The Gun Control Debate Thread

[TradeTheBeal!]

Sandy Hook was six years ago today.

[bcl05]

 

 

6 years.  This thread from the daughter of the principal at Sandy Hook had me sobbing.

 

I can still hardly believe that happened, and continues to happen.  What an awful stain on our culture.  

[bcl05]

https://www.courant.com/breaking-news/hc-br-sandy-hook-school-evacuated-for-threat-20181214-etqofjqcmjfjrlvdqpxaulcqgy-story.html

 

What the hell is wrong with people.  

[China]

Gun deaths at highest level in 40 years, CDC says

 

New numbers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s WONDER database shows gun-related deaths have reached the highest level in almost 40 years.

 

Nearly 40,000 people in the United States died from a gunshot wound in 2017. According to the data, 14,542 were murders and 23,854 were ruled a suicide.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

What interesting timing....

 

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

Edited December 18, 2018 by visionary

[FanboyOf91]

welp

[Springfield]

I told you Obama was coming for your guns you libtards

[PleaseBlitz]

2 hours ago, FanboyOf91 said:

 

 

 

 

Jeez, Trump can’t even do good things without breaking the law.  I applaud him for trying, in this case, even if his administration ****ed up the execution. 

 

Trump and laws:

 

Edited December 19, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[Springfield]

Ok, so all seriousness...

 

Is this something that was done unilaterally by the executive without any legislation?  If so, that seems like an overreach of power to me.  I mean, I’m all for eleminating bump stocks, but what is to stop Trump (or the next Democratic President) from banning ANY sort of weapon he/she chooses?

 

Furthermore, what about other constitutional rights?

[PleaseBlitz]

12 hours ago, Springfield said:

Ok, so all seriousness...

 

Is this something that was done unilaterally by the executive without any legislation?  If so, that seems like an overreach of power to me.  I mean, I’m all for eleminating bump stocks, but what is to stop Trump (or the next Democratic President) from banning ANY sort of weapon he/she chooses?

 

Furthermore, what about other constitutional rights?

 

The law here is relatively easy to explain, although it will be litigated to death.  "Machine guns" are already banned and have been for a long time.  The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms has limitations; you can't buy grenades, you can't buy an F-16, you can't buy napalm, you can't buy machine guns.  All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to "reasonable restrictions," so this isn't a big issue.  This new action by the Trump administration is a change to an administrative rule (Congress makes statutes, government agencies make rules that interpret and implement those statutes) that brings bump stocks under the definition of "machine guns" because, well, they turn semi-automatic guns into machine guns. 

 

The other constitutional right at issue here is the takings clause of the 5th Amendment which states "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."  Bump stocks are private property, and this rule requires people to give up or destroy the bump stocks they already own.  So that is a taking of public property without just compensation.  This will get litigated on the grounds that the bump stocks are not being taken for public use because the government doesn't want to use the bump stocks, they want to get rid of them.  The NRA has a habit of not reading all of the words in any given amendment.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The law here is relatively easy to explain, although it will be litigated to death.  "Machine guns" are already banned and have been for a long time.  The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms has limitations; you can't buy grenades, you can't buy an F-16, you can't buy napalm, you can't buy machine guns.  All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to "reasonable restrictions," so this isn't a big issue.  This new action by the Trump administration is a change to an administrative rule (Congress makes statutes, government agencies make rules that interpret and implement those statutes) that brings bump stocks under the definition of "machine guns" because, well, they turn semi-automatic guns into machine guns. 

 

The other constitutional right at issue here is the takings clause of the 5th Amendment which states "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."  Bump stocks are private property, and this rule requires people to give up or destroy the bump stocks they already own.  So that is a taking of public property without just compensation.  This will get litigated on the grounds that the bump stocks are not being taken for public use because the government doesn't want to use the bump stocks, they want to get rid of them.  The NRA has a habit of not reading all of the words in any given amendment.

 

Was about to reply to Springy, but glad you did since you're a lawyer.  Do you think they will be legally forced to remove "the destroying or turning them over to the 

ATF" part of the amended regulation?  And simply only ban further manufacturing and selling of bump stocks, but those that already own one will be grandfathered in.

 

Personally, I see no reason for anyone to own one and have no problem trying to completely eliminate them.  I find it more saddening that it took over a year to try to make this happen.  Which is one of the main reasons I don't like politics in general (either side).  

 

[PleaseBlitz]

I'll just note that, while the NRA is going to act like it is losing its **** over this, banning bump stocks is like the most bare-minimum common sense thing ever.  Some dude used one to kill 58 people and wound 500 more.  They have literally no value in terms of defending oneself, gun people like them because they are "fun."  The NRA just has to fight this tooth and nail to serve notice that any real, meaningful gun control will be opposed in a crazy, fanatical, Armageddon-like fashion so they can try to squelch those measures before they get off the ground. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

CNN news article on their website about Pittsburgh considering assault rifle and bump stock ban:

 

Quote

If passed, the proposed laws will ban assault weapons and extended magazines from the city, as well as allow courts to temporarily take guns away from individuals deemed to pose a significant danger to themselves or others.

 

Link to the full article:  https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Was about to reply to Springy, but glad you did since you're a lawyer.  Do you think they will be legally forced to remove "the destroying or turning them over to the 

ATF" part of the amended regulation?  And simply only ban further manufacturing and selling of bump stocks, but those that already own one will be grandfathered in.

 

No idea.  Given that the 2 new judges are staunch conservatives, I would lean towards removing the ability to take them away, but those 2 also claim to be "originalists" or whatever nonsense they used to justify always ruling on the conservative side of every issue, and this one will require them ignoring words in the Constitution.  The Kav and Gorsuch are too new for me to have a sense.

 

The other issue that I didn't mention involves how much leeway an administrative agency has to interpret a law passed by Congress.  Those are always VERY fact specific, so again, I have no idea. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

Personally, I see no reason for anyone to own one and have no problem trying to completely eliminate them.  I find it more saddening that it took over a year to try to make this happen.  Which is one of the main reasons I don't like politics in general (either side).  

 

 

So, one side immediately and loudly called for banning bump stocks after the Vegas massacre, the other side aggressively opposed it and blocked anything from happening, but you don't like both sides because it took so long for anything to happen?  Makes sense.

[Renegade7]

@PleaseBlitz    Should the 5th amendment angle really be used on something as dangerous as bumpstocks? Like if a new drug was added to Schedule 1, should DEA have to offer to buy all that stuff off the street from people? Even if the gun itself is a constitutional right, does that mean the accessories are, too? 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

So, one side immediately and loudly called for banning bump stocks after the Vegas massacre, the other side aggressively opposed it and blocked anything from happening, but you don't like both sides because it took so long for anything to happen?  Makes sense.

 

Was merging two thoughts really.  First, that it was sad that it took this long for some action to be taken on this particular firearm attachment.  Second, it's stuff like this (generally speaking) that makes me not like politics.  This time it was the right holding off as long as they could and using this for political gain, which was wrong.

 

 

 

 

[Chew]

12 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

CNN news article on their website about Pittsburgh considering assault rifle and bump stock ban:

 

 

Link to the full article:  https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/17/us/pittsburgh-assault-weapon-ban/index.html

 

 

 

 

 

If I'm reading and interpreting that article correctly, is the city of Pittsburgh essentially banning all rifles?  To include any rifles that people already own?

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

@PleaseBlitz    Should the 5th amendment angle really be used on something as dangerous as bumpstocks? Like if a new drug was added to Schedule 1, should DEA have to offer to buy all that stuff off the street from people? Even if the gun itself is a constitutional right, does that mean the accessories are, too? 

 

The 5th Amendment angle has nothing to do with guns being a constitutional right and nothing to do with bump stocks being so dangerous.  It's just, the g'ment can't take your property (for public use) without paying you.  It has almost always been used in connection with the g'ment taking real property, that is, land.  It's only recently been held that it applies to personal property at all, but it does now.  The government can't take your gun, can't take your house, can't take your car, etc. without just compensation.  Bump stocks are just personal property like anything else. 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

6 minutes ago, Chew said:

If I'm reading and interpreting that article correctly, is the city of Pittsburgh essentially banning all rifles?  To include any rifles that people already own?

 

I think it is.  It doesn't mention any grandfathering for those already in legal possession of anything listed in the ban.  But it also doesn't say anything about having to turn them over, sell them, etc. if they are in possession and living in the city limits.  

 

From the looks of it, the only rifles allowed will be ones that have no detachable magazines.  So, that 22LR with a 10 round clip that comes off that you use for target shooting/hunting, tough ****, your banned.  It's like they tried to get sneaky and list actual brands of AR-15 style rifles that will be banned to make it focus on that but basically lumped in everything with a detachable magazine.  

 

Do you know of any semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines that are not AR-10 or AR-15 style?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.  

[PleaseBlitz]

The Pittsburgh law, explained by Sam Elliott:

 

 

[Chew]

7 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

I think it is.  It doesn't mention any grandfathering for those already in legal possession of anything listed in the ban.  But it also doesn't say anything about having to turn them over, sell them, etc. if they are in possession and living in the city limits.  

 

From the looks of it, the only rifles allowed will be ones that have no detachable magazines.  So, that 22LR with a 10 round clip that comes off that you use for target shooting/hunting, tough ****, your banned.  It's like they tried to get sneaky and list actual brands of AR-15 style rifles that will be banned to make it focus on that but basically lumped in everything with a detachable magazine.  

 

Do you know of any semi-automatic rifles with fixed magazines that are not AR-10 or AR-15 style?  I can't think of any off the top of my head.  

Wow, that's unfortunate.  Banning all rifles with a detachable mag pretty much wipes out most folks who own rifles.  Every single rifle I own would be gone under that ban.  My high-capacity drums, too. 

I'm all for common sense gun control, but Pittsburgh needs to chill the **** out. 

 

[Renegade7]

59 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

The 5th Amendment angle has nothing to do with guns being a constitutional right and nothing to do with bump stocks being so dangerous.  It's just, the g'ment can't take your property (for public use) without paying you.  It has almost always been used in connection with the g'ment taking real property, that is, land.  It's only recently been held that it applies to personal property at all, but it does now.  The government can't take your gun, can't take your house, can't take your car, etc. without just compensation.  Bump stocks are just personal property like anything else. 

 

Gotcha, just feels like a loophole that if someone makes your personal property illegal (in this case a bumpstock), can constitution be used to protect the government from taking it from you?  Why I used the new hard drug being added to the list example.

[tshile]

12 hours ago, PleaseBlitz said:

The NRA just has to fight this tooth and nail to serve notice that any real, meaningful gun control will be opposed in a crazy, fanatical, Armageddon-like fashion so they can try to squelch those measures before they get off the ground. 

 

And why spend time and money fighting whether there should be magazine capacity limits or rate of fire limits or caliber or where the line for unfit to own a gun is, when you can make people spend money arguing that this thing banning bumpstocks is indeed constitutional and for the greater good 

 

they don’t give an inch because they know they don’t have to. 

Edited December 20, 2018 by tshile