Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Same way Federal Regulation is enforced, none of which is "Law", but carries the power of Law.

Do you have an example? I'm unaware of any cases where federal regulation is not law that came through the legislative branch.

So then we'll se NO Executive ORder whatsoever on Gun Control then.

The executive order will be stricter enforcement of already existing laws.

[rbstern]

Originally Posted by Warfish

because there is much of a meaningful difference between the Executive not enforcing duly passed laws, and executive ordering new laws that Congress won;t stop him from enforcing? The Courts can only come into play if a case comes before them, and then it'll take a decade for it to get anywhere that has power to truly close the case.

Stopping it only requires that one federal judge issue an injunction. In the case of a direct assault on a right explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, it will take no time at all. 300,000,000+ million people will have legal standing to sue over the matter, and a preliminary hearing, argued by a high priced lawyer, backed by big money interests, will get the issue into a federal court almost immediately. Even the more liberal judges are going to have a hard time waving their hand at such an action, because they all know it's not just a threat to the 2nd Amendment, but to the power of judicial and legislative branches.

By the way my friend, what exactly do you think most Federal Regulation is? The power of law without having ever been passed by Congress.

Not exactly. The Constitution gives the legislature the power to delegate regulatory authority to other agencies.

Regard it however you wish. We'll see how it plays out.

I for one never thought I'd see a day where an Executive order would decriminalize illegal immigration, or where a President could get congress to pass a law that forces individuals to buy a private product against their will (Obamacare) or face fines and jailtime.

Yes, those are troubling things, but they are not the same thing as an executive order overriding a constitutional amendment.

There is alot of things I never thought I'd see that are daily occurences in politics today.

So we'll see. I don't own a firearm, so it's not a personal issue for me.

OK.

[rbstern]

Sorry, one more point: I think the executive order threat is nothing more than political saber-rattling.

The administration has strong foes on gun control. What they are trying to do is coerce some of the gun-control-middle-of-the-road crowd (centrists, Walmart, hunters, among others) into going along with stronger legislation. The threat of an executive order is nothing more than a paper tiger.

The fact that Biden floated that balloon says to me they are frustrated by the lack of progress for their agenda, and have a weaker hand than they thought.

There's a reason why Democrats haven't touched gun control since Gore lost in 2000.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by rbstern

Stopping it only requires that one federal judge issue an injunction.

We'll see.

Items I would expect to see:
1. Increased Background Checks and Denials, End Gun-Show "Loopholes".
2. Ban on 10+ Round Magazines
3. Ban on Select Assault weapons.

If, as you say, it's just Sabe-Rattling, no order will be done. If one os done, the three above are what I'd expect to see, in order of probabaillity.

Not exactly. The Constitution gives the legislature the power to delegate regulatory authority to other agencies.

For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Notice the "Firearms" part in there? I did.

Yes, those are troubling things, but they are not the same thing as an executive order overriding a constitutional amendment.

Agree to disagree, I am of the view that a number of Constitutional Rights were de facto ignored in the clauses of Obamacare. I am not alone in that view, it was/is the primary defense used to attempt to stop it.

[freestater]

Originally Posted by rbstern

Not exactly. The Constitution gives the legislature the power to delegate regulatory authority to other agencies.

Where, please?

[rbstern]

Originally Posted by freestater

Where, please?

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18, often referred to as the "Necessary and proper" clause, which reads:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Notice the "or in any Department or Officer thereof?"

It gives Congress the authority to create departments and officers of the federal government, to carry out powers vested to the legislature, including creating and administering regulations.

[rbstern]

Originally Posted by Warfish

We'll see.

Items I would expect to see:
1. Increased Background Checks and Denials, End Gun-Show "Loopholes".
2. Ban on 10+ Round Magazines
3. Ban on Select Assault weapons.

No argument. They'll try to get all that. But it has to come via legislation.

For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Notice the "Firearms" part in there? I did.

Having clearly defined authority to regulate something doesn't convey the power to trample constitutionally enumerated rights. Not that they don't try.

Agree to disagree, I am of the view that a number of Constitutional Rights were de facto ignored in the clauses of Obamacare. I am not alone in that view, it was/is the primary defense used to attempt to stop it.

I don't disagree. As bad as the individual mandate is, it's less offensive to me than Kelo vs. New London, which always struck me as a profound assault on private property rights.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by rbstern

No argument. They'll try to get all that. But it has to come via legislation.



Having clearly defined authority to regulate something doesn't convey the power to trample constitutionally enumerated rights. Not that they don't try.



I don't disagree. As bad as the individual mandate is, it's less offensive to me than Kelo vs. New London, which always struck me as a profound assault on private property rights.

Took a look at this case and you couldn't be more right. It really is a sanction for pretty much any excuse to seize private property, even to give over to another private citizen/corporation. Truly a misapplication of eminent domain and due process.

Re the issue of enumerated rights, the big problem with the second amendment, along with the ninth, is that they have such strange language and syntax. What precisely is the enumerated right in the second amendment? Can you unhinge the second clause from the first? Is that in fact a selective reading? (i.e., keeping and bearing arms is in the context of a well regulated militia). And then there is the issue of unenumerated rights, such as the right to privacy, which is an "emanation" from several rights... yet to me is a very critical concept to true liberty. The Constitution is not an easy document to parse...

[quantum]

I've been getting all kinds of emails about opposing gun control, even "assault weapons". Most people against it, including Ben Shapiro, say owning these weapons are a bulwark against tyranny.

For awhile I was having a hard time accepting that, until I thought of 2 things: the LA riots in the 1990s, and Twitter/Facebook postings back in October. The LA riots is self-explanatory. The postings? How many times did you read people posting about killing Republicans, rioting if Obama is not re-elected, etc?

If you're a leftie, and you hate righties for liking guns, guess what - its your fault. Your over the top threats - real, imaginary, whatever - pushes the other side farther away.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by quantum

I've been getting all kinds of emails about opposing gun control, even "assault weapons". Most people against it, including Ben Shapiro, say owning these weapons are a bulwark against tyranny.

For awhile I was having a hard time accepting that, until I thought of 2 things: the LA riots in the 1990s, and Twitter/Facebook postings back in October. The LA riots is self-explanatory. The postings? How many times did you read people posting about killing Republicans, rioting if Obama is not re-elected, etc?

If you're a leftie, and you hate righties for liking guns, guess what - its your fault. Your over the top threats - real, imaginary, whatever - pushes the other side farther away.

Yes, conservative family men need assault rifles to protect them against.... rampaging liberals... yeah, that's persuasive. That's perhaps the absolute dumbest argument I've seen yet. And I happen to believe that the argument for allowing assault weapons to individual communities in arsenals (i.e., the well regulated part of the SA) to allow local militias to form in the event of an external attack or coup is correct. I don't think that extends to military weapons in the hands of individuals, but that's my personal take. That amounts to vigilantism, which is not at all in keeping with our Constitution.

[Soberphobia]

Report today from my country, some here might be interested, then again maybe not:

Australia reloads as gun amnesties fail to cut arms

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/austr...#ixzz2Hre2qrLL

AUSTRALIANS own as many guns now as they did at the time of the Port Arthur massacre, despite more than 1 million firearms being handed in and destroyed, new research reveals.

A University of Sydney study has shown there has been a steady increase in guns imported into the country over the past decade, with the number of privately owned guns now at the same level as 1996.

Estimates suggest there were 3.2 million firearms in Australia at the time of the Tasmanian tragedy, in which 35 people were killed and 23 injured.

Philip Alpers, an adjunct associate professor at the university's school of public health, said only time would tell what impact the restocking would have.
Advertisement

''Australia's public health effort to reduce the risk of gun violence led the world,'' he said. ''After melting down a million guns, the risk of an Australian dying by gunshot fell by more than half. Plus, we've seen no mass shootings in 16 years,'' Professor Alpers said.

He said that because of law changes, the new guns were not military-style semi-automatics, which were banned and surrendered after Port Arthur, and that handguns were now harder to import into Australia. But he said: ''It only takes one bullet, and the great majority of gun deaths are domestics and suicides.''

Professor Alpers was due to present the new research in Baltimore at the Summit on Reducing Gun Violence in America, organised by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. The summit is looking closely at the Australian experience and will hand its recommendations to US Vice-President Joe Biden's gun control taskforce, which is due to report this month following the Sandy Hook school massacre.

Professor Alpers said since eight people were killed in Melbourne's Queen Street massacre in 1987, Australia had run 38 gun amnesties for a combined total of more than 3000 weeks.

This included the 1996-97 national firearms buy-back and the 2003 handgun buy-back, which resulted in 728,667 newly prohibited guns being handed back in return for compensation.

The research suggests that when gun owners who have surrendered their weapons voluntarily and without compensation are included in the figures, more than 1 million guns have been destroyed in Australia since 1988. That is one-third of the nation's private arsenal, according to the research.

While there was an initial spike when owners of now-banned multishot rifles and shotguns replaced their weapons with single-fire guns in the four years after Port Arthur, gun imports fell and remained stagnant. The lowest number of imports in a financial year - just under 18,000 - was recorded in 1998-99.

The research shows that the trade has now recovered, with a steady increase in the 10 years since, peaking at 66,461 guns imported into Australia in 2009/10, the highest number in 13 years. Overall, 1,055,082 firearms have been imported into Australia since gun destruction programs began in 1988 at an average of 43,961 guns a year.

This figure does not take into account firearms that are smuggled into Australia illegally.

However, Professor Alpers said there was little evidence to suggest illegal imports were an issue in Australia and that the main problem was criminals getting their hands on legal guns that have been stolen or lost by lawful owners.

link

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Yes, conservative family men need assault rifles to protect them against.... rampaging liberals... yeah, that's persuasive. That's perhaps the absolute dumbest argument I've seen yet. And I happen to believe that the argument for allowing assault weapons to individual communities in arsenals (i.e., the well regulated part of the SA) to allow local militias to form in the event of an external attack or coup is correct. I don't think that extends to military weapons in the hands of individuals, but that's my personal take. That amounts to vigilantism, which is not at all in keeping with our Constitution.

What's dumb about it they killed President Kennedy and his brother didn't they?

[freestater]

Originally Posted by rbstern

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18, often referred to as the "Necessary and proper" clause, which reads:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Notice the "or in any Department or Officer thereof?"

It gives Congress the authority to create departments and officers of the federal government, to carry out powers vested to the legislature, including creating and administering regulations.

Now, I may be dense, but the sentence says that they are imbued with the power to make the laws necessary and proper, not that they have the authority to delegate such authority to "departments or officers". The sentence you have there doesn't mention a thing about delegating authority to write laws for the People of the United States. To do so would mean that the elected officials could abdicate their responsibility for making laws to unelected bureaucrats. I just don't see where that power is granted. Especially, not in the sentence you cite. On the other hand, the 10th amend. clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government by the Const., are reserved for the various states or the People.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by isired

That wasn't my point, I should have been clearer - I should have said "my point is that those semi and fully auto weapons make a big difference in the death toll in these mass shooting situations" - not death counts overall. Clearly you can argue whether trying to limit the death toll in a mass shooting situation is important, from a number-cruncher's perspective, because they don't happen every day, or even every month.

Originally Posted by gunnails

==================================================



I have to add that the only case of a mass shooting that I can ever recall happening with a full auto firearm is the St Valentine's Day massacre. Full auto firearms are used in crimes maybe once in a blue moon, more likely once in every 20 blue moons.

==================================================

I poo pooed this comment by Isred about fully automatic guns.

I was thinking about my comment over the weekend, and it occured to me that I had forgot about the North Hollywood Shootout.

This is the case of 2 bank robbers who robbed a B of A Branch In North Hollywood. They had full auto weapons and body armor, which is of course illegal in CA. Both robbers were killed, eleven police officers and seven civilians were injured.

The robbers carried illegally modified fully automatic AKMs and an AR-15 rifle with high capacity drum magazines.

Violent crime with full auto firearms is rare, But I think I was too dismissive of Isreds comment in hindsight.

[Frequent Flyer]

Fork in the Road

Obama’s appalling reelection put the country on a path that has come to a fork. One way leads to strife — very possibly impeachment and even civil war. That’s the high road. The other way lies socialist dictatorship — and it is so close you can see it from here:

The White House has identified 19 executive actions for President Barack Obama to move unilaterally on gun control, Vice President Joe Biden told a group of House Democrats on Monday, the administration’s first definitive statements about its response to last month’s mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. …

The focus on executive orders is the result of the White House and other Democrats acknowledging the political difficulty of enacting any new gun legislation, a topic Biden did not address in Monday’s meeting.

Comrade Chairman Obama confirmed yesterday that he will go full dictator with the executive action approach:

“My understanding is the vice president’s going to provide a range of steps that we can take to reduce gun violence. Some of them will require legislation, some of them I can accomplish through executive action. … I’m confident that there are some steps that we can take that don’t require legislation and that are within my authority as president, and where you get a step that, has the opportunity to reduce the possibility of gun violence, then I want to go ahead and take it.”

Even among the gutless wonders that constitute the Republican Party, some have noticed that using executive orders to circumvent our fundamental constitutional rights is an impeachable offense:

Texas Republican Rep. Steve Stockman threatened Monday afternoon that he would file articles of impeachment against President Barack Obama if he institutes gun control measures with an executive order.

Stockman warned that such executive orders would be “unconstitutional” and “infringe on our constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms.”

“I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment,” Stockman said in a statement.

Thankfully there are still a few Americans left in America.

The esteemed constitutional lawyer Mark Levin sees other grounds for impeachment in the unacceptable power grabs contemplated by the Obama Regime:

On his Monday radio show, conservative talker Mark Levin said that if President Barack Obama sidesteps Congress on the debt ceiling fight and attacks the Congress’ constitutionally enumerated “core power” — that is control over spending and taxing — through executive action, Congress will have “no choice” but impeachment.

Obama et al. will do whatever it takes to “fundamentally transform” America into an authoritarian socialist banana republic. We have to do whatever it takes to stop them.

This will require acknowledging the base of Obama’s power. I am not referring to the housing projects full of welfare parasites deliberately bred to produce Democrat votes, but to the left-wing media establishment that placed and keeps him in power. Any attempt to defend the Constitution from this onslaught will be met with ferocious counterattacks from the media. These will send most Republicans to their knees as they whimper for clemency.

Only if there is a resistance with the courage to name the liberal media and its figurehead Obama as an implacably hostile existential threat to America and to fight them to the end will this country survive Hope & Change intact.



http://moonbattery.com/?p=23970

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Soberphobia

Report today from my country, some here might be interested, then again maybe not:

I'm interested. Good info.

What I'm also interested in is Aussie Obesity, apparently one of the highest rates on Earth. What are you doing to curb the massive health problem and death rate associated with such a systemic and endemic health problem over there?

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I'm interested. Good info.

What I'm also interested in is Aussie Obesity, apparently one of the highest rates on Earth. What are you doing to curb the massive health problem and death rate associated with such a systemic and endemic health problem over there?

Fair point. Tons of fattys here. I could blame the Americanisation of the broad Aussie culture, the intro of McDonalds, Dominos etc, but frankly that has a lot less to do with it than the fact most people are stupid, and especially so with stuff like their diet. Americans have nothing to do with that and that's a fact.

Having said all that there are still a whole stack of smoking hotties wandering about the place with a few chunkies thrown in, especially now given a recent average top temperature for the entire country was around 110 F. Go to a shopping centre and its like bikini land.

So, despite being roughly equal on fatties, as for guns, well, we do have it all over you guys. Those who are responsible gun owners can get them and those who aren't, cannot. Our death by gun rates reflect that fact. Unfortunately there seem to be "NRA" type elements here that want to McDonaldise gun laws out here and are now pushing to do so.......I expect normal, law-abiding Aussies to kick back against this absurdity and push these extremists back where they belong, to the shooting ranges and pig-shooting where they were before. Such a sad state of affairs when you let guns into mainstream society, and this country will not let it happen, as far as I can tell.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Soberphobia

Fair point. Tons of fattys here. Americans have nothing to do with that and that's a fact.

Indeed.

Having said all that there are still a whole stack of smoking hotties wandering about the place with a few chunkies thrown in, especially now given a recent average top temperature for the entire country was around 110 F. Go to a shopping centre and its like bikini land.

No shortage of hotties here either, I assure you.

Our death by gun rates reflect that fact.

Does it?

Or does it reflect that Aussie is (in the vast majority) rural and has fewer and smaller urban centers in-line with cities such as New York or Chicago or Washington DC or LA? While you have a few big cities, they are not like U.S. cities (are they?) in their urban blight, gang conflicts and drug trade. And your nation of 22 million is still only populated enough to be the third largest state in our nation (I tend to reject percentage-based comparisons of things existing in completely different scales,a s it ignored fully the effect of siad scale, i.e. the effect of a 330 mil population nation vs a 22 mil. population nation. Expecting both to have equal % of whatever is I think, illogical, as the burden of that extra 308 million people IS a factor in everything).

Does it reflect that Aussie cities, unlike those in the U.S., do not posess the same socio-economic underclass, and the crime that comes along with such a socio-economic position (given Aussie is far less diverse that the U.S., mostly by those of western European Ancestry, and does not suffer form the same history of slavery and economic domination of 15% of your population, many of whom are socio-economicly confined to the south or big urban centers?).

Do you really think gun availabillity is the only factor involved?

I see (online) that in 2008 you had ~260 murders, of a population of 22 mil or so. Thats a 0.00118% chance of being murdered in Aussieland.

We, on the other hand, had ~16,000 murders, of a population of 330 mil. Thats a 0.00484% chance of being murdered in the U.S.

Is the 0.003% difference that meaningful itself, do you think? Especially given the aforementioned differences between your nation and ours?

Such a sad state of affairs when you let guns into mainstream society, and this country will not let it happen, as far as I can tell.

I'd say it's the person firing the gun, not that gun itself, that is the problem, in any society. It's like blaming a Happy Meal cause your kid is fat.

If taught responsabillity, a happy meal (in moderation) and a gun (in the appropriate uses) are both perfectly fine items that harm no one.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I see (online) that in 2008 you had ~260 murders, of a population of 22 mil or so. Thats a 0.00118% chance of being murdered in Aussieland.

We, on the other hand, had ~16,000 murders, of a population of 330 mil. Thats a 0.00484% chance of being murdered in the U.S.

Is the 0.003% difference that meaningful itself, do you think? Especially given the aforementioned differences between your nation and ours?

To the bolded, yes. I agree with you on most of the issues involving gun control but you are not interpreting your statistics correctly.

According to your stats you're more than 4 times as likely to be murdered in the United States. That's very significant. When your dealing with such small numbers it's the relationship that matters not the absolute variance.

That said, i think your point regarding the vastly different societal makeup is very convincing.

Arguing that Australia suffers a lesser murder rate due to gun control laws is akin to arguing that a gated community is safer than the streets of Detroit because of their regulations regarding the height of your hedges.

[Soberphobia]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Indeed.



No shortage of hotties here either, I assure you.



Does it?

Or does it reflect that Aussie is (in the vast majority) rural and has fewer and smaller urban centers in-line with cities such as New York or Chicago or Washington DC or LA? While you have a few big cities, they are not like U.S. cities (are they?) in their urban blight, gang conflicts and drug trade. And your nation of 22 million is still only populated enough to be the third largest state in our nation (I tend to reject percentage-based comparisons of things existing in completely different scales,a s it ignored fully the effect of siad scale, i.e. the effect of a 330 mil population nation vs a 22 mil. population nation. Expecting both to have equal % of whatever is I think, illogical, as the burden of that extra 308 million people IS a factor in everything).

Does it reflect that Aussie cities, unlike those in the U.S., do not posess the same socio-economic underclass, and the crime that comes along with such a socio-economic position (given Aussie is far less diverse that the U.S., mostly by those of western European Ancestry, and does not suffer form the same history of slavery and economic domination of 15% of your population, many of whom are socio-economicly confined to the south or big urban centers?).

Do you really think gun availabillity is the only factor involved?

I see (online) that in 2008 you had ~260 murders, of a population of 22 mil or so. Thats a 0.00118% chance of being murdered in Aussieland.

We, on the other hand, had ~16,000 murders, of a population of 330 mil. Thats a 0.00484% chance of being murdered in the U.S.

Is the 0.003% difference that meaningful itself, do you think? Especially given the aforementioned differences between your nation and ours?



I'd say it's the person firing the gun, not that gun itself, that is the problem, in any society. It's like blaming a Happy Meal cause your kid is fat.

If taught responsabillity, a happy meal (in moderation) and a gun (in the appropriate uses) are both perfectly fine items that harm no one.

WF, best poster to argue with on the pol forum, BY FAR. If for the fact your resarch is top notch and because you "stick to your guns". Would add a lol here but it would be only 20% irony, because your argument is skewed.

Diversity: we have a massively diverse population, for example the biggest Greek population in a city in the world outside of Greece is found in Melbourne, Australia. We are FAR more diverse than many countries, and without doing research, probably more diverse than the USA, and if not, we are talking about a margin of very small degrees. The biggest tourist population to our country is from China...was joking to a friend who was at the Star Casino in Sydney recently: he said he saw a Chinese tourist urinate from the mens toilet with is penis in full view across the floor of the casino, which apparently is not that uncommon at the Star. I made some comment about that's why they call them the Yellow Peril, and he laughed, along with a Chinese native and a Vietanamese 2nd gen lass who we were at the table with. The difference is I can make an off-joke without some idiot taking offence and blowing my head off as I walk out of the venue, whereas in the USA, that seems to be a common occurence.