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

[keystone183]

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.

You willing to give up "just a little bit more" of your rights on that chance?

[montana]

You willing to give up "just a little bit more" of your rights on that chance?

I don't consider mandatory safety and back ground checks as giving up anything. Mandatory firearm instruction is just common sense. Perhaps you don't care, but I do care if my family members or myself are exposed to people who know nothing about firearm safety or responsibility. When I compete with my family in Practical shooting, I have very little concern, "since training and safety is priority one" and if violated, there are severe consequences. I have never seen anyone complain about mandatory hunter safety classes for young hunters. Young and old firearm owners alike, need training in their lives at some point, "and the ones who think they don't" are usually the ones who need it the most. We have a generation of shooters who never had a father teach them any form of firearm safety, responsibility or personal consequences with bad choices. Providing an infrastructure for proper training and education for these new shooters is a better alternative than doing nothing or letting first shooter video games be their only choice of firearm instruction.

[keystone183]

I don't consider mandatory safety and back ground checks as giving up anything. Mandatory firearm instruction is just common sense. Perhaps you don't care, but I do care if my family members or myself are exposed to people who know nothing about firearm safety or responsibility. When I compete with my family in Practical shooting, I have very little concern, "since training and safety is priority one" and if violated, there are severe consequences. I have never seen anyone complain about mandatory hunter safety classes for young hunters. Young and old firearm owners alike, need training in their lives at some point, "and the ones who think they don't" are usually the ones who need it the most. We have a generation of shooters who never had a father teach them any form of firearm safety, responsibility or personal consequences with bad choices. Providing an infrastructure for proper training and education for these new shooters is a better alternative than doing nothing or letting first shooter video games be their only choice of firearm instruction.

If the government is mandating it as a condition of ownership? I don't see how you don't see that as giving up a RIGHT? We can all agree on firearm safety being important. Getting the government is involved is never a good idea. Something something Ben Franklin.....

Maybe the NRA could do this for us....:p

[LR1955]

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.

keystone:

So, those places on the form that require place of birth (not on a drivers license), height, weight, residence address, etc are not looked at when the felon tries to use fraud to buy a firearm?

Fake identity is a lame reason to get rid of background checks. In fact, it poses an immense risk on the guy using said fake identity. Far less risky to buy a gun off the street or to steal one.

So you are in favor of no checks then?

LR55

[keystone183]

keystone:

So, those places on the form that require place of birth (not on a drivers license), height, weight, residence address, etc are not looked at when the felon tries to use fraud to buy a firearm?

Fake identity is a lame reason to get rid of background checks. In fact, it poses an immense risk on the guy using said fake identity. Far less risky to buy a gun off the street or to steal one.

So you are in favor of no checks then?

LR55

LR

They're typed in to a computer which does some cross referencing, i assume. Which depending on the intelligence of said felon, may or may not check out. But i don't think that felons aren't scared of committing crimes, no. And why would one crime be more or less risky than another??????

Mandatory comprehensive background checks mean a defacto registry. Which i am NOT for! Nor do i think that would solve the problem of criminality....

[montana]

If the government is mandating it as a condition of ownership? I don't see how you don't see that as giving up a RIGHT? We can all agree on firearm safety being important. Getting the government is involved is never a good idea. Something something Ben Franklin.....

Maybe the NRA could do this for us....:p

I'm all for volunteer training as hunter safety is run by volunteers. Yet it is mandatory in Montana for new shooters under 21 to first pass the hunter safety course before they are allowed to hunt. So far I have not seen any suggestions by you on how to deal with the bad perception gun owners have been receiving lately from the non shooting public. Doing nothing will lead to more restrictions and gun bans. Does this seem wise to you??

[JASmith]

Montana brings up an interesting point about training. Perhaps we should require that a condition for getting a driver’s license is that an individual shows evidence of having passed a firearms safety test, including familiarization shots with rifle, pistol, and shotgun?

Then, we could add a background investigation as requirement for the driver?s license and each time one purchases or rents a car?

This way, training and background checks become universal and accepted.

Of course, a few might object to the routine and intrusive invasions of privacy.

[stanc]

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.

We will agree to disagree on this one.

I'll agree that you can continue to hold that view, even though you're wrong.

The 2A clearly says, "A well regulated Militia," not "A well regulated People."

I know the supreme court stated, "the militia has nothing to do with gun rights" but I believe this is false.

The 2A has everything to do with the militia. The 2A was meant to assure that the white males who were called to militia duty would be able to buy the weapons they were required by law to provide.

But, those members of the general population who were not members of a State militia, were not required to be "trained and competent with firearms." And that is the major flaw in your reasoning.

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.

Imposing more infringements on the RKBA is not a way to prevent more infringements on the RKBA.

[Lemonaid]

This ^
But in the reverse order. Establish a realistic but workable due process bar for institutionalizing the nut job. If someone has been determined to be a threat to society, they?the individual?should be controlled. The tools available to them aren?t the immediate problem, their intent to do harm with any tool available is. Until a clearly defined standard of treatment progress is accomplished, they should not be in the general population.

Instead of depriving someone of their constitutionally protected freedoms or personal property, involuntary admission to treatment would allow less opportunity for political manipulation by those with an agenda. A cycle of treatment and discharge should not automatically result in permanent loss of any rights, or else that can (and would) be used to deprive many of their rights through the equivalent of a process crime.

+1 on this. Firearms are merely tools. If someone is bent on mayhem and a firearm isn't available they may choose a method that will result in more deaths (Rental trucks, Ice cream trucks, airplanes, bombs, pressure cookers, gasoline, Kerosene, propane tanks, socialism, etc....)
And when after the new gun control bill of the month fails, on to the next "common sense" measure until all guns are banned.
I am a bigly supporter of President Trump but Red flag laws, or making it so a father can't pass down his legal age children his guns without going to a FFL holder would be a mistake. He would get no credit (votes) from the left and lose support (votes) from his base. A loose/loose situation.
How about getting rid of all the current gun laws that are failures? They must be failures because they are not working and that's why they need something else.
President Trump policy is the get rid of two laws or regulations for each new one. What two gun laws/regulations were struck down for the bump stock ban?
How about the environmental impact study needed before a new gun law is passed?
Just imagine when the liberal/socialists/ get a hold of leaked gun owner info and start "swatting" gun owners if Red Flag laws go nation wide.

[montana]

I hate all government intrusion, but it seems to be the nature of the beast these days. When I first got into road construction, all I needed was a chauffeurs license to drive a semi truck, go to the nearest explosive supplier, sign a piece of paper, back up my open top pickup and fill it with dynamite, anfo, det cord, blasting caps and 4 plac cards. Off to the rod job in the woods I merrily went. Then I had to pass a CDL test with a triple and water tanker endorsements,, go to blasting school, take a test to get certified. Getting explosives to the job site is a whole other can of worms today, so I let others do it if needed. I had to pass a water operators test, and pass a back ground test so I could take water samples for my rentals, which required me to re-learn my calculus from high school and many, many days of study. I had to get finger printed, pass a back ground check and pass a hazardous materials test for my endorsement on my CDL so I could hall fuel to my job sight. Most of these requirements are excessive in my opinion, but I did learn a lot from these classes. Fire training endorsements, first aid training, drug test, physical fitness test, etc,etc,etc are all now mandated for all of my employment requirements. Getting firearm training, and back ground test doesn't seem like too hard of a burden to me considering all things involved .

[LR1955]

LR

They're typed in to a computer which does some cross referencing, i assume. Which depending on the intelligence of said felon, may or may not check out. But i don't think that felons aren't scared of committing crimes, no. And why would one crime be more or less risky than another??????

Mandatory comprehensive background checks mean a defacto registry. Which i am NOT for! Nor do i think that would solve the problem of criminality....

Keystone:

So, you do not believe there should be any checks at all when someone wants to buy a firearm?

That anyone can walk in off the street and buy any firearm he sees in a gun store?

LR55

[GREYBUFF]

This is my personal experience and why i KNOW red flag laws will harm us. In 2000 I was involved in a head on collision that killed someone, because a doctor misdiagnosed me and overdosed me on prescription meds to the point that I unknowingly drove the wrong way on the freeway. I was advised by 4 different lawyers to take a plea deal which stated
"these charges have been amended to non-dangerous, non repetive charges and the dangerous charges will not be used against you". plea deal was signed by the prosecutor, the judge and myself. I never spent 1 second in jail but did serve 2300 hours of community service, 4 years probation, and $165,000 in restitution, I also lost a 19year career w/a local utility company. When my sentence was completed and could legally apply for my gun rights to be restored, the 1st judge denied me " because a dangerous felon can not apply to have rights restored for 10 years. 2nd judge denied me "due the the nature of the crime". Same judge denied me "due to nature". Same judge denied me again "nature". This was a liberal judge. Each time I applied(sometimes on my own or sometimes (3x)with a law firm, the prosecutors written advice to the court was "he knowingly plead guilty". I AM NOT nor have ever been a criminal!!!
Now to be clear, I know someone lost their life, but our courts are not about justice. They just want a case closed and someone to pay.
Finally in 2017, a conservative judge granted me my rights to be restored.
What I HAVE learned is that lawyers don't listen or read all that you provide, they don't always know the law and that judges don't always follow the law, but mostly rule based on their own personal opinions.
Once I had my rights restored I had to fight DPS over incorrect records and then NICS because they don't recognize states that restore gun rights.
So no I don't want my liberal neighbor or an ex-wife going to someone and say that I'm a danger and have a cop that breaks more laws than I do show up to take my guns away. I don'T trust most in gov't work or bureaucrats that handle a lot of the legal documents and crap involved with all that I've been thru.. I will fight red flag laws tooth and nail......

[stanc]

Getting firearm training, and back ground test doesn't seem like too hard of a burden to me considering all things involved .

The issue is not how much of a burden mandated training and extended background checks would be.

The issue is that they would further erode the RKBA, which is exactly what the anti-gun people want.

So, you do not believe there should be any checks at all when someone wants to buy a firearm?

That anyone can walk in off the street and buy any firearm he sees in a gun store?

That seems to be what the Founding Fathers intended. It's how it was done for about the first 150 years of this country's existence as an independent nation, and for almost two centuries before that as British colonies.

Requiring government approval and authorization is contrary to the very concept of unalienable rights.

[Mopardoctor]

I think everyone missed a point that I was trying to point out and that was "MAY" issue. Elected/appointed officials could decide who would get a card/permit and whose application would get lost. They could also decide that you are mentally unfit if you voted for the wrong party or candidate. Electioneering in the "progressive" way. Elections would become a "good old boy" system.

[montana]

The issue is not how much of a burden mandated training and extended background checks would be.

The issue is that they would further erode the RKBA, which is exactly what the anti-gun people want.


That seems to be what the Founding Fathers intended. It's how it was done for about the first 150 years of this country's existence as an independent nation, and for almost two centuries before that as British colonies.

Requiring government approval and authorization is contrary to the very concept of unalienable rights.

We have already given up our sovereignty along time ago. We need permission to do just about anything today. In reality, no one owns any property if a property tax is law. Personal property was the corner stone of our freedom, yet we gave that up with out a whimper. The right is already folding on the 2ndA and it is just a matter of fact on how severe the move will be.
https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/60710962...show-clips

Like it or not, this is going to be our new reality if we as gun owners don't make a better case for trying to stop these highly emotional shootings. Compared to other threats, "so called assault weapon deaths account for less than 1% of all firearm deaths" but the highly charge, emotional perception, is not on our side with the non-shooting public..

[keystone183]

We have already given up our sovereignty along time ago. We need permission to do just about anything today. In reality, no one owns any property if a property tax is law. Personal property was the corner stone of our freedom, yet we gave that up with out a whimper. The right is already folding on the 2ndA and it is just a matter of fact on how severe the move will be.
https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/60710962...show-clips

Like it or not, this is going to be our new reality if we as gun owners don't make a better case for trying to stop these highly emotional shootings. Compared to other threats, "so called assault weapon deaths account for less than 1% of all firearm deaths" but the highly charge, emotional perception, is not on our side with the non-shooting public..

Montana, do you really think any of these proposals will stop these atrocities? Simple questiin

[keystone183]

Keystone:

So, you do not believe there should be any checks at all when someone wants to buy a firearm?

That anyone can walk in off the street and buy any firearm he sees in a gun store?

LR55

As a matter of strict logic? Probably so. Unalienable is pretty clear.

[Djgrendel]

People will always have other people to deal with. Oklahoma city is an example. 160 plus if memory serves. Now, no firearm would have stopped that particular situation unless someone knew what was happening. I'm against red flags, we already have background checks. What are universal background checks going to do? I am for people getting training if they choose. I was taught by my parents about consequences. They also taught me firearm safety. Heck, they taught me to drive and to wash my hands after using the bathroom. The world we live in is not the same as it once was. I don't think this is a firearm issue as much as it is a mental issue, before it becomes criminal. Unfortunately, many parents depend on the school teachers to raise their kids, or hope the child finds a good influence. A reality without consequence, is a scary thought.

[montana]

Montana, do you really think any of these proposals will stop these atrocities? Simple questiin

If professional training is implemented, absolutely. Just with my experience in Practical shooting, my skill level and safe firearm handling had improved by 100%. My wife and daughter beat a retired SWAT team member from Los Angeles, and they did it safely. Nothing improves firearm skills better than putting rounds down range with skilled shooting instruction. Safe firearm practice becomes second nature as does shooting skills. Reckless shooting habits and skills or lack of, can have the opposite effect. People who are unwilling, too lazy, or too immature to pass basic firearm safety classes shouldn't own firearms in my opinion. There also needs to be class instruction on the legalities of firearm ownership and responsibility. People are not stupid and with the right training can be a big deterrent to crime if properly trained. We need more skilled CC shooters in the country, not less. Learning how to shoot firearms with a responsible, helpful, skilled group can have a positive impact on young and old shooters, not to mention the positive effects it has on the general public. I would rather have shooters like Jerry Miculek as my spokesman instead of some camouflage militia wanna be. Do I think red flag laws or more extensive back ground checks will have a big impact???? That depends on what is actually proposed. I don't like the red flag laws if it doesn't follow due process, but I do think too many problem people have slipped through the cracks that should have been flagged.

[stanc]

If professional training is implemented, absolutely. Just with my experience in Practical shooting, my skill level and safe firearm handling had improved by 100%. My wife and daughter beat a retired SWAT team member from Los Angeles, and they did it safely. Nothing improves firearm skills better than putting rounds down range with skilled shooting instruction. Safe firearm practice becomes second nature as does shooting skills.

:confused: How is mandatory firearm training supposed to stop mass shootings?

People are not stupid and with the right training can be a big deterrent to crime if properly trained.

How would mandatory firearm training be a deterrent to crime?

We need more skilled CC shooters in the country, not less.

How do you propose to get more CC shooters in the country?

Learning how to shoot firearms with a responsible, helpful, skilled group can have a positive impact on young and old shooters, not to mention the positive effects it has on the general public.

You really lost me on that one. What positive effects does it have on the non-shooting public?

Do I think red flag laws or more extensive back ground checks will have a big impact???? That depends on what is actually proposed.

Regardless of what is proposed and enacted, it's a safe bet that it won't stop mass shootings.