doing their jobs. I long to see the day when we have a simplified law system, simplified tax system, etc.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction."
~ E. F. Schumacher (often falsely attributed to Albert Einstein)

[smtimelevi]

It is very hard, almost impossible, to pass a gun control law without running into the problem of "infringing."

The only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that has made sense to me is that "keep and bear" limits the Constitutional protection to arms that can be borne, carried, individually. This excludes bombs, explosives, battleships, shoulder fired missiles, stealth bombers, etc.

As it stands now, someone convicted of a felony of any kind may not own or possess a firearm, whether it is a Mafia hit man or Martha Stewart.

The present interpretation seems to exclude a flat ban on possession by otherwise law abiding citizens, but so far the kind of restrictions some states have enacted, California for example, are apparently OK. That is the danger. All of those type regulations, magazine capacity, types of weapons, length of barrels, suppressors, restrictions on carry, whether open or concealed,"infringe." I don't think we ought to be a party to aiding and abetting infringement.

Thank You, and further more why on earth does anybody think that any sort of new laws will stop anything? Did everyone forget murder is already illegal, doesnt stop it. Why don't we all propose more murder regulations? Or how about folks mind their own damn business and realize that petty ideas of gun control or tightening up the mental health system will not fix the crazies. Instead of trying to fix everyone else we should be fixing ourselves.

[G.A. Heath]

That's too complicated and too rational. Let the lefties sort out the details. We just need to propose something outrageous and ridiculous but make it sound nice.

We should call the law "Mass Shooting Prevention Act" or "Gun Violence Reduction Act."

I just don't understand why we can't counteroffer our version of the law? Why do we have to be on defense?

Thus the reason we are in the situation we are in. We constantly to pass feel good measures with nice sounding names that do nothing to solve the problem while stripping the law abiding citizens of their rights and/or property. If it was up to me I would push for a bill to strike the gun free schools zones act, provide funds to the states to pay for armed security guards in the schools, followed with national reciprocity for concealed carry, and finally provide some funds to get mental help for those who need it (like the lunatic who shot up the school). We can call this bill the "Sane And Safe Schools Year 2013" or SASSY 2013.

[JALLEN]

Thank You, and further more why on earth does anybody think that any sort of new laws will stop anything? Did everyone forget murder is already illegal, doesnt stop it. Why don't we all propose more murder regulations? Or how about folks mind their own darn business and realize that petty ideas of gun control or tightening up the mental health system will not fix the crazies. Instead of trying to fix everyone else we should be fixing ourselves.

Well, that's just it. Every time there is a problem with somebody and a gun, it is already in violation of law. Some people do things whether they are illegal or not. I don't think Julio and Jesse in the barrio give a flip what the Legislature passes. I had a pistol stolen from my safe some years ago that was found under the seat of a car in a high school parking lot at 3 AM, and the perp bought it from some dude for $200. Not only did he save a fortune but he didn't have to fill out the forms and wait ten days. Those guys don't care about the laws. If they get caught, they get a full ride scholarship to grad school. If I get caught with an illegal weapon, I lose a bunch of licenses, and the ability to have a gun for the rest of my life.

[The Annoyed Man]

It is very hard, almost impossible, to pass a gun control law without running into the problem of "infringing."

The only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that has made sense to me is that "keep and bear" limits the Constitutional protection to arms that can be borne, carried, individually. This excludes bombs, explosives, battleships, shoulder fired missiles, stealth bombers, etc.

As it stands now, someone convicted of a felony of any kind may not own or possess a firearm, whether it is a Mafia hit man or Martha Stewart.

The present interpretation seems to exclude a flat ban on possession by otherwise law abiding citizens, but so far the kind of restrictions some states have enacted, California for example, are apparently OK. That is the danger. All of those type regulations, magazine capacity, types of weapons, length of barrels, suppressors, restrictions on carry, whether open or concealed,"infringe." I don't think we ought to be a party to aiding and abetting infringement.

You have to remember that the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment lived in a world where it was perfectly acceptable for private citizens to own a field howitzer......if they had enough money to buy one. There was no law against it. In the context of 18th century english, the term "well-regulated" speaks to a logistical regulation (which we would call "standardization" today) between the militia and the state/national military, so that the militia would have access to and be armed with weapons in the same caliber and type as the military used. This would have necessarily included everything from a cutlass to a cannon to a 4-masted frigate with 50 cannon. Private citizens often bought gunpowder by the barrel full, and private citizens and local militia members stored powder in bulk in village magazines at the edge of town. In that context, personal budgetary constraints would be the only limiting factor in a modern American's ability to purchase anything from a switchblade to a 30mm Bushmaster cannon to an A10 Warthog with a full payload, to 500 lb of C4. The "shot that was heard around the world" was fired in defense of just such a village magazine when the redcoats marched on Lexington/Concord to confiscate the privately owned and held powder and weapons stores owned by the local militia members.

THAT is the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. Now realistically, there aren't more than a small handful of individuals on the planet who could afford to develop and build their own nuclear bombs, and they would be likely viewed as an existential threat to most of the world's nations and dealt with accordingly. And even if Bill Gates could afford to build one or two nukes, he couldn't afford to build 1000 of them, or store them and keep them in deployable condition. Ditto the ability to deliver nukes. Realistically, it is outside the capability of any one individual to build a nuclear arsenal, or an aircraft carrier, etc., etc., so whether or not the 2nd Amendment protects those things as a right also is merely an example of Reductio ad absurdum.

The language used in the writing of the Constitution was very deliberately scaled to the reading level of an average literate person. It has no hidden meanings. It says what it says, without reservation or purpose of evasion or trickery. "Shall not be infringed" means nothing more and nothing less than "shall not be infringed." "Keep and bear" means nothing more and nothing less than "own and carry." It goes without saying that I cannot carry a field howitzer, but there is no reason under the 2nd Amendment to infringe my right two spend my money on one and own it if I want to.

https://www.google.com/search?q=definit ... e&ie=UTF-8

infringed past participle, past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
Verb
1. Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
2. Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

This is very plain to me. Yes, our Congress, which has no regard for the Constitution's original intent has passed bills which violate this fundamental principle. Presidents who have had no regard for the Constitution's original intent have signed these bills which violate this fundamental principle into law. And worse yet, SCOTUS has, on occasion upheld as "constitutional" these laws when challenged, in addition to inventing rights from the thin air of penumbras and emanations. All of this is legal. NONE OF IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

In any case, the 2nd Amendment does not limit itself to man portable weapons. If that were so, the founders who were well aware of weapons which were NOT man-portable, and who were also aware that some of these non-man-portable weapons were in private hands, would have written it into the Constitution if it were their intent to limit the 2nd to man-portable weapons.

The question isn't really "what limits does the Constitution set on my right to keep and bear arms?" The real question is "how long are we going to let government get away with violating it?"

[Abraham]

The OP's idea sounds like a first cousin to "Zero Tolerance"...

[Stupid]

It is very hard, almost impossible, to pass a gun control law without running into the problem of "infringing."

The only interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that has made sense to me is that "keep and bear" limits the Constitutional protection to arms that can be borne, carried, individually. This excludes bombs, explosives, battleships, shoulder fired missiles, stealth bombers, etc.

As it stands now, someone convicted of a felony of any kind may not own or possess a firearm, whether it is a Mafia hit man or Martha Stewart.

The present interpretation seems to exclude a flat ban on possession by otherwise law abiding citizens, but so far the kind of restrictions some states have enacted, California for example, are apparently OK. That is the danger. All of those type regulations, magazine capacity, types of weapons, length of barrels, suppressors, restrictions on carry, whether open or concealed,"infringe." I don't think we ought to be a party to aiding and abetting infringement.

If we don't come up with our own bull laws, we would always be on defense. We will lose in the end.

[apostate]

If we don't come up with our own bull laws, we would always be on defense. We will lose in the end.

I propose a law to repeal TPC 46.035 and make CHL exempt from 46.03 for starters.

[TexasCajun]

The idea that laws prevent crime is absurd. So creating new laws (whether they be stiff, standard penalties with 0 tolerance or an all-out total firearms ban) will do nothing to curb crime. I'd even go so far as to suggest that statistically the crime rate should increase with each new law enacted, because new laws making an activity illegal would result in new arrests/prosecutions that would not have prior to the new law. Effectively enforce the laws that are currently on the books first. If there's still a deficiency, then we can look at plugging the actual holes. However, there would still be no mechanism to prevent a crime before it takes place. Nor should there be. Legislation primarily works in hind-sight. And unless you're willing to accept prosecution based solely on intent rather than actual act, that fact is not likely to change even in the distant future.

I also come down against regulating anything having to do with firearm capacity. If you primarily use a single-stack .45, then your standard would be 7-8 rounds per magazine. But my EDC is a Glock 17, which double-stacks a much smaller 9mm into a 17 round magazine. Both magazines should be considered standard as they don't extend much beyond the frame handle. But the dimensions and the mechanism of the magazines allow for a pretty big difference in the number of rounds that can be physically carried in that 'standard' magazine. Of course, using the anti's definition of 'high capacity'', my 9mm magazine would be outlawed even though it fits into the frame in exactly the same proportions and without alteration as does the .45.

[anygunanywhere]

The only laws that need to be passed are laws repealing all of the restrictions preventing law abiding citizens from fully exercising our second amendment freedoms. Any further restrictions are not to be tolerated.

Anygunanywhere

[JALLEN]

My point is why can't we propose laws that actually are going to make a difference? Instead of letting those who don't care about us creating laws, maybe we should do something meaningful?

It sounds like you have a voting problem. Laws are made by representatives duly elected, mostly.

You can do all the proposing you want. To be a law, it must be voted on by the Legislature or Congress, generally.

Political Science 101, lesson 1: "If you have the votes, they do things your way. If you don't have the votes, you do things their way." -- Professor Lyndon B. Johnson

[Happily Ever After]

Political Science 101, lesson 1: "If you have the votes, they do things your way. If you don't have the votes, you do things their way." -- Professor Lyndon B. Johnson

Mao Tse Tung trumps Lyndon Baines Johnson
枪杆子里面出政权

[Stupid]

My point is why can't we propose laws that actually are going to make a difference? Instead of letting those who don't care about us creating laws, maybe we should do something meaningful?

It sounds like you have a voting problem. Laws are made by representatives duly elected, mostly.

You can do all the proposing you want. To be a law, it must be voted on by the Legislature or Congress, generally.

Political Science 101, lesson 1: "If you have the votes, they do things your way. If you don't have the votes, you do things their way." -- Professor Lyndon B. Johnson

I know how the legislation works. We could introduce our version of bill to put them on defense. For example, explain to me why we shouldn't put mandatory life sentence for someone who commits a felony with a firearm?

[Happily Ever After]

I know how the legislation works. We could introduce our version of bill to put them on defense. For example, explain to me why we shouldn't put mandatory life sentence for someone who commits a felony with a firearm?

Sure. Right after you explain to me why we shouldn't put mandatory life sentence for someone who commits a felony with an automobile.