Some Gun Rules We Can All Agree On

[Lodge2004]

Grasping for straws.

Looks like "reasonable restrictions" is going to be the phrase of the day for some time to come. This theme is woven throughout the article; creative new solutions, reasoned discussion, middle ground, constitutionally sound middle ground, vast middle ground, good-faith interest, bipartisan, common-sense proposals, etc...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1214782 ... mmentaries

By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG and THOMAS M. MENINO
June 30, 2008

Finally. After decades of ideological debates over the meaning of every word and comma contained in the U.S. Constitution's one-sentence Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that should largely settle the matter.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms, while also affirming the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions aimed at preserving public safety and deterring criminals from acquiring and using firearms. Now it's time for all elected officials to start working together to enact creative new solutions to violent crime.

For years, shouting matches over the Second Amendment drowned out reasoned discussion of any middle ground. One side argued for a handgun ban, the other for repeal of an assault-weapons ban. It made for good political theater, but it prevented progress on common-sense proposals that would achieve what both sides say they want: keeping criminals from illegally purchasing and possessing guns.

Two years ago, a group of 15 mayors came together to begin reclaiming this middle ground and working to toughen enforcement of federal laws. Today, our coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns has more than 300 members from every region of the country and from both major political parties.

Mayors – often the ones in charge of police departments – recognize that the constitutionally sound middle ground is large enough for all those who have a good-faith interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and protecting public safety.

Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with a firearm. That's the equivalent of a Virginia Tech massacre. And like the Virginia Tech killer, most murderers purchase or possess their guns in violation of federal law. Our bipartisan coalition of mayors has identified four key reforms that would fix the federal government's primary tool for preventing illegal gun sales: the background check system.

- Close the gun-show loophole. Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to run criminal background checks on all buyers, but a loophole in the law enables criminals to avoid these checks if they buy from "occasional sellers" who don't have federal licenses. These unlicensed sellers, who often operate at gun shows, shoot a hole through the background-check system that allows criminals to purchase guns. That is why the major presidential candidates have called for this gun show loophole to be closed.

- End gun-dealer fire sales. If the federal government shuts down gun dealers for selling illegally, it nevertheless allows those dealers to sell off their inventory without conducting the background checks that it normally requires them to do. Imagine if a liquor store was shut down for selling to minors. Would anyone support a policy that would allow the owner to sell off all the remaining liquor without checking IDs? Of course not.

- Require gun dealers to do background checks on employees. Under the current law, if a person can't buy guns – because he or she has a criminal or mental-illness record – that person cannot sell guns, either. But the law fails to require dealers to conduct background checks on their employees, even though they already have background-check machines in their stores.

- Close the "terror gap." If the federal government can prevent a potentially dangerous person from getting on a plane, shouldn't it also be able to prevent that person from buying guns? Last year, the Bush administration endorsed a bill that will close the terror gap. Congress should make it law this year.

Recently, our coalition of mayors commissioned a bipartisan public opinion poll to ask Americans what they thought of these four ideas. In each case, more than 80% of Americans – including more than 80% of gun owners – stated their support. This is the vast middle ground shared by mayors across the country, and now that the Supreme Court has swept aside the old ideological debate, the only question remaining is whether Congress has the courage to join us.

Mr. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City. Mr. Menino is the mayor of Boston. They are the founding co-chairs of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org.

[Pinkycatcher]

[WarHawk-AVG]

Is this guy for real?!?!?!

Almost all he said was a bold face lie, at the very least warped to fit his agenda

Geez

[Pinkycatcher]

[HerbM]

Grasping for straws.

Looks like "reasonable restrictions" is going to be the phrase of the day for some time to come.
...

Right you are. "Reasonable restrictions" is merely code for anything that sounds reasonable in a sound bit or on a bumper sticker.

In law, reasonable restrictions on a natural, fundamental right must be provably able to address a compelling state interest in the least intrusive way available, and in general one cannot lose rights due to the bad behavior of another person.

No gun control laws -- not one -- can currently pass this test if the courts are required to use only facts and logic.

The 2nd Amendment protects an individual, natural right, separate from any military service, to any bearable arm;
it offers the same type of protection as the 1st and 4th Amendments.

It's your right; insist on it being respected and protected.

Rights don't terminate when you leave your private property and enter the public square.

Take the high road and the high ground. Pass it on.

Majority Opinion DC v Heller, page 8:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Individual (natural) right, just like the 1st and 4th Amendments provide, not based on military service, protecting the right to all bearable arms!

[Liko81]

- Close the gun-show loophole. Currently, licensed gun dealers are required to run criminal background checks on all buyers, but a loophole in the law enables criminals to avoid these checks if they buy from "occasional sellers" who don't have federal licenses. These unlicensed sellers, who often operate at gun shows, shoot a hole through the background-check system that allows criminals to purchase guns. That is why the major presidential candidates have called for this gun show loophole to be closed.

Unbelievable; require NICS checks, which allows gun dealers to up their transfer fees with impunity, and do away with a major facet of gun shows which is to buy, SELL, and TRADE, all to fix a problem that doesn't exist. The overwhelming majority of guns used in crimes were either bought from an FFL by a then-law-abiding person that then committed a crime, or were obtained illegally in the first place, via straw purchases, illegal interstate transfers, theft, fencing, and other black market avenues. CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW.

- Close the "terror gap." If the federal government can prevent a potentially dangerous person from getting on a plane, shouldn't it also be able to prevent that person from buying guns? Last year, the Bush administration endorsed a bill that will close the terror gap. Congress should make it law this year.

So if I somehow got myself on the no-fly list (possibly by complaining about being detained for having a 4-ounce bottle instead of 3) I am now a prohibited person? Um, no thanks.

[Skiprr]

I think this is just about the time that Rod Serling appears on camera and says, "A seemingly ordinary mayor of a seemingly ordinary American city. But all is not as it seems, because to this mayor, 'reality' is something that would be very alien to any other man. Up ahead is a signpost, a signpost that reads, 'The Twilight Zone.'"

[boomerang]

I like the idea of background checks. We should have a Federal law that requires the same instant check to bepassed before anyone can get a voter registration card, hold a government job including elected office, or receive welfare or other government aid.

Reasonable restrictions.

[HerbM]

I think this is just about the time that Rod Serling appears on camera and says, "A seemingly ordinary mayor of a seemingly ordinary American city. But all is not as it seems, because to this mayor, 'reality' is something that would be very alien to any other man. Up ahead is a signpost, a signpost that reads, 'The Twilight Zone.'"

[HerbM]

I like the idea of background checks. We should have a Federal law that requires the same instant check to bepassed before anyone can get a voter registration card, hold a government job including elected office, or receive welfare or other government aid.

Reasonable restrictions.

And/Or when someone loses their RKBA (after due process) just mark their driver's license (and other ID) with the status:

PRIOR FELON, MENTALLY INCOMPETENT, etc.

Only affects those who exhibit criminal/anti-social behavior -- leave the law-abiding alone.

I think the ACLU could really enjoy these rules.

[Bart]

I like the idea of background checks. We should have a Federal law that requires the same instant check to bepassed before anyone can get a voter registration card, hold a government job including elected office, or receive welfare or other government aid.

Reasonable restrictions.

And/Or when someone loses their RKBA (after due process) just mark their driver's license (and other ID) with the status:

PRIOR FELON, MENTALLY INCOMPETENT, etc.

Only affects those who exhibit criminal/anti-social behavior -- leave the law-abiding alone.

I think the ACLU could really enjoy these rules.