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

Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bob_P, Jan 21, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bob_P

    Bob_P Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    36
    Location:
    Alabama
    I did a search and didn't see this academic article on gun control posted. We need to keep an eye on what is being proposed by the grabbers. Worth reading, IMHO.

    IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA: UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINDER PROBLEM

    CONCLUSION

    "... Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering..."
     
  2. Duke of Doubt

    Duke of Doubt member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Basically, the argument is that 300,000,000 guns is too many to take away, and Heller makes the "ideal" of prohibition unattainable.

    I tend to agree, but convincing the antis of this logic will prove difficult. Most of them don't know beans about guns anyway.
     
  3. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    An interesting read, tying economics with law and prohibition.

    The telling part is the conclusion

    CONCLUSION
    Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
    existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
    regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
    acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our
    gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who
    continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while
    disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.


    In other words, anything other than a national confiscation program is dooming to failure any controlling law to actually meet its putative goal.
     
  4. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,982
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    A confiscation program would be a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Jury trials to establish values for each and every firearm? I don't think the feds have the $$$ to do that.
     
  5. Duke of Doubt

    Duke of Doubt member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Art, I don't think they paid compensation to the victims of the 1934 Act who didn't register and pay taxes on their devices.
     
  6. everallm

    everallm Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    1,504
    NFA '34 was not confiscatory, it was licensing for a one off fee. Small difference but significant.

    The SC even before Heller talked directly to punitive taxation against constitutional rights being verboten before we get the "It'll be a $10,000 a year registration fee"......
     
  7. TimRB

    TimRB Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2004
    Messages:
    922
    Location:
    CA
    "In other words, anything other than a national confiscation program is dooming to failure any controlling law to actually meet its putative goal."

    And even a national confiscation program would fail, since the vast majority of firearms in America are not registered. Which is another reminder that, above all, we need to fight tooth and nail against registration schemes.

    Tim
     
  8. expvideo

    expvideo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    1,720
    Location:
    Everett, WA
    But when Mark Wahlberg says it we all jump on him as an anti.
     
  9. glockman19

    glockman19 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    3,699
    Can't they just print more money? Aren't we dooing that now?
     
  10. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Oklahio
    Hey, if we can fund overseas abortions with taxpayer money during an economic crisis....

    But I still don't think confiscation will happen.
     
  11. roscoe

    roscoe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    2,266
    Location:
    NV
    He clearly sees registration as a way around Heller, and a possible shortcut to confiscation should the USSC shift leftward.
     
  12. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    And How! They can crank up those printing presses or let you write them off on your taxes. But it won't happen in my life time.
     
  13. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,599
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    I can't imagine anything that Mark Wahlberg could say on any subject, other than comedic acting, which could be of the slightest interest to me. What's next, Tracy Lords' take on quantum entanglement? The ability to dress up and play make believe does not confer upon a person's ideas (apart from ideas about dressing up and playing make believe) ONE iota of credibility.
     
  14. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
    The way I read the article is that classic gun control strategies will not work in the US. Even confiscation is doomed to failure, since it is estimated that 75% (low estimate) to 95% (high estimate) of gun owners would fail to comply.

    On the low end range of estimates, this would leave 200 million firearms in private hands in the US...
     
  15. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
    By the way, and just in case BATFE is monitoring this message board... I do not own a single gun... nope not me. Never have, honest.;)
     
  16. Hollowdweller

    Hollowdweller Member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2005
    Messages:
    93
    I think taxpayer funded abortions are prohibited by the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976.
     
  17. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Well, until tomorrow anyway.....


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-lift-ban-funding-groups-providing-abortions-overseas/

    HOPE! CHANGE!

    You got it.....
     
  18. damien

    damien Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2007
    Messages:
    1,212
    Location:
    Northern IL, USA
    "Sorry, sold them all in the years between when they were purchased and when the ban on private transfers was passed. Can't remember who I sold them to, sorry officer."
    \
    :evil:
     
  19. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,755
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    The flaw in this thinking is to assume that the goal of gun control laws is to get guns out of the hands of anyone.

    They don't have to be successful in getting guns out of the hands of criminals or the homes of the law abiding, however it makes it easy to use the law as a bludgeon against anyone at any time.

    If here in America we have an experience similar to what happened in Canada (majority of law abiding gun owners ignored the registration laws) it wouldn't matter and it wouldn't be a failure, what WOULD happen is that if you're a gun owner you can't speak out or run for office for fear that the gun laws would be selectively enforced against you.

    Regarding the Ayn Rand quote in my sig below, here it is in its original context in Atlas Shrugged:

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”




    Again, the real purpose of gun control has little to do with guns, it has everything to do with expanding the power of government over the day to day lives of the people. Forcing us like rats in a maze of byzantine rules, regulations and laws.

    Another flaw in our thinking is that gun control proponents in government are afraid of our guns ... afraid we'll revolt. They aren't. They don't care if their gun control laws save a single one of their colleagues from assassination, they clearly don't care if their gun control laws save one innocent life. All they care about is the growth of bureaucracy.

    Bureaucracy is the only real power left in the world.
     
  20. Carl N. Brown

    Carl N. Brown Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2005
    Messages:
    7,812
    Location:
    Kingsport Tennessee
    Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem
    by Nicholas J. Johnson in Wake Forest Law Review, Vol 43, pp. 837-891 (PDF dated 13 Jan 2009)

    Johnson (Professor of Law, Fordham U Law School; J.D. Harvard, 1984) examines the impact of the Heller decision on traditional gun control strategies (mostly based on regulations on the legal gun supply or prohibitions certain features allowed on legal guns) and concludes:

    ""Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
    existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
    regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
    acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our
    gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who
    continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while
    disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.""

    Johnson also has this to say about Lott's More Guns Less Crime thesis:

    Here we have Johnson's theoretical test of logic:

    Here is a practical application known to me:

    My sister was awakened one night, about 2:00am, by the sound of
    breaking glass. She thought the cat had knocked something over in
    the kitchen. She got up to investigate. A home invader had kicked
    in the glass of the kitchen door and was standing in the living
    area with her VCR in his hands. They got into a tussle. Her
    roommate was awakened and came out of the bedroom with a .357
    revolver. The home invader released my sister and ran. My sister
    took the revolver and pursued. They found the invader's
    accomplice burglarising their car in the driveway. They detained
    the accomplice at gun point for arrest by responding police
    officers. The officers thanked my sister and her roommate.
    As of this writing (Jan 2009) the home invader and the car
    burglar are in prison. My sister's household has relocated to a
    new address. Gun control advocates believe that when the two men
    are paroled, there should be a public record of my gun-owning
    sister's new address, because people have a right to be warned
    who in their neighborhood owns a handgun.

    Take the theoretical construct and shove it further. The real life
    scenario is this: In the first, we are sitting in a room with a
    bigger stronger home invader and we have a gun. In the second,
    our room is gun free and sealed--the gun control ideal and we are
    sitting unarmed with a home invading thug. The risk of gun
    violence is obviously higher in the first scenario and is zero in
    the second. Projecting this dynamic to society generally allows
    my claim that laws limiting the supply of guns in private hands
    will dramatically reduce self-defense with guns and make life
    safer for home invading brutes.
     
  21. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    19,196
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Taxpayer funded abortions aren't on topic here. The OP is free to start another thread and hopefully it will stay on topic. If not it will meet the same fate as this one.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page