2nd Amendment "rules" should apply to the 14th Amendment

[keystone183]

I believe red flag laws would be dangerous, and i don't believe they would work. But I don't think they're meant to. I believe they're just another step, and one that will be used to say "See, even THIS didn't work, just give us the guns".

[JASmith]

Agreed, Red Flag laws that only confiscate or deny purchase of firearms do nothing to protect law-abiding citizens.

Same thing for background checks.

That is why I am moving toward advocating that we put more folks into confinement for mental competency. That way they won’t have unauthorized access to vehicles, knives, hammers, etc.

I hasten to add that due process, including multiple assessments and not permitting incarceration based solely on anonymous accusations.

[LR1955]

Agreed, Red Flag laws that only confiscate or deny purchase of firearms do nothing to protect law-abiding citizens.

Same thing for background checks.

That is why I am moving toward advocating that we put more folks into confinement for mental competency. That way they won’t have unauthorized access to vehicles, knives, hammers, etc.

I hasten to add that due process, including multiple assessments and not permitting incarceration based solely on anonymous accusations.

OK -- I give up.

Why are background checks failing to stop criminals from walking into a gun store and buying a firearm?

LR55

[keystone183]

OK -- I give up.

Why are background checks failing to stop criminals from walking into a gun store and buying a firearm?

LR55

What are you giving up?

Fraud? Identity theft? Imperfect system? What does it matter anyways? If the nut case isn't a criminal yet, it doesn't matter.

[JASmith]

What are you giving up?

Fraud? Identity theft? Imperfect system? What does it matter anyways? If the nut case isn't a criminal yet, it doesn't matter.

Thanks — saved me some typing time!

[Fess]

Would someone please supply a link to some proposed Black Flag laws? I would like to see what is actually being proposed. Over the years, I have learned that it is easy to get whipped up into a frenzy over what some people THINK that someone else MIGHT be proposing.
I will provide an example. Recently I got curious and did some research on the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act of 1986*. I ran across an article that very strongly implied that this would make .22lr illegal. If you bother to read the law (which is poorly written, by the way), it specifically exempts ammo with bullets that are made largely of lead. So, yes, a .22 round made of steel or tungsten would be an issue, but the vast majority of .22lr ammo would not.

Now there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about that law, but .22lr is not one of them.


* the law was intended to regulate pistol ammunition that would penetrate the soft body commonly used by LEO's. Unlike in 1986, there are now a lot of AR15-based pistols that can shoot military 5.56x45 ammo that was designed to pierce barriers like soft body armor.

[montana]

How about making every firearm owner take a firearm safety course like hunter safety or equivalent. Class room and range instruction with comprehensive testing is not a burdened if a person is serious about firearm ownership. I have no problem with training and background checks, since this would fall under well regulated, "being trained and competent with firearms" as required by the 2ndA. At the same time, "a psych test and back ground check as required for concealed carry" could be performed. I had to list people, "I have known for character reference's" before I was issued a cc permit. I had a childhood friend, "ask me to give a character reference for a concealed carry permit" that I refused to give. There is always a behaviour pattern with people that can be checked if needed. Driving a commercial vehicle, blasting license, hazardous materials endorsement, class 3 firearms, teaching license, law enforcement, etc, all require back ground checks for a reason. Irresponsible drug users, convicted road rage violators, dead beat dads and mothers, criminal behaviour types, need not apply. There should be a history of responsibility, mental stability and training before anyone owns and carries a firearm. Fathers and mothers use to be responsible for this training, but that is not the reality today. Having a history of training and a responsible firearm endorsements seems like a better idea than red flag laws that could be abused and violate the foundation of our nation of due process.

[keystone183]

How about making every firearm owner take a firearm safety course like hunter safety or equivalent. Class room and range instruction with comprehensive testing is not a burdened if a person is serious about firearm ownership. I have no problem with training and background checks, since this would fall under well regulated, "being trained and competent with firearms" as required by the 2ndA. At the same time, "a psych test and back ground check as required for concealed carry" could be performed. I had to list people, "I have known for character reference's" before I was issued a cc permit. I had a childhood friend, "ask me to give a character reference for a concealed carry permit" that I refused to give. There is always a behaviour pattern with people that can be checked if needed. Driving a commercial vehicle, blasting license, hazardous materials endorsement, class 3 firearms, teaching license, law enforcement, etc, all require back ground checks for a reason. Irresponsible drug users, convicted road rage violators, dead beat dads and mothers, criminal behaviour types, need not apply. There should be a history of responsibility, mental stability and training before anyone owns and carries a firearm. Fathers and mothers use to be responsible for this training, but that is not the reality today. Having a history of training and a responsible firearm endorsements seems like a better idea than red flag laws that could be abused and violate the foundation of our nation of due process.

Just to play devils advocate.........why couldn't the same system you're outlining be used and abused in the same way?

[montana]

Just to play devils advocate.........why couldn't the same system you're outlining be used and abused in the same way?

The problem with this nation is the incompetence of its leaders. Emptying our mental institutions and flooding the streets with mentally unstable people was criminal at best. Mental health care is a serious problem in this nation. Providing training and back ground checks on firearm owners ends the debate on who is legally owning and carrying firearms. Almost every mass shooter was fatherless and had severe mental problems. These people should not be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with any firearm. They also should not be driving a vehicle. Back ground checks, comprehensive firearm training is a good start. How many slob hunters and reckless shooters have you seen at the range and in the field? I have seen way too many people with firearms that were in need of much more training. Do you want an angry, depressed, fatherless young man purchasing an AK or AR-15 living next door to your family? The anti's will always try to ban guns since it is power, not solutions they seek. If firearm owners had equal or more training than most law enforcement, then the narrative of only police or military should have guns falls flat on the ground. The only alternative is going to be gun bans and severe restrictions.

Here is the difference between gun owners. Which one do you think the left is going to portray as a typical gun owner? https://tribunist.com/news/concealed-car...o-walmart/

[keystone183]

The problem with this nation is the incompetence of its leaders. Emptying our mental institutions and flooding the streets with mentally unstable people was criminal at best. Mental health care is a serious problem in this nation. Providing training and back ground checks on firearm owners ends the debate on who is legally owning and carrying firearms. Almost every mass shooter was fatherless and had severe mental problems. These people should not be able to walk into a gun store and walk out with any firearm. They also should not be driving a vehicle. Back ground checks, comprehensive firearm training is a good start. How many slob hunters and reckless shooters have you seen at the range and in the field? I have seen way too many people with firearms that were in need of much more training. Do you want an angry, depressed, fatherless young man purchasing an AK or AR-15 living next door to your family? The anti's will always try to ban guns since it is power, not solutions they seek. If firearm owners had equal or more training than most law enforcement, then the narrative of only police or military should have guns falls flat on the ground. The only alternative is going to be gun bans and severe restrictions.

Here is the difference between gun owners. Which one do you think the left is going to portray as a typical gun owner? https://tribunist.com/news/concealed-car...o-walmart/

I certainly agree that a LOT of people could use more training. But you didn't really address my question...

[montana]

I certainly agree that a LOT of people could use more training. But you didn't really address my question...

LOL, I didn't, I was too busy Monologuing Anything can be abused, in fact the 2ndA has a history of abuse. The realities of the populations perception of gun owners needs to be considered. With anything political, "perception is more important than fact" which the left has used with success against the 2ndA. This is a game, "albeit a serous one when duelling with the left" with our gun rights. Striking down the lefts talking points while actually improving the safety of our neighbourhoods and gun owners is a step forward. If you have a better solution that will work, I'm all ears.

[stanc]

The problem with this nation is the incompetence of its leaders.

Totally agree.

[stanc]

The problem with this nation is the incompetence of its leaders.

Totally agree.

[stanc]

How about making every firearm owner take a firearm safety course like hunter safety or equivalent. Class room and range instruction with comprehensive testing is not a burdened if a person is serious about firearm ownership. I have no problem with training and background checks, since this would fall under well regulated, "being trained and competent with firearms" as required by the 2ndA.

No, it would not. The "well regulated" part of the 2A applies to state militias, not to the general public.

At the same time, "a psych test and back ground check as required for concealed carry" could be performed. I had to list people, "I have known for character reference's" before I was issued a cc permit. I had a childhood friend, "ask me to give a character reference for a concealed carry permit" that I refused to give. There is always a behaviour pattern with people that can be checked if needed. Driving a commercial vehicle, blasting license, hazardous materials endorsement, class 3 firearms, teaching license, law enforcement, etc, all require back ground checks for a reason.

And they are all government-granted privileges, not Constitutional rights. What you propose would turn a right into a privilege, controlled by government.

The 2A has been steadily eroded in large part because many, if not most, supposedly pro-2A folks want the government to place restrictions on the RKBA.

[Kswhitetails]

KS:

Not upset with you but have to ask.

What will you do to stop such legislation?

LR55

LR, in answer to your question:

In all honestly, I've written letters to my representatives, the NRA (hah), and sent my letter to several other influential national politicians. Other than that, I guess civil disobediance comes to mind. I simply won't comply. You aren't taking my weapons without a fight.

We used to be a free society; well, free-er. "Give me liberty, or give me death!"? When the suburban population grows to the point ours has, where the only people you meet with guns are police and bad guys, this kind of thing is inevitable.

But, if we don't stand up and say no, when we are told to do something we know is wrong then who are we? If we're going to bow down just because some misguided elected officials decide something arbitrarily that harms our liberty, then we will surely lose the rights we hold so very dear.

These laws are dangerous. For all involved. For those who requested links to whats being proposed, I can't help you. Even the politicians don't know what they want to do. However, here's a link to a story about the enforcement of a current law on the books. This will happen more, and good innocent people will die because of it. Cops and citizens. This is a travesty! https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/...story.html

Again, I say No. You've taken enough from me already. You cannot take my weapons, until you prove my intent to do harm. Good luck with that, you can't prove something that isn't there.

[LR1955]

What are you giving up?

Fraud? Identity theft? Imperfect system? What does it matter anyways? If the nut case isn't a criminal yet, it doesn't matter.

keystone:

Your answer makes no sense. What does Fraud and identify theft have to do with a background checks?

If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun from a gun store, doesn't the background check alert the dealer not to sell him the gun?

LR55

[montana]

No, it would not. The "well regulated" part of the 2A applies to state militias, not to the general public.

We will agree to disagree on this one. I know the supreme court stated, "the militia has nothing to do with gun rights" but I believe this is false. We have debated this in nauseating debates in the past, which I don't care to rekindle.

And they are all government-granted privileges, not Constitutional rights. What you propose would turn a right into a privilege, controlled by government.

The 2A has been steadily eroded in large part because many, if not most, supposedly pro-2A folks want the government to place restrictions on the RKBA.

I agree, the government knew it couldn't out right ban full autos in the 1930's, so they tacked on excessive taxes. Since most people had poor perceptions of full autos, "thanks to gangster movies" there was no outcry. Then in 1986 they did ban newly manufactured full autos for sale to private individuals. Once again, most people could have cared less since it didn't impact hunting or the shooting sports. Then they banned import of non-sporting firearms under Bush senior and then domestic manufactured non-sporting firearms under Clinton This is the slippery slope of abuse that has been occurring with the 2ndA. Requiring basic instruction and a back ground check is favourable to red flag laws " elimination of due process" or gun bans. If we are actually serious about lessening the tragedies of mass shootings and still be able to keep our 2ndA rights, we need a better way to convince the fence sitters that measures are in place to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns. Like I said before, this is as much of a war of perception as it is facts.

[keystone183]

keystone:

Your answer makes no sense. What does Fraud and identify theft have to do with a background checks?

If a convicted felon tries to buy a gun from a gun store, doesn't the background check alert the dealer not to sell him the gun?

LR55

LR

A convicted felon (Tom Smith) walks in to a gun store. He tells the clerk, i'd like to buy this pistol, here run my background check. He gives the clerk a drivers license that says he's Bruce Smith. Out he walks with his new piece.

[keystone183]

If we are actually serious about lessening the tragedies of mass shootings and still be able to keep our 2ndA rights, we need a better way to convince the fence sitters that measures are in place to prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns. Like I said before, this is as much of a war of perception as it is facts.

I couldn't disagree more. Aside form the fact that i don't think the measures will have much of an affect, i KNOW that after these measures are in place, and inevitably, another one happens.....we are back to square one. Then what are you going to give them? WE WILL NEVER WIN THE WAR OF PERCEPTION. Just not possible with the media as it currently exists. And personally, i don't see that changing.....

[montana]

Maybe, "but if there was a method to identify certain people with mental problems and preventing them from having access to guns" perhaps Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield would still be alive.