You guys and your guns...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

[Blind groper]

Gawdzilla

I agree with that sentiment, but I think there is one thing missing.

There needs to be a ban on carrying a loaded, ready to operate firearm in public. If a person keeps a weapon at home, then OK. But carried in public is another matter.

[mozg]

Gawdzilla

I agree with that sentiment, but I think there is one thing missing.

There needs to be a ban on carrying a loaded, ready to operate firearm in public. If a person keeps a weapon at home, then OK. But carried in public is another matter.

What is the factual basis for that claim of need?

Statistically those who are licensed to carry firearms are less likely to commit a criminal act than any other demographic. We are, as a demographic, extremely safe to be around. All the hand-wringing about how blood would flow in the streets like a river has never come to pass despite the fact that more and more states are making it easier for the law-abiding to carry firearms.

There is no evidence to support the claim that this activity 'needs' to be banned.

[Seth]

That's exactly what most states require to issue a CCW.

Notably Vermont, which allows concealed carry without a permit by anyone not disbarred from possessing firearms, has one of the lower crime rates in the US.

The problem with licensing and testing to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right is, of course, that the licensing system and testing criteria can be easily manipulated for political reasons to exclude this, that or the other person for reasons having nothing to do with their qualifications and abilities. No other fundamental right requires that one get approval from the government before exercising it.

The analogy would be a government-administered writing examination and a license before one can work for a newspaper or engage in pamphleteering. The danger of giving government that much control far outweighs the danger posed by law abiding citizens carrying firearms lawfully.

[Coito ergo sum]

I honestly have no problem with this. This kind of thing seems to me to fit precisely within the the meaning of "well-regulated" Militia. The pro-gun folks, including Seth sometimes, have pointed out that back in the day, the term "Militia" meant "all of the people." Yes, fair enough, which means that "A well regulated [ALL OF THE PEOPLE] being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So, you have a right to bear arms, but you need to pass basic gun handling, safety, etc., training first.

[Blind groper]

What is the factual basis for that claim of need?

Statistically those who are licensed to carry firearms are less likely to commit a criminal act than any other demographic.

The problem is never the honest and law abiding citizen. The problem is gun availability. The thing being that, if guns, and especially hand guns, are readily available to those who meet the criteria above, they become readily available also to those who do not. This happens via corrupt gun shops who sell to anyone, from burglaries of the guns held by law abiding citizens, from some of those law abiding citizens being a little less law abiding than anyone thinks, from other forms of gun theft such as muggings, and cars broken into, from forged documents permitting purchase of guns, and a raft of other ways. Criminals can be creative in finding ways to obtain what is not otherwise permitted. It would not surprise me to discover that criminal organisations even own gun manufacturing plants.

The thing is that guns, and hand guns, are widely possessed by criminals in the USA. That results in a very high rate of gun crime, including homicides. If the USA is ever serious about tackling crime, it must tackle the problem of easy gun availability.

The obvious starting point is to ban hand guns from civilian ownership and possession, and to ban the carrying of firearms in operating order in public. This would give the police an excellent tool to remove such weapons from the hands of criminals. Obviously, this will not turn crime around overnight, but it should reduce the homicide rate, and reduce all gun crimes, especially if we look at this process over a period of several decades.

[JimC]

Gawdzilla

I agree with that sentiment, but I think there is one thing missing.

There needs to be a ban on carrying a loaded, ready to operate firearm in public. If a person keeps a weapon at home, then OK. But carried in public is another matter.

What is the factual basis for that claim of need?

Statistically those who are licensed to carry firearms are less likely to commit a criminal act than any other demographic. We are, as a demographic, extremely safe to be around. All the hand-wringing about how blood would flow in the streets like a river has never come to pass despite the fact that more and more states are making it easier for the law-abiding to carry firearms.

There is no evidence to support the claim that this activity 'needs' to be banned.

Well, other than a murder by hand-gun rate vastly higher than any other developed nation...

(stats given earlier in this thread)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Gawdzilla

I agree with that sentiment, but I think there is one thing missing.

There needs to be a ban on carrying a loaded, ready to operate firearm in public. If a person keeps a weapon at home, then OK. But carried in public is another matter.

I disagree. I go armed and have done so for decades. Nobody has ever been in danger from an accidental discharge of one of my weapons. And I might not be here if I hadn't been armed in one instance, here in the US.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's exactly what most states require to issue a CCW.

Notably Vermont, which allows concealed carry without a permit by anyone not disbarred from possessing firearms, has one of the lower crime rates in the US.

The problem with licensing and testing to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right is, of course, that the licensing system and testing criteria can be easily manipulated for political reasons to exclude this, that or the other person for reasons having nothing to do with their qualifications and abilities. No other fundamental right requires that one get approval from the government before exercising it.

You need a license to broadcast speech on the radio -- or you're a pirate, and will land in jail. Licensure is perfectly legal for people to organize demonstrations, even though they are protected by the first amendment.

The Supreme Court would come into play here - take the voter ID thing. The court makes a determination as to whether the requirement constitutes an undue burden. The same can be done regarding guns. Voting taxes and quizzes were struck down as unfair and undue burdens. If a gun training regime is over-the-top, the courts can strike it down. There wold be the usual give and take of the political and legal process.

The analogy would be a government-administered writing examination and a license before one can work for a newspaper or engage in pamphleteering. The danger of giving government that much control far outweighs the danger posed by law abiding citizens carrying firearms lawfully.

The thing is, there isn't a safety concern with publishing and writing.

Now, where there is a danger - where demonstrations can be unexpected and get out of hand - government can require permitting for public demonstrations and such. The rules have to be reasonable, and the Courts strike them down when they go too far, for the most part.

Now, interesting that you say "law abiding citizens carrying firearms lawfully." What law? Couldn't "lawfully" including a law regarding training? What does it mean to "lawfully carry a firearm?" The modifier "lawfully" implies that there is some legal parameter. Why can't being competent to handle a gun be one of those parameters.

and, it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment specifically refers to a well regulated militia, which is "all the people." So, this is a regulation, not a ban. It "makes regular" the militia -- they are all trained to use the gun. It seems in accord with the plain language of the provision, and also with the "original intent" as espoused by gun advocates (make regular and "all the people" definitional stuff).

[Seth]

That's exactly what most states require to issue a CCW.

Notably Vermont, which allows concealed carry without a permit by anyone not disbarred from possessing firearms, has one of the lower crime rates in the US.

The problem with licensing and testing to exercise a fundamental Constitutional right is, of course, that the licensing system and testing criteria can be easily manipulated for political reasons to exclude this, that or the other person for reasons having nothing to do with their qualifications and abilities. No other fundamental right requires that one get approval from the government before exercising it.

You need a license to broadcast speech on the radio -- or you're a pirate, and will land in jail. Licensure is perfectly legal for people to organize demonstrations, even though they are protected by the first amendment.

No, you don't. You USED to need a license to transmit on the public airwaves. These days "spectrum" sales of radio spectrum transfer title to that spectrum to private individuals who can use it however they wish, free of prior restraint and censorship by the government. That's why Howard Stern has a job.

The government may license radio bandwidth in order to parcel it out fairly in order to avert the "tragedy of the commons," but what it cannot do is to engage in prior restraint regulation of the CONTENT of the speech.

The analogy to guns is that the government may legitimately make rules about when, where and under what circumstances you may DISCHARGE a handgun lawfully, in order to provide for the public safety, but it cannot prohibit any otherwise qualified law-abiding citizen from "keeping and bearing" (possessing and carrying) such arms either in public or in private on the prior-restraint notion that they MIGHT do something bad with them.

The Supreme Court would come into play here - take the voter ID thing. The court makes a determination as to whether the requirement constitutes an undue burden. The same can be done regarding guns. Voting taxes and quizzes were struck down as unfair and undue b
burdens. If a gun training regime is over-the-top, the courts can strike it down. There wold be the usual give and take of the political and legal process.

Yes, it can. And there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the government from implementing either a gun registration or mandatory training scheme on a nationwide basis. It's just a very, very bad idea, as demonstrated by the several instances in which state governments have used such systems to oppress and deny fundamental rights to citizens. In New Jersey, semi-automatic "assault weapon" owners were asked to register their weapons on the solemn promise that it was purely a ministerial requirement so that stolen firearms could be recovered and returned to the rightful owners, and promises were made that the list would NEVER be used for confiscations.

Less than three years later, the Governor sent out the State Police with the lists of registered "assault weapons" and those registered weapons were seized from their owners after the legislature enacted a ban.

New York has a concealed carry permit system, and it's lawful to carry concealed in New York City if you have a city-issued permit. Problem is you can't get a permit unless you're "connected." The first way they prevent it is to mandate that the application be on a form provided BY the police department. No photocopies or other duplicates are allowed, it must be on the paper form supplied by the police. Only problem is that the police never print up any of the forms, so when you go to ask for one, they are "out of stock" and have been for about 40 years now. Unless, of course, you're well connected, in which case you can get a form, and then you have to go through a Byzantine process to get the approval, which means that literally one in a million people who would like a permit and are qualified to have one can ever get one in New York City.

So, while there are no Constitutional inhibitions, the will of the people, as expressed to their federal legislators, is that no such registration or licensing schemes will be authorized or acceptable. And even the Democrats have learned that lesson, which in part was responsible for Clinton losing his second term, and is responsible for the unelection of a good many anti-gun Democrats in Congress over the last few years.

The analogy would be a government-administered writing examination and a license before one can work for a newspaper or engage in pamphleteering. The danger of giving government that much control far outweighs the danger posed by law abiding citizens carrying firearms lawfully.

The thing is, there isn't a safety concern with publishing and writing.

How strange, because King George used censorship and sedition laws that expressed a grave concern about exercises of free speech resulting in danger to the public health, safety and welfare. That's why Woodrow Wilson and FDR locked up tens of thousands of Americans during their regimes when those people chose to speak out against their warmongering and Progressive machinations.

The pen is mightier than the sword, so goes the saying.

Now, where there is a danger - where demonstrations can be unexpected and get out of hand - government can require permitting for public demonstrations and such. The rules have to be reasonable, and the Courts strike them down when they go too far, for the most part.

But the bar the government must hurdle before engaging in such activities is quite high. It's "imminent danger of lawless behavior" not merely a notion that something bad might happen.

Now, interesting that you say "law abiding citizens carrying firearms lawfully." What law? Couldn't "lawfully" including a law regarding training? What does it mean to "lawfully carry a firearm?" The modifier "lawfully" implies that there is some legal parameter. Why can't being competent to handle a gun be one of those parameters.

It can be, and is, in most states when it comes to concealed carry. But that's a dangerous thing. In Colorado, prior to the "shall issue" state law, in my county it was virtually impossible to obtain a concealed carry permit from the county Sheriff, and only a very few highly placed political contributors ever got one because permit issuance was discretionary on the part of the Sheriff. Just before the new state law was enacted, the Sheriff actually saw the light and acceded to the wishes of the community to loosen up the permit issuing criteria and begin issuing permits to people who were qualified and had some NRA training. Shortly afterwards, he testified at the state legislature about not having any significant problems with loosening up the restrictions, which were largely political to begin with, during the hearings on the "shall issue" law, which eventually passed and is now the law in Colorado. It requires a degree of training from an NRA certified instructor, including range time, and a background investigation.

But for decades before that, people all over the state were denied permits who really needed them because of very real threats. Issuance was inconsistent between counties, with some Sheriffs issuing none at all, and some issuing them to literally anyone, and a permit could be as simple as a business card from the Sheriff with a notation on the back saying "the bearer is authorized to carry a concealed weapon" and the Sheriff's signature.

So, while it sounds like a reasonable idea, such systems can, and often are abused to deny people their rights, sometimes simply by setting the "passing grade" criteria so high that only a police officer who's been through the police academy and has received hundreds of hours of training can possibly pass the test.

The preferable method, and the one that's worked the best for all these centuries, is to assume that most people who choose to carry firearms are competent and careful law-abiding citizens and therefore may be trusted with them, and to harshly punish those who contravene the law or good handling practice by stripping them of that right when they do something wrong with their firearms.

and, it seems to me that the 2nd Amendment specifically refers to a well regulated militia, which is "all the people." So, this is a regulation, not a ban. It "makes regular" the militia -- they are all trained to use the gun. It seems in accord with the plain language of the provision, and also with the "original intent" as espoused by gun advocates (make regular and "all the people" definitional stuff).

Actually, the Militia Clause is what gives the Congress the power to make firearms safety and marksmanship training MANDATORY in schools. It's authority to raise armies, and the existence of the Militia Act which defines all "able bodied males between 18 and 45" as members of the "Unorganized Militia" and therefore subject to being called to duty in the Organized Militia at any time almost certainly extends to the power to compel such members to receive training in the use of those arms suitable for use by the individual soldier.

I've argued for some time that this power should be exercised by requiring ALL schools to offer courses in gun safety, gun handling and maintenance, marksmanship and the law to EVERY student, beginning with the First Grade and continuing through graduation of High School, where, upon receiving their diploma, students who graduate and have no felony criminal convictions are given a diploma, a military-grade assault rifle, a military-issue handgun, and a concealed carry permit. They would be required to keep the firearms until they turn 45, and to maintain them and remain proficient with them so that they can be called to duty in the Organized Militia at any time and can appear for muster with their issued firearms and ready to go to war. At age 45, those arms would be granted to them, becoming their personal property, as thanks from a grateful nation for their attention to duty.

This would be a universal requirement for all able-bodied males and females between 18 and 45, absent a disqualifying criminal record. Any crime committed with a government-issued firearm would require a mandatory 50 year federal prison sentence without parole as a minimum sentence.

[Blind groper]

New York has a concealed carry permit system, and it's lawful to carry concealed in New York City if you have a city-issued permit. Problem is you can't get a permit unless you're "connected."

I bet that, for every legal 'concealed carry' there are 10,000 people carrying hand guns concealed illegally. This is an inevitable consequence of easy access and ready sale of hand guns. It is those illegals who cause the gun crime and the homicides.

[Jason]

BG.. anyone with connections can acquire handguns and more illegally. I know a fellow who sells illegal hand guns, rifles, shotguns, even full-automatics and I'm in Canada where we have strict gun control laws. Expecting litigation to disarm people who disregard the law is absurd. It doesn't work that way.

[Seth]

New York has a concealed carry permit system, and it's lawful to carry concealed in New York City if you have a city-issued permit. Problem is you can't get a permit unless you're "connected."

I bet that, for every legal 'concealed carry' there are 10,000 people carrying hand guns concealed illegally. This is an inevitable consequence of easy access and ready sale of hand guns. It is those illegals who cause the gun crime and the homicides.

There probably are, but not one in a hundred thousand of those people ever commit a crime other than the illegal concealed carry. Fewer than one in one hundred thousand firearms in circulation are ever used in a crime.

[JimC]

New York has a concealed carry permit system, and it's lawful to carry concealed in New York City if you have a city-issued permit. Problem is you can't get a permit unless you're "connected."

I bet that, for every legal 'concealed carry' there are 10,000 people carrying hand guns concealed illegally. This is an inevitable consequence of easy access and ready sale of hand guns. It is those illegals who cause the gun crime and the homicides.

And also why I think the gun situation in the States is almost certainly irreversible. Fret not, US hand-gun lovers, there is no return to sanity possible, you are stuck with it...

[Blind groper]

BG.. anyone with connections can acquire handguns and more illegally. I know a fellow who sells illegal hand guns, rifles, shotguns, even full-automatics and I'm in Canada where we have strict gun control laws. Expecting litigation to disarm people who disregard the law is absurd. It doesn't work that way.

Pord

I bet most of those illegal weapons come from the USA!

If hand guns are made illegal, then the supply, of hand guns at least, will dry up.
-With the gun makers no longer making hand guns.
-With importers no longer importing them.
-With law abiding citizens handing in their hand guns.
-With non law abiding citizens being arrested and having their hand guns confiscated.
Then over time, the supply of hand guns will shrink - in Canada as well as the USA.

As I said, there is no immediate cure for the illegal gun malady. But, given time, hand guns at least, which are responsible for most gun crimes including homicide, can be made rare and inaccessible. This alone will reduce gun crime and homicide.