Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bottom line..can weapons be banned or not?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by inSight-NEO, Nov 8, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. inSight-NEO

    inSight-NEO Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    842
    All of this political speak has my head spinning. Everyone seems to have a different take on this matter. I know we all speak of the Second Ammendment and the like, but what is the reality? All I hear is Federal law supercedes this and that...etc, etc. But, exactly HOW can our right to bear arms be affected..particularly under the current/ratified administration? Hopefully, it will only be as before, ie. the usual ban on high capacity mags, assault weapons and the like. Who knows, maybe "gun control" isnt a major agenda this time around. I just wish the "powers that be" would actually educate themselves regarding weapons, instead of just assuming that all weapons are evil. I will always stand behind my belief that people kill people..period. Guns are nothing more than mindless mechanical items. Leave a loaded gun on a table for decades..nothing will happen. That is until someone comes along, picks it up and fires it at someone with malicious intent or simply fires the gun out of sheer negligence. Either way, its human intervention that is the cause..not the "loaded" gun. I just dont understand why politicians or gun-ban advocates cant see this. Ridiculous.....
     
  2. cbrgator

    cbrgator Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    They can definitely restrict to a certain extent. As to how far they can go will end up being a decision of the Supreme Court. Over the next several years it will be case law that determines just exactly what can and can't be regulated.
     
  3. inSight-NEO

    inSight-NEO Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    842
    Its interesting to note, unless my facts are misguided, that in states which contain strict handgun laws, shotguns are seemingly un-regulated...to a degree. Yet a shotgun is, for the most part, far more devastating than ANY handgun. I guess it just goes to show how some of these people think...and that they know NOTHING about weapons in general. To regulate or infringe upon the right(s) of law-abiding citizens to bear arms is narrow minded, to say the least. Certainly these "people" cant expect that this will actually inhibit crime in any shape or form! Criminals will ALWAYS find a way to procure weapons...thus leaving the potential defenders defenseless.
     
  4. poor_richard

    poor_richard Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    They can do whatever they want, and get a court to go along with it.
     
  5. TT

    TT member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Sunnyvale, **********
    The Second Amendment is nothing more than ink on paper- I'll let you extrapolate how much that means when push comes to shove.
     
  6. inSight-NEO

    inSight-NEO Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2008
    Messages:
    842
    Some dark responses, indeed. You guys certainly arent painting a very pretty picture! I guess all of those who sell guns just might need to acquire lucrative military/law enforcement/government contracts or simply go out of business. Seeing as how nobody will find the need nor be capable of buying effective weapons in the direst of futures. Too bad I just blew over 3k on weapons. :mad: I guess I will just have to dust off the old compound bow.

    As far as the "ink on paper" comment...the pen is truly mightier than the sword or so they say. The Constitution is far more than you suggest. I can understand, though not necessarily agree, that state and Federal laws can be ratified to an extent. However, to essentially re-write or completely ignore the Constitution to fit one's needs would be an exercise in futility or if nothing else, a gross abuse of power.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2008
  7. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,748
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    If they who wrote The Constitution believed the pen was mightier than the sword, they wouldn't have written the Second Amendment. The ideas and freedoms within the rest of the Bill of Rights may well indeed be more important, but without the means of force to preserve them, they are doomed.

    I'm not a doomsayer. I don't think Obama will have the political capital to pass half of what he has promised, and guns are at the bottom of the list. I think a lot of gun dealers have had a really good month as a result of a lot of speculation. This doesn't mean we can afford to relax.

    As for whether they can be banned, what you are going to see is a lot of hair splitting and grey area exploitation for the next 20 years. Don't forget, there are a couple of big gun laws still poised to fall in the momentum of Heller regardless of what Obama does in the next year.
     
  8. MD_Willington

    MD_Willington Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,692
    Location:
    Canuck in SE WA State.
    Your focus is mainly on firearms right...

    As long as your blood is still pumping to your brain you will probably be able to think up a weapon...

    Look at 3rd world countries as an example... In Ethiopia guns in large cities are banned/forbidden to the proles. Go outside the big cities and there is a lot of used Russian, American, E-German etcetera hardware around...

    Bottom line, those without a firearm usually have a machete.

    I recommend a good machete or a tomahawk for backup...
     
  9. Docgmt

    Docgmt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2007
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Central Virginia
    A little something Mr. Jefferson wrote

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    I do not consent.
     
  10. scarysuperd

    scarysuperd Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    16
    If we don't give them up, then it's impossible.


    You can't police so many people.
     
  11. 4thPointOfContact

    4thPointOfContact Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    840
    Whole classes of weapons can be banned at the stroke of a pen. The Anti-'s want micro-stamping on bullets and cartridges so they can be traced. Shotguns don't leave rifling marks on buckshot, nor on slugs; perfect for the average thug or assassin. They are also firearms of over .50 caliber, which would make them destructive devices unless the BATFE says otherwise.

    All that has to be done is to declare that they have "no sporting purpose", same as was done with the StreetSweeper and voilà; a banned class of weapons. We all know that the Second Amendment is there to protect only "sporting weapons", right?
     
  12. moooose102

    moooose102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,024
    Location:
    West Michigan
    well, unfortunatly, we will find out in the next few years. obama and his chronies will do everything in their power to make it good for the criminals again. i dont have a problem with people not liking guns. it is just like motorcycles, or burbon whiskey, it is not for everyone. but just because you dont like it shouldnt mean that i cant enjoy it. that is supposed to be one of the greatest part of american life. FREEDOM OF CHOICE!
     
  13. gyp_c2

    gyp_c2 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Messages:
    673
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    huh?

    I beg your pardon!?
    What the hell are you advocating here!
    This the The High Road!
    You must have stumbled on the wrong site to advocate any gun ban...especially here...
    Care to rethink this before/ while removing yer' foot...?
    rauch06.gif
     
  14. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Oklahio
    They can't be banned with the current supreme court, and the conservative judges probably won't retire for at least 4 years.

    I think he was saying hopefully that's all he will ban
     
  15. onebigelf

    onebigelf Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2006
    Messages:
    419
    They cannot remove your right, only deprive you of it. That said, Obama stated during the campaign that he though we needed a civilian defense force, as well equipped as the army, to protect the United States. Hopefully you all didn't think that he meant to defend us from outside threats, and what did you think he meant when he told all the inner city brothers that he was going to make thing right for them and get them jobs?

    John
     
  16. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Oklahio
    I'm not sure if that's true or just an internet rumor, but if it's true, don't you find Obama equiping everyone with full-autos just a bit ironic?
     
  17. catfish101

    catfish101 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Messages:
    342
    Location:
    Kentucky
    There can be bans on everything but black powder guns and still be with-in the guidelines of the 2nd. I don't see it going that far. Things will change. The one item that will change, and will bet that it happens, is the gun show loop hole. That is one that I don't think we can stop but we can work to make sure this happens. If that is law then there should be a way to do the background check there and in a timely manor at the shows. Also to make sure it doesn't effect trades or sales between to friends. That may be impossible to pull off but that is a battle we will have to fight.

    Look at it this way, the 2nd says "arms". That means will can have at least two.;)

    We do have history on our side also. There has been no killing field because of CCW's and after the original ban expired.
     
  18. Smithiac

    Smithiac Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    189
    I'm Prety sure it was Thomas Jefferson that said "you won't need the 2nd Amendment until they try to take it from you"
     
  19. MGshaggy

    MGshaggy Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    515
    They weren't banned - they were reclassified by the Sec. of the Treasury as DD's just as the NFA allows, and current owners were given about 2 years to come into compliance. An amnesty on the tax was also provided to current owners who registered pursuant to the NFA. Have you ever bothered to read the federal statutes controlling DD's under which that reclassification was made in '94? Can you show me an analogous statute pertaining to semis, under which they could be reclassified by agency action alone?

    inSight-NEO - To answer your question, you need to consider what you mean by "ban". A confiscatory ban is possible in theory, but there are very serious legal impediments to actually carrying it out, so much so that in reality a confiscatory ban has about as much probability of actually occurring as hitting the Powerball jackpot twice in a single week.

    A ban on new manufacture of certain guns (.50's, AWs, etc.) and high-capacity mags, along with a grandfathering of those already legally possessed is possible and far easier to accomplish and thus somewhat more likely. Still, there is a fair chance nothing will happen. Obama and/or the demcocrats in Congress and the Senate may avoid the issue if they see it as too politically risky, and there are good reasons why this may be so. They certainly remember the 1994 elections and the political damage a couple million upset gun owners can do at the polls, but OTOH they also think they've been given a mandate to do as they wish by this election. There's two competing viewpoints and we'll eventually see which one wins out. As for other gun issues; a national ban on CCW, for example, is also possible as is closing the "gun show loophole" and private FTF sales.
     
  20. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,096
    Reality is ultimately what the people believe it is.
    If the people believe in the legal validity of a ban, then they can be banned.
    If they believe it violates an absolute, then they have no legal validity.

    Based on the opinions of those choosing to speak here, the legal validity of a ban exists because while nobody here would agree with one, most seem to believe it can be done. That makes it legaly valid if you assume this is a sample of the least likely to support such legislation.
    So such a ban can still be politicly defeated, but they can be banned.

    What is legal is what people think is legal.
    Not what they want, but what they believe has legitimate legal basis that does not conflict with previous legal precedent.

    That is why interpretations of previous decisions matter so much. Lawyers interprete things differently, and some build arguments in favor of one line of logic based on past court decisions, Constitutional rights etc
    Others create different interpretations and arguments using logic built from other perspectives based on precedent, and the different sides 'prove' which one has validity in court.
    The new logic proven in court, then has new groups of lawyers attempt to stretch it further with all different interpretations, building new logic to encompass more within the court's previous decision, until some sort of counter logic limits the scope of the decision.

    That is a serious simplification, but in the end that is what it boils down to.
    What people believe can be done, is what can be done.
    What the people that work in law believe is what the LEO come to understand as law and enforce.
    In the end it really is all just opinions.


    You have been blinded. Almost no country on Earth has banned firearms. They have just reclassified them. Some places only police can usualy qualify for certain classifications, in others some classes can be purchased with differing levels of scrutiny.
    That is how guns are banned in the world at large. Every society and government has a need for firearms held by at least some people, so they are not really "banned" just heavily restricted.
    So a gun "ban" will almost always be just a reclassification, not a "ban".
    Even though Australia banned most types of firearms, they are just technicaly reclassified, and everything including machineguns just requires a certain category license.
    So by your interpretation, they never really banned anything.
    So if you are looking for the "ban" you will never see it when it happens.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2008
  21. Wildfire

    Wildfire Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,211
    Location:
    S.W.Michigan
    Interesting at best.

    Hey there.
    I really don't like these kinds of threads. But will put in something to think about.
    #1 Lets say they do bann all guns. How are they going to get them away from you and me ?
    If there are 80 million gun owners and even a very small % say no to them it would take them many many years to round them all up.
    #2 who would do this for them ????? The police ? They are so out numbered. Our millitary ? They would have to change another law for that too. And they are still out numbered.
    An outside force ????? Now that may be somthing to think about...
    But again they would still be out numbered and it would take an invaisive army to get any where with it. That could get very messy .
    # 4 This would also turn brother against brother etc. We have been there and done that. I am not so sure we would really want to go there agaiin.
    We are not a third world country. We have the people and the tools in private hands that could make just about any thing needed to replace the guns that were taken from us. This means that all tools such as Lathes , Mills and raw steel would all have to be banned too. Along with your brains.

    I do not like what I see today but also refuse to live by fear.
     
  22. Grump

    Grump Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,340
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Heller was most decisively NOT based on any "sporting purpose", but correctly (in every honest logical sense) decided in light of what was reasonably connected to "militia" service.

    "Sporting purposes" applies only to imported guns under Congress's plenary power over stuff like imports. There is some small possibility that things like GCA '68's "points" system and King George Bush the First's "import ban" could eventually be struck down.

    Even the strained and oft-ridiculous dissent in Heller "reasoned" from the initial premise that the 2ndA protects an "individual" right.

    Logical and moral reality: some rights cannot be rightfully taken away without due process of law (break the law = lose liberty and/or life, whether you're okay with it or not). When a person has broken no law of offense (not some stupid mere "possession" or failure to register to exercise a right, which in 1stA jurisprudence is usually an impermissible infringement), rights cannot rightfully be taken away.

    Practical reality: Governments almost invariably attempt to aggregate power and monopolize power. They wrongfully do that all the time, and on the state/city level have done that with firearms rights for almost a century AFIK (some attempts in the post-civil war era were struck down).

    I do not trust Obama or his dishonest radical-thinking cronies to respect either the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, nor even the Heller decision. My prediction is that they will seize on the half-fabricated dissent's objections about "how far does that right extend?" to justify all sorts of new laws which restrict military-style firearms, or limit their ownership to "approved" people who are physically fit enough to serve in the military, or some other "logical" excuse to exclude the right from as many peasants as possible.

    Third or fourth year of the first term.

    I *hope* that he is enough of a clone of the last "savior", with initials J.C., who swept into the White House on a wave of dissatisfaction with a Republican president, to be easily swept out after one term. I also sincerely hope for the sake of our Republic that O.B. manages to do as "little" damage to the country as Jimmy Carter did. Perhaps less? Based on his expensive promises, more economic damage is almost certain.

    With the SCOTUS decisions on interstate commerce issues and federalism over the last 30 years, I see no hope of any national ban on CCW. It would require reversing too much existing caselaw unrelated to "nasty guns" that even the activist pukes signed off on.
     
  23. Grump

    Grump Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    1,340
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Another point--the most likely means to effect the SEVERE restriction of 2ndA rights to mere commoners is through adoption of some UN-backed "treaty" or "convention" flowing from the dictator countries' current obsession with the "illicit trade of small arms".

    CURRENT UN-backed nutjobs have been holding meetings all over the world, and issuing cooked-books reports, on this subject for what?? 10 years or more? They're really big on consulting with "NGOs", non-governmental organizations, as a way to bypass democratic input into their little studies and reports and recommendations. Guess what NGOs they consult on small arms matters in the US?

    The problem for the interests of liberty is that treaties, as signed by the POTUS and ratified by the Senate (two branches under that pesky old separation of powers doctrine) become not just the supreme law of the land, but right up there WITH the Constitution in the hierarchy. When two Constitutional provisions conflict, the last one passed in time controls, under the logic that the people adopting the later one were fully aware of the earlier one and any inconsistencies are intended to be over-ruled by the later enactment.

    Thus arises my distrust of internationalism and UN "initiatives". Look how much the "International Year of the Child" did to stop child labor, drafting even pre-teens into government AND insurgent armies, child prostitution, and genocide in the 30 years or so since the UN "declared" that little feel-good excuse for stupid intellectuals to attend international conferences.
     
  24. J23

    J23 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2007
    Messages:
    111
    Location:
    Wild, Wonderful West Virginia
    Simple answer... ask any gun owning Brit or Aussie. Theyll fill you in.
     
  25. meef

    meef Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,649
    Location:
    Oregon
    J23 nailed it.

    :mad:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page