Gun Politics

[Kurth]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

I don't believe it can work within the framework of the constitution. Unless we repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendment any ban will always run up against that. We need to address the mentality regarding guns and gun ownership as much or more than the actual guns themselves. We, as a nation, profess great respect for human life but our actions continually give the lie to that claim.

Winner!

[El Guapo]

There's a lot of polls showing that the Dems picked the right battleground.

I am sure they are as accurate as the polls that said Trump had no chance to win.

Just noticed this.

Which polls stated that Drumpf had 0% chance to win? Also, win what? Nomination? Presidency? Art Dealer of the Century?

If I may take this out of Ripland for a moment, the state of the polls on gun control is basically this:

(1) If you ask about specific gun control measures (e.g., expanded background checks, assault weapons bans, bump stock bans, etc.) you generally get overwhelming support
(2) If you ask about gun control more generally (e.g., do you favor more or less gun regulation, or ask about balancing gun control and gun rights) you get much closer to a 50-50 split
(3) There is much stronger support for gun regulation in urban and suburban areas than in rural areas (not super shocking).

The main potential problem for the democrats in gun control in 2018 is that they have to defend several Senate seats in red, rural areas, and gun control is *probably* not a winning issues in those states (unless the Parkland shooting has shifted the landscape dramatically).

[El Guapo]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

I don't believe it can work within the framework of the constitution. Unless we repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendment any ban will always run up against that. We need to address the mentality regarding guns and gun ownership as much or more than the actual guns themselves. We, as a nation, profess great respect for human life but our actions continually give the lie to that claim.

Winner!

Not totally sure I buy that. Even accepting Heller (individual gun ownership constitutional rights) as settled law, it doesn't necessarily follow that strong gun control is necessarily unconstitutional, just that there's always going to be a legal challenge. Just like there is a constitutional right to abortion, but various abortion restrictions are still held to be constitutional. So, pass a lot of gun control measures, and see what gets upheld, and go from there.

[Smoove_B]

Not totally sure I buy that.

Known fake-news purveyors NPR released a piece on this today:

If all this seems daunting, as it should, there is one alternative for changing the Constitution. That is the calling of a Constitutional Convention. This, too, is found in Article V of the original Constitution, which allows for a new convention to bypass Congress and address issues of amendment on its own.

To exist with this authority, the new convention would need to be called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

So if 34 states saw fit, they could convene their delegations and start writing amendments. Some believe such a convention would have the power to rewrite the entire 1787 Constitution, if it saw fit. Others say it would and should be limited to specific issues or targets, such as term limits or balancing the budget — or changing the campaign-finance system or restricting the individual rights of gun owners.

[El Guapo]

Not totally sure I buy that.

Known fake-news purveyors NPR released a piece on this today:

If all this seems daunting, as it should, there is one alternative for changing the Constitution. That is the calling of a Constitutional Convention. This, too, is found in Article V of the original Constitution, which allows for a new convention to bypass Congress and address issues of amendment on its own.

To exist with this authority, the new convention would need to be called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

So if 34 states saw fit, they could convene their delegations and start writing amendments. Some believe such a convention would have the power to rewrite the entire 1787 Constitution, if it saw fit. Others say it would and should be limited to specific issues or targets, such as term limits or balancing the budget — or changing the campaign-finance system or restricting the individual rights of gun owners.

That's a terrible idea for dealing with gun control measures. The Koch Krew (TM) has been trying to get a constitutional convention to implement all sorts of horrible ideas. Opening the door to this over gun control would be opening Pandora's box.

[msteelers]

I was listening to yesterday's The Daily podcast, and they were discussing the changing views on gun control. They said that in rural areas the people are still very much pro guns and anti gun control. But in cities and suburban areas, there is an overwhelming desire for more gun control. And since the Democrats path to taking back the House is through the suburbs, you're seeing a total change in how politicians are handling the gun debate.

On February 14th the common assumption was that Democrats who run on gun control couldn't win a general election, while a Republican who ran on gun control would lose their primary. Now 14 days later, there's a growing belief that Republicans who don't run on gun control can't win a general election, and Democrats who don't run on gun control will lose their primary. That's a dramatic change that took less than 2 weeks to develop. The only thing I can compare that to is gay marriage a few years ago, but this seems like a much more significant and quicker change in thinking.

I live in Florida District 18, and Republican Brian Mast is our representative. He wrote a piece for the NY Times over the weekend, saying he supports an assault weapon ban. The Daily used Mast as an example of lawmakers who have just had the earth move underneath them. Mast knows he can't win here if he doesn't support an assault weapon ban. Of course, the voters who appreciate his changing stance (i.e., me) are not going to vote for him anyway because of Trump (and McConnell, and Ryan, and the far right ideologues).

[Kurth]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

I don't believe it can work within the framework of the constitution. Unless we repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendment any ban will always run up against that. We need to address the mentality regarding guns and gun ownership as much or more than the actual guns themselves. We, as a nation, profess great respect for human life but our actions continually give the lie to that claim.

Winner!

Not totally sure I buy that. Even accepting Heller (individual gun ownership constitutional rights) as settled law, it doesn't necessarily follow that strong gun control is necessarily unconstitutional, just that there's always going to be a legal challenge. Just like there is a constitutional right to abortion, but various abortion restrictions are still held to be constitutional. So, pass a lot of gun control measures, and see what gets upheld, and go from there.

OK, even assuming that is right - and I’m not sure it is - it still leaves us up shits creek.

Passing “a lot of gun control measures” to see what sticks may be the only option available to us, but it’s not one I have much faith in if our goal is to really address the problem of gun violence in the U.S., although I do have faith that that approach will lead to some awful electoral outcomes. Again, not saying we should do nothing. A start is a start. But it’s important to realize how limited we are in addressing the problem as long as we’re constantly butting up against the Second Amendment.

All these references to Australia and other gun-free or heavily regulated countries are just nonsense given that we can’t even start a legitimate conversation in this country about scaling back what I believe is a nearly unfettered constitutional right to bear arms. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen that graph that plots the number of guns and gun violence in the U.S. against that in other countries and illustrates what an outlier we are . . . You know where else we’re an outlier? We have the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to our constitution.

[Max Peck]

On February 14th the common assumption was that Democrats who run on gun control couldn't win a general election, while a Republican who ran on gun control would lose their primary. Now 14 days later, there's a growing belief that Republicans who don't run on gun control can't win a general election, and Democrats who don't run on gun control will lose their primary. That's a dramatic change that took less than 2 weeks to develop. The only thing I can compare that to is gay marriage a few years ago, but this seems like a much more significant and quicker change in thinking.

There's a lot of raw emotion right now, though. That will fade over time and there will be a tendency to revert to the mean between now and when the primaries actually happen. There may well be a real shift in public opinion, but I wouldn't expect the needle to stick at the current position.

[El Guapo]

But the fact remains that other countries have successfully reduced gun violence. How can people keep saying "It will never work" when we have living examples that it indeed worked?

I don't believe it can work within the framework of the constitution. Unless we repeal/rewrite the 2nd amendment any ban will always run up against that. We need to address the mentality regarding guns and gun ownership as much or more than the actual guns themselves. We, as a nation, profess great respect for human life but our actions continually give the lie to that claim.

Winner!

Not totally sure I buy that. Even accepting Heller (individual gun ownership constitutional rights) as settled law, it doesn't necessarily follow that strong gun control is necessarily unconstitutional, just that there's always going to be a legal challenge. Just like there is a constitutional right to abortion, but various abortion restrictions are still held to be constitutional. So, pass a lot of gun control measures, and see what gets upheld, and go from there.

OK, even assuming that is right - and I’m not sure it is - it still leaves us up shits creek.

Passing “a lot of gun control measures” to see what sticks may be the only option available to us, but it’s not one I have much faith in if our goal is to really address the problem of gun violence in the U.S., although I do have faith that that approach will lead to some awful electoral outcomes. Again, not saying we should do nothing. A start is a start. But it’s important to realize how limited we are in addressing the problem as long as we’re constantly butting up against the Second Amendment.

All these references to Australia and other gun-free or heavily regulated countries are just nonsense given that we can’t even start a legitimate conversation in this country about scaling back what I believe is a nearly unfettered constitutional right to bear arms. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen that graph that plots the number of guns and gun violence in the U.S. against that in other countries and illustrates what an outlier we are . . . You know where else we’re an outlier? We have the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to our constitution.

I'm saying that the main barrier to more gun control measures is political, not constitutional. You have a Republican majority that is pretty rigidly opposed to gun control, and you have a Senate that is tilted towards rural parts of the countries. Those are huge obstacles. If you can get a pro-gun control majority, though, you can basically start working with the courts on the contours and limits of the second amendment.

Like, there is still a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, but the actual practice of getting abortions has gotten a lot more restrictive over the past few decades. It's an obstacle, but it's not insurmountable.

[Max Peck]

All these references to Australia and other gun-free or heavily regulated countries are just nonsense given that we can’t even start a legitimate conversation in this country about scaling back what I believe is a nearly unfettered constitutional right to bear arms. If I had a nickel for every time I’ve seen that graph that plots the number of guns and gun violence in the U.S. against that in other countries and illustrates what an outlier we are . . . You know where else we’re an outlier? We have the right to bear arms enshrined in the Second Amendment to our constitution.

There's obviously substantial wiggle room between nearly unfettered and unfettered, or the right to bear arms and the right to bear any arms your heart desires; otherwise there'd be a lot more civilians running around with a pintle-mounted minigun on their 4x4. Moving the line between what is and isn't regulated would obviously be difficult, but the fact that the line exists at all under the Constitution as it stands means that it could be done (given sufficient public support and political will) without repealing the second amendment.

[Kurth]

Like, there is still a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, but the actual practice of getting abortions has gotten a lot more restrictive over the past few decades. It's an obstacle, but it's not insurmountable.

Bringing up abortion in a gun control debate is a big distraction. Abortion and gun control are fundamentally different beasts.

First, unlike the right to bear arms, the right to an abortion is not enshrined in the constitution. It’s judge-made law, an interpretation by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extends to a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That’s a huge difference.

Second, the abortion debate centers around interpreting the constition in such a way that it expands on individual rights. The gun control debate centers on rolling back individual rights. That’s another huge difference.

Because of these differences, comparisons between gun control and abortion are not helpful.

[msteelers]

There's a lot of raw emotion right now, though. That will fade over time and there will be a tendency to revert to the mean between now and when the primaries actually happen. There may well be a real shift in public opinion, but I wouldn't expect the needle to stick at the current position.

Maybe, maybe not. A new poll showed Floridians, by a 2:1 margin, favor an assault weapons ban. There is overwhelming support for background checks and raising the minimum age to 21. And 56% of the state say no to arming teachers.

In other words, all of the traditional Republican positions in Florida are extremely unpopular right now. There’s too much up for grabs in the sunshine state for politicians in general, and specifically Republicans, to ignore. In November Florida will be key to the Republicans keeping the house, and there is a real chance that Rick Scott unseats Democrat Bill Nelson in the Senate. The state is too important, and the poll numbers to drastic, for Republicans to ignore.

[El Guapo]

Like, there is still a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, but the actual practice of getting abortions has gotten a lot more restrictive over the past few decades. It's an obstacle, but it's not insurmountable.

Bringing up abortion in a gun control debate is a big distraction. Abortion and gun control are fundamentally different beasts.

First, unlike the right to bear arms, the right to an abortion is not enshrined in the constitution. It’s judge-made law, an interpretation by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extends to a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That’s a huge difference.

Second, the abortion debate centers around interpreting the constition in such a way that it expands on individual rights. The gun control debate centers on rolling back individual rights. That’s another huge difference.

Because of these differences, comparisons between gun control and abortion are not helpful.

Abortion rights are as much a legally binding constitutional right as gun rights. What matters at the end of the day is what the courts (especially the SCOTUS) says the constitution means. It binds the government just as much if the court cites clear text as if it cites inferences from ambiguous text.

Point is, according to the Supreme Court, individuals have a constitutional individual right to abortions. Similarly, also according to the Supreme Court, individuals have a constitutional individual right to bear arms (and note that whether *individuals* have a right to firearms is ambiguous and not in the clear text of the amendment). But every individual right has its limitations - the government can generally regulate the arena (but not the content) of speech, there are 'emergency' exceptions to one's right to not be searched by the police without a warrant, etc. Similarly, recognizing that there is an individual constitutional right to bear arms does not mean that no restrictions are constitutional (to go to the extreme, clearly the government can prohibit an individual from owning a tank).

That said, if you don't like the abortion reference, you can pick any other constitutional right. Point is just that recognizing the existence of an individual constitutional right does not crowd out all regulation, it just invites litigation over the scope of said right.

[Jag]

There's a lot of raw emotion right now, though. That will fade over time and there will be a tendency to revert to the mean between now and when the primaries actually happen. There may well be a real shift in public opinion, but I wouldn't expect the needle to stick at the current position.

Maybe, maybe not. A new poll showed Floridians, by a 2:1 margin, favor an assault weapons ban. There is overwhelming support for background checks and raising the minimum age to 21. And 56% of the state say no to arming teachers.

In other words, all of the traditional Republican positions in Florida are extremely unpopular right now. There’s too much up for grabs in the sunshine state for politicians in general, and specifically Republicans, to ignore. In November Florida will be key to the Republicans keeping the house, and there is a real chance that Rick Scott unseats Democrat Bill Nelson in the Senate. The state is too important, and the poll numbers to drastic, for Republicans to ignore.

Except I don't think the more liberal parts of south and central Florida can overcome the rest of the state. We should really split the state into 2 at this point.

[msteelers]

There's a lot of raw emotion right now, though. That will fade over time and there will be a tendency to revert to the mean between now and when the primaries actually happen. There may well be a real shift in public opinion, but I wouldn't expect the needle to stick at the current position.

Maybe, maybe not. A new poll showed Floridians, by a 2:1 margin, favor an assault weapons ban. There is overwhelming support for background checks and raising the minimum age to 21. And 56% of the state say no to arming teachers.

In other words, all of the traditional Republican positions in Florida are extremely unpopular right now. There’s too much up for grabs in the sunshine state for politicians in general, and specifically Republicans, to ignore. In November Florida will be key to the Republicans keeping the house, and there is a real chance that Rick Scott unseats Democrat Bill Nelson in the Senate. The state is too important, and the poll numbers to drastic, for Republicans to ignore.

Except I don't think the more liberal parts of south and central Florida can overcome the rest of the state. We should really split the state into 2 at this point.

You can't because FSU and Florida are too far north. College football fans down south will never agree to it.

[msteelers]

On a serious note, the same poll found rural voters split on even something as extreme as the assault weapons ban, 48% supporting to 47% opposing.

So while some elements of Southern Alabama will cling to their guns as tight as ever, it does seem like the majority of the state wants to take much stronger action than what the state legislature is proposing and what Republican politicians are comfortable supporting.

[LawBeefaroni]

On a serious note, the same poll found rural voters split on even something as extreme as the assault weapons ban, 48% supporting to 47% opposing.

So while some elements of Southern Alabama will cling to their guns as tight as ever, it does seem like the majority of the state wants to take much stronger action than what the state legislature is proposing and what Republican politicians are comfortable supporting.

There are a lot of gun owners that can take or leave AR15s and variants. As long as they don't buy the slippery slope argument that the NRA likes to promote, they can easily be convinced to support it.

[Kurth]

Like, there is still a constitutional right to abortion in the United States, but the actual practice of getting abortions has gotten a lot more restrictive over the past few decades. It's an obstacle, but it's not insurmountable.

Bringing up abortion in a gun control debate is a big distraction. Abortion and gun control are fundamentally different beasts.

First, unlike the right to bear arms, the right to an abortion is not enshrined in the constitution. It’s judge-made law, an interpretation by the Supreme Court that the right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment extends to a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That’s a huge difference.

Second, the abortion debate centers around interpreting the constition in such a way that it expands on individual rights. The gun control debate centers on rolling back individual rights. That’s another huge difference.

Because of these differences, comparisons between gun control and abortion are not helpful.

Abortion rights are as much a legally binding constitutional right as gun rights. What matters at the end of the day is what the courts (especially the SCOTUS) says the constitution means. It binds the government just as much if the court cites clear text as if it cites inferences from ambiguous text.

Point is, according to the Supreme Court, individuals have a constitutional individual right to abortions. Similarly, also according to the Supreme Court, individuals have a constitutional individual right to bear arms (and note that whether *individuals* have a right to firearms is ambiguous and not in the clear text of the amendment). But every individual right has its limitations - the government can generally regulate the arena (but not the content) of speech, there are 'emergency' exceptions to one's right to not be searched by the police without a warrant, etc. Similarly, recognizing that there is an individual constitutional right to bear arms does not mean that no restrictions are constitutional (to go to the extreme, clearly the government can prohibit an individual from owning a tank).

That said, if you don't like the abortion reference, you can pick any other constitutional right. Point is just that recognizing the existence of an individual constitutional right does not crowd out all regulation, it just invites litigation over the scope of said right.

I generally agree with that. I'd only suggest that the less ambiguous the text in the constitution is, the less open it is to interpretation. The concept of "due process" is tailor made to be stretched and molded through judicial interpretation. It practically calls for it. The language of the Second Amendment isn't all that ambiguous. Compare:

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fourteenth Amendment (Section 1):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The language of the Second Amendment is relatively straight forward, and it's much shorter, coming in at just 25 words, with more than half of that word count in the preamble stating the purpose of the amendment. Of course, that preamble has been fodder for many arguments in favor of limiting the scope of the right to bear arms. I find those arguments solidly unpersuasive.

If you haven't already had enough of trying to interpret the Second Amendment, I love the non-partisan summary at The Constitution Center.

Anyway, to be crystal clear, none of this means I'm against gun control measures. It's the opposite. I'm just not of the opinion that the kind of significant, impactful gun control measures we need can be crafted in a way that makes them constitutional. Maybe we can nip around the edges of the problem, rallying against bump stocks and 30 round magazines in response to the latest sensationalized mass shooting -- although, setting aside the constitutional question, as already noted, I'm highly doubtful we'll even actually do that. But we'll never be able to actually address the problem of gun violence in the U.S. until we have the collective will as a society to deal with the Second Amendment.

[El Guapo]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is just a ton to work with here if you want to make room for gun regulation. There's the "militia" clause, combined with the reference to "the people". Does it protect an individual's right to keep a gun in their house, or does it just protect the right of the people collectively to come together to form militias (and to bear arms *as part of an organized militia*? Does it offer any protection at all to someone who wants to have a gun for the purposes of hunting? Does it provide any protection solely on the right to "keep" a gun, or does the right only protect one's ability to keep AND bear arms (i.e. to keep a gun solely for purposes of bearing arms as part of a militia)? What does "arms" mean - all weapons? Certain classifications of weapons? What kind of regulations constitute "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms?

[Jag]

If these amendments are practically scripture, how come no one mentions how batshit crazy the Third Amendment is in modern day. Maybe they were actually meant for a different time and place.

[Isgrimnur]

#RepealTheThird

[El Guapo]

If these amendments are practically scripture, how come no one mentions how batshit crazy the Third Amendment is in modern day. Maybe they were actually meant for a different time and place.

The government's never quartered troops in your house, right? I'd call that a tremendous success.

[Fitzy]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is just a ton to work with here if you want to make room for gun regulation. There's the "militia" clause, combined with the reference to "the people". Does it protect an individual's right to keep a gun in their house, or does it just protect the right of the people collectively to come together to form militias (and to bear arms *as part of an organized militia*? Does it offer any protection at all to someone who wants to have a gun for the purposes of hunting? Does it provide any protection solely on the right to "keep" a gun, or does the right only protect one's ability to keep AND bear arms (i.e. to keep a gun solely for purposes of bearing arms as part of a militia)? What does "arms" mean - all weapons? Certain classifications of weapons? What kind of regulations constitute "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms?

If the government can take arms from individuals, how would they(the individuals) get arms to form the militia? Of course, "well regulated" would seem to imply that the government can regulate the darn things. And security of a free State seems to imply outside, not internal threat.

I think the hardest issue for people who support gun rights to come around to banning (not necessarily regulating) is that we would be saying that owning a gun makes you a criminal, even without any other crime. Anti-regulation is paranoia, but I have no idea if it's a real issue or outright crazy.

Consider it from a perspective that we here might be more familiar with. Gaming is coming up more and more. It's a distraction, but it's being tossed out there. Millions of people play games, but don't kill anyone. Millions of people own guns, but don't kill anyone. How many people here would support the banning or regulating of violent games if it could be shown that a few people who play those games are desensitized enough to kill and go out and do so?

[Jag]

Consider it from a perspective that we here might be more familiar with. Gaming is coming up more and more. It's a distraction, but it's being tossed out there. Millions of people play games, but don't kill anyone. Millions of people own guns, but don't kill anyone. How many people here would support the banning or regulating of violent games if it could be shown that a few people who play those games are desensitized enough to kill and go out and do so?

There have been far fewer mass killings using an X-Box console as a weapon. Games aren't weapons. Except maybe for some CEs and shrink wrapping.

[noxiousdog]

Anyway, to be crystal clear, none of this means I'm against gun control measures. It's the opposite. I'm just not of the opinion that the kind of significant, impactful gun control measures we need can be crafted in a way that makes them constitutional. Maybe we can nip around the edges of the problem, rallying against bump stocks and 30 round magazines in response to the latest sensationalized mass shooting -- although, setting aside the constitutional question, as already noted, I'm highly doubtful we'll even actually do that. But we'll never be able to actually address the problem of gun violence in the U.S. until we have the collective will as a society to deal with the Second Amendment.

I was banging something around in my head this morning. How about something along the lines of a rating system?

Gun components and/or ammo would be assign points. At certain points levels you need a higher class license. That way nothing is actually illegal or banned, but if you want to walk around with an m-16, that's ok, as long as you put in the time/effort/insurance/background check/mental health check whatever to qualify for the license. You wouldn't have to ban AR-15s, but you could make it so it's just way easier to get a more appropriate weapon. It would eliminate the "but assault rifles just look dangerous" argument as you're only rating the components and not the whole weapon. It would be a sliding scale so it would be feasible to upgrade your license.

It's not like there aren't already many types of of firearms licenses.

[Defiant]

Anecdotal, but...

NRA members on Trump's plans for gun control: 'Every word of it was a betrayal'

[Jag]

Anyway, to be crystal clear, none of this means I'm against gun control measures. It's the opposite. I'm just not of the opinion that the kind of significant, impactful gun control measures we need can be crafted in a way that makes them constitutional. Maybe we can nip around the edges of the problem, rallying against bump stocks and 30 round magazines in response to the latest sensationalized mass shooting -- although, setting aside the constitutional question, as already noted, I'm highly doubtful we'll even actually do that. But we'll never be able to actually address the problem of gun violence in the U.S. until we have the collective will as a society to deal with the Second Amendment.

I was banging something around in my head this morning. How about something along the lines of a rating system?

Gun components and/or ammo would be assign points. At certain points levels you need a higher class license. That way nothing is actually illegal or banned, but if you want to walk around with an m-16, that's ok, as long as you put in the time/effort/insurance/background check/mental health check whatever to qualify for the license. You wouldn't have to ban AR-15s, but you could make it so it's just way easier to get a more appropriate weapon. It would eliminate the "but assault rifles just look dangerous" argument as you're only rating the components and not the whole weapon. It would be a sliding scale so it would be feasible to upgrade your license.

It's not like there aren't already many types of of firearms licenses.

That's similar to what many gun restrictive countries do. NRA will never allow their minions to pass even reasonable regulations.

You can thank Florida and Marion Hammer for a big part of this.

[Grifman]

If the government can take arms from individuals, how would they(the individuals) get arms to form the militia? Of course, "well regulated" would seem to imply that the government can regulate the darn things. And security of a free State seems to imply outside, not internal threat.

Report to your local National Guard Amory to be issued a weapon as a registered member of your militia/state National Guard unit.

[Kurth]

Anyway, to be crystal clear, none of this means I'm against gun control measures. It's the opposite. I'm just not of the opinion that the kind of significant, impactful gun control measures we need can be crafted in a way that makes them constitutional. Maybe we can nip around the edges of the problem, rallying against bump stocks and 30 round magazines in response to the latest sensationalized mass shooting -- although, setting aside the constitutional question, as already noted, I'm highly doubtful we'll even actually do that. But we'll never be able to actually address the problem of gun violence in the U.S. until we have the collective will as a society to deal with the Second Amendment.

I was banging something around in my head this morning. How about something along the lines of a rating system?

Gun components and/or ammo would be assign points. At certain points levels you need a higher class license. That way nothing is actually illegal or banned, but if you want to walk around with an m-16, that's ok, as long as you put in the time/effort/insurance/background check/mental health check whatever to qualify for the license. You wouldn't have to ban AR-15s, but you could make it so it's just way easier to get a more appropriate weapon. It would eliminate the "but assault rifles just look dangerous" argument as you're only rating the components and not the whole weapon. It would be a sliding scale so it would be feasible to upgrade your license.

It's not like there aren't already many types of of firearms licenses.

I think that's an interesting idea, but I don't think it really addresses the underlying issue. How many people in the U.S. take a bullet from an AR-15 (or similar style weapon) compared to a handgun? Despite the Dickhead Amendment, there actually is data that answers that question, as written about in this excellent NYT piece from 2014:

The Assault Weapon Myth

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.

[El Guapo]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is just a ton to work with here if you want to make room for gun regulation. There's the "militia" clause, combined with the reference to "the people". Does it protect an individual's right to keep a gun in their house, or does it just protect the right of the people collectively to come together to form militias (and to bear arms *as part of an organized militia*? Does it offer any protection at all to someone who wants to have a gun for the purposes of hunting? Does it provide any protection solely on the right to "keep" a gun, or does the right only protect one's ability to keep AND bear arms (i.e. to keep a gun solely for purposes of bearing arms as part of a militia)? What does "arms" mean - all weapons? Certain classifications of weapons? What kind of regulations constitute "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms?

If the government can take arms from individuals, how would they(the individuals) get arms to form the militia? Of course, "well regulated" would seem to imply that the government can regulate the darn things. And security of a free State seems to imply outside, not internal threat.

I think the hardest issue for people who support gun rights to come around to banning (not necessarily regulating) is that we would be saying that owning a gun makes you a criminal, even without any other crime. Anti-regulation is paranoia, but I have no idea if it's a real issue or outright crazy.

Consider it from a perspective that we here might be more familiar with. Gaming is coming up more and more. It's a distraction, but it's being tossed out there. Millions of people play games, but don't kill anyone. Millions of people own guns, but don't kill anyone. How many people here would support the banning or regulating of violent games if it could be shown that a few people who play those games are desensitized enough to kill and go out and do so?

As I understand it, the "security of a free state" thing is a reflection of how the overriding concern motivating the second amendment was a concern about how to defend a Republic without standing armies. Standing armies were regarded (justifiably) by the founders as one of the foremost dangers against liberty, insofar as having a bunch of men with guns loyal to a general can tend to be destructive of democracy. But at the same time the founders recognized that of course a Republic needs to have access to some kind of armies in order to defend itself. So the solution was to make sure that people have some access to weapons at least in connection with a militia, such that the government could call upon those militias in times of danger, thereby avoiding the need for standing armies and the dangers that would entail.

Of course, now we have a standing army and no real militias (the National Guard not really being what the founders had in mind), so that raises some questions about the applicability of the second amendment these days.

Anyway, for the Second Amendment to mean anything it has to be the case that the government cannot ban all guns full stop. At the other extreme it can't be that the government can't ban *any* weapons. So that leaves us somewhere in the middle, with some ambiguity as to the types of weapons that can be banned and the types of regulations that can be placed on weapons not banned.

[El Guapo]

Anyway, to be crystal clear, none of this means I'm against gun control measures. It's the opposite. I'm just not of the opinion that the kind of significant, impactful gun control measures we need can be crafted in a way that makes them constitutional. Maybe we can nip around the edges of the problem, rallying against bump stocks and 30 round magazines in response to the latest sensationalized mass shooting -- although, setting aside the constitutional question, as already noted, I'm highly doubtful we'll even actually do that. But we'll never be able to actually address the problem of gun violence in the U.S. until we have the collective will as a society to deal with the Second Amendment.

I was banging something around in my head this morning. How about something along the lines of a rating system?

Gun components and/or ammo would be assign points. At certain points levels you need a higher class license. That way nothing is actually illegal or banned, but if you want to walk around with an m-16, that's ok, as long as you put in the time/effort/insurance/background check/mental health check whatever to qualify for the license. You wouldn't have to ban AR-15s, but you could make it so it's just way easier to get a more appropriate weapon. It would eliminate the "but assault rifles just look dangerous" argument as you're only rating the components and not the whole weapon. It would be a sliding scale so it would be feasible to upgrade your license.

It's not like there aren't already many types of of firearms licenses.

I think that's an interesting idea, but I don't think it really addresses the underlying issue. How many people in the U.S. take a bullet from an AR-15 (or similar style weapon) compared to a handgun? Despite the Dickhead Amendment, there actually is data that answers that question, as written about in this excellent NYT piece from 2014:

The Assault Weapon Myth

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned.

That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban.

But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.

It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do.

In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.

The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots.

I think there are a few different categories of shooting deaths that people are concerned about:

(1) Mass shootings
(2) Accidental deaths (especially of children);
(3) Domestic violence related firearms deaths

The mass shootings are getting the most focus on account of the public nature of them, hence the focus is disproportionately on assault weapons and the AR-15. But I don't think anyone is under the illusion that restrictions designed to reduce mass shootings will help with the other (more common) categories of gun violence and gun deaths.

If you put reasonable people in a room and crafted a gun control bill, I suspect you'd wind up with something like restrictions on assault-type weapons to reduce mass shootings (maybe something like what ND suggests, which seems generally reasonable to me), combined with requiring people to store their guns in safe manners (e.g., use guns safes and the like), and some restrictions on people getting access to guns when there are domestic abuse type allegations against them.

[em2nought]

I just ordered a new semi-automatic handgun. It's magazine holds 15 + 1 in the chamber of .45 ACP. With a second magazine I have 31 rounds of .45 ACP. Banning assault rifles is silly if you want to cut down on firearms deaths because handguns are used to kill far more people per year. Banning assault rifles makes sense if you want to start chipping away at the second amendment though.

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."

[Kurth]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is just a ton to work with here if you want to make room for gun regulation. There's the "militia" clause, combined with the reference to "the people". Does it protect an individual's right to keep a gun in their house, or does it just protect the right of the people collectively to come together to form militias (and to bear arms *as part of an organized militia*? Does it offer any protection at all to someone who wants to have a gun for the purposes of hunting? Does it provide any protection solely on the right to "keep" a gun, or does the right only protect one's ability to keep AND bear arms (i.e. to keep a gun solely for purposes of bearing arms as part of a militia)? What does "arms" mean - all weapons? Certain classifications of weapons? What kind of regulations constitute "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms?

The only argument that gets to the heart of the matter is the one that focuses on the preamble and makes the case that the right to bear arms is limited to maintaining a "well regulated Militia." I don't buy that argument for a number of reasons, but it's probably not worth hashing that out here. Assuming for the moment that I'm wrong on that and the Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to bear arms for use in maintaining a militia, perhaps that could be squared with wide spread, meaningful gun control legislation.

But, setting the "well regulated Militia" argument aside, everything else is going to be marginal. Sure, we may be able to address mass-shootings to some degree, but what definition of "Arms" or "shall not be infringed" is going to permit the kind of substantive gun control measures that would actually put a dent in the massive numbers of deaths and injuries attributed to gun violence in this country every year?

[El Guapo]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There is just a ton to work with here if you want to make room for gun regulation. There's the "militia" clause, combined with the reference to "the people". Does it protect an individual's right to keep a gun in their house, or does it just protect the right of the people collectively to come together to form militias (and to bear arms *as part of an organized militia*? Does it offer any protection at all to someone who wants to have a gun for the purposes of hunting? Does it provide any protection solely on the right to "keep" a gun, or does the right only protect one's ability to keep AND bear arms (i.e. to keep a gun solely for purposes of bearing arms as part of a militia)? What does "arms" mean - all weapons? Certain classifications of weapons? What kind of regulations constitute "infringing" on the right to keep and bear arms?

The only argument that gets to the heart of the matter is the one that focuses on the preamble and makes the case that the right to bear arms is limited to maintaining a "well regulated Militia." I don't buy that argument for a number of reasons, but it's probably not worth hashing that out here. Assuming for the moment that I'm wrong on that and the Second Amendment only protects the right of the people to bear arms for use in maintaining a militia, perhaps that could be squared with wide spread, meaningful gun control legislation.

But, setting the "well regulated Militia" argument aside, everything else is going to be marginal. Sure, we may be able to address mass-shootings to some degree, but what definition of "Arms" or "shall not be infringed" is going to permit the kind of substantive gun control measures that would actually put a dent in the massive numbers of deaths and injuries attributed to gun violence in this country every year?

For starters, there are a ton of sensible regulations that could probably reduce accidental gun deaths. Things like requiring the use of gun safes, or measures to encourage (or require) smart guns when buying guns for hunting or self-defense. Any regulation governing the safe storage and maintenance of guns seems completely consistent with the second amendment, because the government's not restricting anyone's ability to buy guns, it's just placing rules on how the guns are stored and maintained.

Mass shootings is probably trickier. Expanded background checks would probably help somewhat. But to get of the meat of it on restrictions on the types of guns one can readily buy - clearly it must be constitutional to ban some types of weaponry (e.g., tanks, rocket launchers, etc.) - I assume the argument for that is something like "banning (or heavily restricting) some type of arms does not infringe the people's right to own arms generally, because they can still buy those other categories of arms". So you just expand the types of weapons that are banned / restricted. The most effective way to go about doing that as a practical matter is going to be tricky, but something like ND's system seems like a reasonable start.

[Kraken]

As I understand it, the "security of a free state" thing is a reflection of how the overriding concern motivating the second amendment was a concern about how to defend a Republic without standing armies.

This is a perspective that I came upon yesterday: The 2nd Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery.

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

The source is a little dubious but the argument seems sound.

[LordMortis]

Delta doesn't back off...

http://time.com/5182755/delta-airlines- ... a-georgia/

Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian issued a company-wide memo Friday addressing the recent fallout between the carrier and the National Rifle Association in the wake of the deadly Parkland, Fla. school shooting.

Bastian, who opted to end Delta’s discount program for NRA members as online petitions urged companies to boycott the group, said in the memo sent to employees that Delta was not trying to take sides in the ongoing gun control debate. But Bastian said the Georgia-based company stands by its decision to cut ties with the NRA despite backlash from state lawmakers, who passed legislation in retaliation Thursday to kill tax exemptions on jet fuel Delta uses.

“Our decision was not made for economic gain and our values are not for sale,” Bastian wrote in the memo. “We are in the process of a review to end group discounts for any group of a politically divisive nature.”

“None of this changes the fact that our home is Atlanta and we are proud and honored to locate our headquarters here,” Bastian wrote. “And we are supporters of the 2nd Amendment, just as we embrace the entire Constitution of the United States.”

[Pyperkub]

Dunno if this was posted earlier, but I think it would be a positive first step (though in some communities, further steps are necessary) - the Deeply Libertarian solution - self registration on a No-Gun list:

This might therefore be a good time to consider a middle-ground proposal developed by two law professors, Fred Vars of the University of Alabama and my Yale colleague Ian Ayres. Their idea was originally aimed at reducing gun suicides. This is no small problem. The number of deaths from mass shootings each year, while horrific, is dwarfed by the 21,000 people who take their own lives annually using guns. But the authors’ suggestion might also be useful in reducing mass shootings -- and without provoking arguments over the scope of the right to bear arms (more on that in a later column).

At the heart of the proposal by Ayres and Vars is an elegant yet simple device. The state establishes a “No Gun” registry. Joining is entirely voluntary, but upon adding my name, I give up my right to purchase a firearm. Not forever. Not for some set period of time. The waiver is in effect only until I change my mind, which I am free to do whenever I like.

Sound too easy? This is where the elegant part comes in. When I join, I can supply the email addresses for people who should be notified if I change my mind. If I decide later to drop my name from the registry, nobody can stop me, but there’s a three-week cooling-off period. During that fortnight and a half, the state notifies whomever I listed as a contact when joining the registry. The idea is that if I’m disturbed or depressed or given to bouts of temper, my contacts can try to talk me out of buying a gun -- and, if I’m adamant, they might try to take stronger action, such as having me held for observation.

The proposal is aimed particularly at the mentally ill, who might, during their lucid periods, agree to join the No Guns registry. If you’re skeptical, be aware that the authors have conducted surveys suggesting that nearly half of those with diagnosed mental illnesses would sign up. This matters because, despite recent prominent claims to the contrary, it’s pretty clear that mental illness often plays an important role in mass shootings as well.

[Isgrimnur]

So, like our old HEAT program for guns? (cancelled 2013)

[Pyperkub]

So, like our old HEAT program for guns? (cancelled 2013)

Sounds like it, except for the cooling off period.

[Rip]

Delta doesn't back off...

http://time.com/5182755/delta-airlines- ... a-georgia/

Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian issued a company-wide memo Friday addressing the recent fallout between the carrier and the National Rifle Association in the wake of the deadly Parkland, Fla. school shooting.

Bastian, who opted to end Delta’s discount program for NRA members as online petitions urged companies to boycott the group, said in the memo sent to employees that Delta was not trying to take sides in the ongoing gun control debate. But Bastian said the Georgia-based company stands by its decision to cut ties with the NRA despite backlash from state lawmakers, who passed legislation in retaliation Thursday to kill tax exemptions on jet fuel Delta uses.

“Our decision was not made for economic gain and our values are not for sale,” Bastian wrote in the memo. “We are in the process of a review to end group discounts for any group of a politically divisive nature.”

“None of this changes the fact that our home is Atlanta and we are proud and honored to locate our headquarters here,” Bastian wrote. “And we are supporters of the 2nd Amendment, just as we embrace the entire Constitution of the United States.”

I'm sure the 13 people that actually used the discount will be heartbroken.