Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by mainecoon, Apr 16, 2021.
News flash: HOLLYWOOD IS FAKE!
And BTW, who is " he?"
Several problems with that.
First, it's not clear how conflicts among federal laws and various state laws contribute to firearm deaths.
Second, it's not necessarily clear how a single set of firearm laws would both reduce firearm deaths and meaningly preserve the RKBA.
Third, having a single set of federal firearms laws would require, at least, a broad revision of the Constitution.
Some foundational information about our federal republic:
The Constitution established the United States as a sovereign nation-state recognized as such by the community of nations. And at the time of the founding or our Republic each colony/State was a sovereign, political entity. (At the time of the founding of our nation each State effectively ceded some measure of sovereignty to join with the others to become the United States. How much sovereignty each would cede was a central issue in hashing out the Constitution.)
Thus the United States, and each State, has an attribute known as sovereignty. Sovereignty is --
An attribute of sovereignty is "police power." "Police power" means --
So inherent in the sovereignty possessed by the United States (and each State comprising it) is the power to enact laws and hold all persons subject to its jurisdiction accountable for complying with those laws.
The federal government doesn't have general, broad police power. Congress may enact laws only to the extent that the power to do so has been specifically delegated to it under Article I of the Constitution (e. g., regulation of interstate commerce, define crimes on the high seas, provide for the punishment of counterfeiting, etc.). On the other hand, as acknowledged in the Tenth Amendment, each State has broad police power, constrained by its constitution and certain provisions of the United States Constitution, e. g., the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In general the United States and each State have jurisdiction of persons within its respective territories. See Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 24 L.Ed. 565 (U. S. Supreme Court,1877), at 722:
The Constitutions of the United States and of each State set out procedures and rules for the exercise of sovereign power, as well as defining limits to that power (e. g., the Bill of Rights). So, for example, if the United States enacts a law in an impermissible (under the Constitution) way, or the law exceeds the limitations on the power of the United States, a court can nullify that law and decline to give it effect.
If all semi-autos disappeared, it is possible - though not guaranteed - that gun violence would decrease. The main trouble with the idea is that there is no practical, legal way to make it happen. Even if you could get both houses of congress to pass such a law, and have it withstand the inevitable court reviews (neither of which are remotely likely) you still have the task of physically removing those guns from their owners. Some folks would voluntarily comply, but I'm guessing the majority would not. We then would be faced with the prospect of going door-to-door to confiscate guns and arrest their owners, which would be enormously unlikely to go very well.
Article 1, section 22 of the Illinois Constitution reads: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”1 Illinois case law provides support for the proposition that most reasonable firearms regulations are valid under art. I § 22.
We have the now broken FOID system for the last 52 years because states can set their own parameters under the rules that are set up for our republic. Subject to police powers is a state right not established in our federal system I believe. Frank, please correct if necessary.
That worked so well in England and Australia. They now have knife buyback programs.
How many of those countries have the right to keep and bear arms?
The Second Amendment says nothing about hunting, it is all about the ability for the citizenry to resist government tyranny. Did you ever hear of a group of guys called the Viet Minh and later as the Viet Cong? They didn't have any drones, tanks, bombers, fighter aircraft or a navy but they gave our military quite a run for the money for a lot of years. Not just the U.S. but the Japanese in WWII and the French during their years of colonization of Viet Nam.
How can the government do a buy back? The government never owned the guns to start with. Who is going to determine the value of a gun in a forced confiscation? If you think people will be given market value you are delusional. Not only would this forced confiscation deprive me of my constitutional rights but it would also be stealing from me.
Do you realize that anti-gun people have labeled a scoped hunting rifle a sniper weapon? A pump 12 ga pump shotgun can be reloaded quickly and with 00 rounds can be a devastating weapon. Shotguns were used quite effectively in WWI to clear trenches and were used in Viet Nam by the military. A pistol caliber lever gun can hold 10 or more rounds. After sufficient practice a revolver can be reloaded using speed loaders nearly as quick as a semi-auto pistol can be reloaded. There are 7 shot centerfire revolvers also and 10 shot .22lr revolvers.
There are more gun suicides deaths in the U.S. than death by homicide using a gun. Back in the late 80's I read an article stating in Mexico, where all firearms are nearly impossible for the average citizen to obtain, that there were more knife homicides than homicides by all means in the U.S. for that year.
How long after all semi-auto firearms are confiscated and made illegal do you think it will be until they decide that your hunting guns are evil also and must be confiscated?
And let's not forget about the Taliban, who have been resisting us quite successfully for the past 20 years. 20 YEARS!
Do you really believe for one minute that "the carnage" has anything to do with criminal codes?
Do you have any basis at all for that assertion?
Have you ever availed yourself of any good defensive shooting training? How many defensive shooting instructors recommend revolvers? Also, consider this: A woman of slight build who does not practice shooting a lot can defend herself and her family much more effectively with an AR-15 than with any revolver.
It’s a large jump from, questions of legal structure to questions of gun safety.
You want 5 years for brandishing?
Ed Head, Clint Smith, Il Ling New, Paul Howe, Grant Cunningham, Rob Pincus, Tiger McKee, Greg Ellifritz, Chuck Haggard, Darryl Bolke, Wayne Dobbs, Tom Givens, Claude Werner, Justin Carol, Massad Ayoob...
I have to stop here, or I'll keep editing into forever.
Revolvers are part of your 2A rights, too.
Just because you don't care for a given platform doesn't mean you have to give it the "Fudd" treatment. If somebody want's to carry a derringer, single-action or BP for their protection, more power to them.
I didn't know 2A was only for hi-cap and easy-peasy to reload for SD against the zombie horde. I thought it was for all guns and for all Americans.
They will all teach revolver shooting for those who desire it, but most of them and many others recommend something else.
It is difficult to find a snub revolver course these days, and most defensive shooting courses so not allow the use of revolvers.
Claude comes the closest to actually recommending the use of a revolver for self defense. His drills so not allow much margin RE: misses.
Il Ling New teaches the use of large revolvers suitable for defense against dangerous animals.
What are you talking about?
Wrong on all counts. Your biases are showing, again.
Okay, exactly what countries have this and what does their crime situation look like?
Yes, revolvers can be effective and a reasonable choice for self defense. And yes, many fine instructors can help folks learn how to make the best use of revolvers for self defense.
But this thread is not about which is better: revolvers or semi-autos.
So let's stick to the topic of this thread.
Far too many of us have a safe full of guns, and no desire to go out and shoot up a Fed Ex building or a grade school. Tens, if not hundreds, of of millions of us in fact fit this category.
A few do harbor those thoughts, or they develop them without learning how to cope with the stresses we all face in life.
In Ca, law after law after law has been passed, to the tune of 10-15 more new restrictions every year come out of Sacramento. Magazine bans, assault weapons bans, no internet sales, ghost gun bans, background checks for ammo purchases, red flag laws....a Washington's liberal's wet dream of "common sense" gun restrictions. And still, after all that, criminal homicide is up 200% in LA county this year alone.
At the same time, homelessness is up god knows how many times over after the State and Courts basically gave the rights to the nuts to control their lives during the past decades. The gov and his minions have also emptied the jails in the names of "social justice" using the Covid excuse.
Treat folks mental health problems either voluntarily or through conservatorship, hold people accountable for their actions when they do violate the law and quit playing social experiments with criminals, and you'll address a TON of both issues; violence and crazies out on the streets.
But mine is merely one voice among millions.
IIRC, knifings in the UK soared when even more restrictive gun laws were passed. Someone bent on killing someone or causing grievous harm will find a way to make it happen; there are too many readily available means to do so.
How, pray tell?
Rob recommends a semi-auto of at least ten rounds capacity, with no separate manual safety 9mm, by the way. He does not say to not carry a revolver--but don't try to take one to his classes. Revolvers would not work in the drills he teaches.
Tom is on much the same wave length. He has recommended against five shot revolvers.
This topic is germane to the thread only as it pertains to the recommendation to limit lawful carry for self defense to revolvers.
The question was about the idea of a single criminal code for all states and territories. That's really a constitutional issue.
The discussion of gun control and limitations, penalties, etc, is not germane to that topic.
If there is more to be said on it that was put forth in Post #27, I'd like to hear it.
Separate names with a comma.