Registering gun owners and gun permits doesn't infringe on gun owner rights

Status
Not open for further replies.

jsalcedo

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2002
Messages
3,683
http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/view/columns/2191502.shtml

Maine legislators should not be afraid of tough gun laws

It is too easy to buy a gun in Maine. And in New Hampshire. And in Vermont.

Just ask the people in Massachusetts, where it is much tougher to get a firearm -- at least legally.

Increasing numbers of guns from Maine and the rest of northern New England are turning up in greater Boston and elsewhere in the Bay State, according to police who are grappling with growing numbers of shootings and firearms arrests.

Like New Hampshire and Vermont, Maine has become a "buying" destination for people trying to get around tough Massachusetts laws that require a state permit to purchase handguns.

Many guns, including older ones that are tough to trace, are being bought in northern New England and used to break laws here and elsewhere.

A Massachusetts resident who wants a handgun must pay $100 for a state-issued permit. Such permits are not required in Maine or elsewhere in northern New England, where handgun buyers need only show identification proving their residency.

Although it violates federal law for a Massachusetts resident to buy a gun out of state and then return with it, the law can be skirted easily by having a resident of another state buy a gun from a dealer and then sell it or give it away.

Just as troubling, private gun owners in many states -- including Maine -- who are selling weapons need not conduct background checks on buyers. There is also no waiting period for private gun sales.

Such loopholes allow anyone with a few bucks -- criminals included -- to buy a gun without anybody's knowledge.

Officials in greater Boston and other Massachusetts cities with high crime rates -- including Worcester, Fall River and New Bedford -- say legislatures in northern New England must put more common sense and muscle into their lax gun laws.

We agree. Laws meant to protect the public cannot ignore who has guns or who has access to them.

There is a long tradition of gun ownership in Maine, where there are an estimated 1.4 million guns -- including some 400,000 handguns. Many efforts in the past to toughen the state's gun laws have been opposed by the powerful gun lobby, including the National Rifle Association and the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine. These organizations and other gun advocates tend to oppose most efforts to tighten firearms laws, arguing that tougher restrictions would infringe on the right to bear arms.

That is an easy -- but a baseless -- claim.

It is constitutionally permissible for lawmakers in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont or any other state to make it tougher for certain people to acquire guns.

It makes no sense to say that hunters, target shooters and other legitimate gun owners would be denied a right or be unnecessarily inconvenienced if Maine had a law requiring a permit to buy a handgun. Or a law requiring the registration of handguns or the licensing of handgun owners. Or a law requiring a permit to carry a handgun (Maine law requires permits only for concealed firearms).

Or laws that keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. Or that prevent children from having access to or possessing guns.

We are confident that many Maine legislators understand appropriate access to firearms. Earlier this year, for example, lawmakers defeated two gun lobby-supported bills that would have made it easier to carry concealed handguns in Maine.

Now lawmakers, who convene next month, need to find other ways to get Maine off the list of states where it is easy to buy guns.

Public safety, after all, is the priority.

Lawmakers should not be pleased with Maine's growing reputation as a point of origination for illegal gun trafficking.
 
There are so many holes in this persons argument that I don't think I could do it justice.
 
Officials in greater Boston and other Massachusetts cities with high crime rates -- including Worcester, Fall River and New Bedford -- say legislatures in northern New England must put more common sense and muscle into their lax gun laws.
Perhaps officials in Massachusetts ought to put more common sense and muscle into enforcing their own laws. You know, the ones against committing crimes.
 
Public safety, after all, is the priority.

Yes, of course; little things like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should not be allowed to infringe on our pursuit of the perfect socialist state.

:barf:
 
One often-overlooked problem with gun registration laws is that they are aimed directly, precisely and - most important - exclusively at people who have no criminal record.

If the .gov prosecutes someone for a gun registration violation, they're saying that the person had to register the gun. (duh.)

Now, convicted felons are prohibited from owning, buying, selling, or possessing guns - they're sometimes referred to as "prohibited persons."

So by prosecuting a convicted felon for a registration violation, they're saying he has to register something he's prohibited from having in the first place - that would mean he's being required to incriminate himself, a clear Fifth Amendment violation.

So while a convicted felon in possession of a firearm can be prosecuted for illegal possession, the ONLY people who can be prosecuted for a registration violation are those with no criminal record. And IMHO there's just something exceptionally odious about a law that can ONLY be used to prosecute people with no criminal record.

At least, that's my non-lawyer's understanding of what SCOTUS said back in 1968.
 
I always like to try and find the weirdest quote in any article:

have been opposed by the powerful gun lobby, including the National Rifle Association and the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine

All tremble before the mighty lobbying power of the Sportsmans' Alliance of Maine!

They totally pwn3d the Maine Mohair Producers' Confederation and the Widget Producers' United Labor Front...
 
Perhaps officials in Massachusetts ought to put more common sense and muscle into enforcing their own laws. You know, the ones against committing crimes.

It's always somebody else's fault with small children and leftist extremists. The difference is that most small children outgrow such behavior.
 
Well if registering gun owners does not infringe on the SA, then the SA is worthless.

Registration= confiscation. Ask David Dinkins
 
Why do you need to buy permission from the goverment to do something legal? They might have a point if you were going to used thier money to buy your gun.
 
It makes no sense to say that hunters, target shooters and other legitimate gun owners would be denied a right or be unnecessarily inconvenienced if Maine had a law requiring a permit to buy a handgun.

Maybe the person that wrote this should do a little research.

http://www.state.me.us/ifw/hunttrap/hunt_traplaws.htm#SUMMARY OF FIREARMS LAWS
Legal firearms for hunting: Handguns, rifles and shotguns not larger than 10-gauge are legal for hunting in Maine, except as follows: Automatic firearms are illegal. Auto-loading firearms are illegal if they hold more than 6 cartridges (does not apply to .22 caliber rimfire guns or to auto-loading pistols with barrel less than 8 inches.)
 
"Public safety, after all, is the priority."

Public safety for Maine, or public safety for greater Boston and other Massachusetts cities with high crime rates -- including Worcester, Fall River and New Bedford?

Anyway, if Massachusetts has tough laws to deal with all these guns, and Maine doesn't, but Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire cities have low crime rates and Massachusetts doesn't... Hmmm...
 
>>Although it violates federal law for a Massachusetts resident to buy a gun out of state and then return with it, the law can be skirted easily by having a resident of another state buy a gun from a dealer and then sell it or give it away.

Can you say "straw purchase", which means "jail time"? What an idiotic article!

And I point out once again that MA, which HAS the draconian laws, is the one with the violent crime problem! New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine have VERY low violent crime! In fact, the last "violent crime" I'd read of in Manchester, NH, which is a decently-sized and extremely multi-ethnic city, was some crackhead trying to steal from a convenience store...with a baseball bat!

Because criminals never know WHO might be carrying, and are far more likely to go after the unarmed citizens of MA. You'd think this would be OBVIOUS by now? :barf:
 
Hank B and LAR-15

I'm a lawyer (though only in estate and business planning, not Constitutional or criminal law), and your interpretation is spot-on. For a convicted felon to have to register a gun that is illegal for him to possess is a violation of the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination.

I agree with you that there is something very wrong, very unjust, about aiming laws with criminal penalties at only those who are otherwise law-abiding and not a threat to their fellow citizens...particularly when the law itself, no matter who it is aimed at, is unconstitutional on its face. We don't register people who go to church, subscribe to newspapers and magazines, or buy books and the like, do we? What does anyone think that the reaction would be if some @ssclown politician (yes, I know that this is an exceptionally large group) proposed that? The following quote is the single best explanation of why we have laws like this:

"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."


-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged


No other amendment, no other basic right, is subject to so many limitations and so much infringement across society. One wonders what is next, if these jerks get there way...

...but then LAR-15 knows the answer:
Registration= confiscation. Ask David Dinkins

And the next step after confiscation is rounding up political opponents and either imprisoning them or executing them - for the good of society, of course - because there will be no effective resistance to such actions. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely...and I can think of no greater power than having virtually all of the guns in a country at your beck and call, combined with knowledge about each individual that would shock Orwell and make a Hitler or a Stalin drool with anticipation - all up against an unarmed, uninformed and divided populace. I shudder for our future if this stuff continues, and it doesn't look like it is slowing down.
 
What about news reporter registration and journalism permits then? They don't infringe the 1st Amendment either according to that idiot.

Unless that assclown can argue that the definitions of "abridge" and "infringe" are different.
 
What kind of law is that? One that requires mittens to be attached to the hands of anyone deemed mentally ill?
New York State law defines "mental illness" as any type of mental problem whatsoever. Did you have some situational depression after you lost your family in a car accident? Why, that's mental illness. Were you the victim of a violent assault and suffered some emotional trauma after the fact? That's mental illness too, provided you saw a professional about it. Apparently, New York State thinks that an ordinary, reasonable human being would never let any of these events affect their feelings or behavior negatively.

NYS penal law also, conveniently, prohibits anyone "who has ever suffered mental illness" from owning a handgun.

Convenient, nyet? Certainly, it ensures that assault victims who have ever sought counseling for the emotional trauma or depression that follows a rape or violent attack will never be permitted to own a defensive handgun in the future.

Remember, Democrats are your friends!
 
Liberty and security are polar opposites.
Yes and no. Liberty allows us to provide or provide for our own security. It also keeps the nation more secure as a whole. As liberty is abridged, we become more vulnerable which, in turn, creates a clammoring for the government to provide security. Government supplied security tends to prohibit individual-supplied security. An extreme example is a maximin security prison. In reality, that secure situation is not "safe."

We are mired in the quagmire of the gray area between the two poles. It is a constant struggle for balance.
 
Manedwolf said:
>>
And I point out once again that MA, which HAS the draconian laws, is the one with the violent crime problem! New Hampshire, Vermont and Maine have VERY low violent crime! In fact, the last "violent crime" I'd read of in Manchester, NH, which is a decently-sized and extremely multi-ethnic city, was some crackhead trying to steal from a convenience store...with a baseball bat!

That's because all of the BAD guns pooled their cash and chartered a bus to Massachusetts. The anti-gun left, in their fuzzy, addlepated way, imbue these machines with human motivations and judgement. Guns travel across borders, like little mechanical wetbacks. They sneak into cities and cause crime. I can picture them huddled together beneath a guttering lamp in a smokey room, planning the next crack homicide.

It's all so silly. Guns don't vote, go to church, run stop signs, change diapers, tailgate, fart on elevators, write poetry, or cause crime.

People do. :banghead:

God, my head hurts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top