Just to refute their first premise, most think that the drop in violent crime had much more to do with more prison bunks than it did with any gun legislation. As prison populations soared in the late 80s and early 90s, crime dropped. Imagine that.
Posted on 12/04/2007 12:56:01 AM PST by neverdem
On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court announced its interest in deciding the scope of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Previously, the Supreme Court has often sided with the states right to legislate gun control laws and has generally interpreted the Constitution to focus on a militia rather than individual rights. This time, however, the court intends to focus on the amendment itself rather than relevant cases pertaining to it. Depending on the verdict, the outcome of this trial could either allow for heavy gun control restrictions or denounce them.
Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.
Notice the difference in approach. Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. Somehow, they both managed to debate on two different planes.
In more recent history, gun violence reached a peak in 1993 after a seemingly unusual spike in 1988. Later, this spike decreased substantially to pre-1988 levels, a level of violence that has persisted until today. This strange jump in crime, followed by an equally unusual decrease, was an almost uniform change across the country. This implies that some mechanism in policy could have been the cause of the surge.
To consider this crime surge, look no further than the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act did several things that combine about as well as ammonia and bleach. First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of "prohibited" citizens. Second, it shielded gun owners and dealers from submitting records of who purchased firearms or ammunition. Third, it slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders. Fourth, it decreased the amounts of searches that could be performed by the government without a warrant. Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.
So, in short, the law decreased the government's ability to enforce the law while making more laws. From the practical perspective, most rational thinkers could have assumed that the law would have the opposite effect of what was intended. After all, most crimes were already committed with handguns and the only automatic weapons used in crimes were found in Hollywood gangster films. Within two years after the law's enactment, gun violence surged, and by 1993, crime was about 50 percent more than it was in 1986.
The reasons for this increase were fairly simple to spot. The government told gun owners and dealers that it no longer needed them to report sales on ammunitions or firearms. By allowing this sort of secrecy, the government's ability to track a gun after a crime was committed was diminished. Gun owners no longer needed to disclose their purchases, making all legislation about transferring firearms impossible to adequately enforce. Guns were easier to transport across state lines, making interstate violence easier to commit. These clauses alone nearly invalidated the entire act and practically overturned the effectiveness of previous gun control legislation.
There is a balance that must be reached in gun control policy, between gun owner privacy rights and the regulation of firearm supplies. The policy of banning weapons becomes largely ineffective when the idea of individual privacy is supported. Then again, low gun regulation coupled with high privacy rights could incite even more gun violence. Further, to ban most firearms while keeping a close eye on legal gun owners will permit only outlaws to own the most dangerous of weapons. This makes heavy gun control enforcement dangerous.
Lessons learned from the past would imply that privacy rights for gun owners are dangerous, if they are too protective. But, the majority of crime today uses handguns rather than automatic weapons, mostly because it is harder to conceal an M-16 in your trousers. Yet, the only guns that seem to be banned are fully automatic weapons. It seems rather trite that the least commonly used weapon would be the most viciously despised among lawmakers. The same logic can be applied by banning pencils because people die of lead poisoning.
The Supreme Court must recognize that the extreme views for and against gun control are destructive. Therefore, a middle of the road verdict is critical. There are fair policies in gun control, but any act of banning firearms or protecting secrecy of ownership will allow for higher crime rates in the country. If history is any indicator of the future, the Supreme Court will side with the government's ability to legislate against firearms. On the bright side, if heavier gun restraints go against gun owners, it might be time for everyone to get a militia license. Hopefully, the Supreme Court knows better.
Amy 1911’s balance very well, thank you.
LOL! Love it.
I only got to the second paragraph, when the Strawman Argument appeared: “Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand...”
LOL. No need to read the rest.
shoud read, “My 1911’s balance very well, thank you.”
“Intent/Understanding of the ratifiers” of the Constitution, ie, it’s “true meaning”,
hasn’t been used since the Marshall Court. The judges’ particular social whims have been substituted.
However, you know when the other side seeks a “balance” or a “compromise” that they know they’re in a weaker position.
“any honest consistency in those two die-hard Leftists”
Don’t make the mistake of ever trying to apply “logical consistency” to a leftist. You have to examine every issue backwards, from “what do they want the outcome to be” instead of “they used this logical reasoning last time, so using the same reasoning they will conclude that”.
I don't think the two scenarios are comparable. Pro-gun activists are single-minded in a way that most left-wing lotus-eaters, even those who really hate guns, are not.
If the Supreme Court overturns the Second Amendment, you damn betcha the Right would be invigorated. There would be an immediate push for a new, unambiguous Amendment, with massive grass-roots activism and political involvement. The Democrats would lose a hundred seats in the House and fifteen seats in the Senate. A pro-gun Republican would win the Presidency by a 60 or 65% majority.
If the Court upholds the Amendment, even with some allowance for restrictions like licensing or registration, then it's pretty much status quo ante. I do not foresee any great wave of left-wing indignation sweeping Hillary to victory. There will be grumbling from the media, but there's just no comparable number of single-issue voters on the other side of this question.
-ccm
it is the direction of this case.
The left is going to argue it is IRRELEVANT whether it is an individual OR a collective right. There is a strict scrutiny passing state interest which can dictate gun control ala yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Yes, 1934 taxed and regulated, but anyone could manufacture one, buy a new one, import one (including war trophies) if they did their paperwork and paid the tax.
1986 allowed only those in existence on the registry to continue legally. There are only about 100,000 of these (1 per 3000 citizens) and they cost $10,000 and up for guns that should cost $1000. And modern designs since 1986 are perpetually banned.
But Parker/Heller if upheld gives a solid foundation to overturn this aspect of 1986, though not the tax and regulatory aspects of 1934.
FA are not illegal.
Go here http://www.brpguns.com/
But that site sells parts kits that are useless without the registered component (receiver/tube) that the law calls a “machine gun.” And those cost thousands of dollars to buy and are illetgal to make.
FA are legal, but only a limited selected subset of them. Of the millions of FA arms in the hands of US military and law enforcement, essentially none may be lawfully owned by a citizen.
Just to refute their first premise, most think that the drop in violent crime had much more to do with more prison bunks than it did with any gun legislation. As prison populations soared in the late 80s and early 90s, crime dropped. Imagine that.
Wrong.
Semi-Auto MG34
Patent 6,543,169 B2*
*Semiautomatic firing mechanism.
Own a Piece of German History
This modified original German MG34 has been remanufactured using genuine parts to shoot semi-auto only and can not be converted to full auto. It shoots closed bolt.
You will find the detailed workmanship of this remanufactured weapon to be very close to the original and is excellent for shooters. Fires commercial 8mm ammunition.
For a limited time we will be offering this semi-auto MG34. Includes links and BATF approval letter.
All TNW Firearms, Inc. guns sold with a one year parts and workmanship warranty. Do not miss the chance to own a legend - but without all of the full-auto hassles!
This firearm will shoot semi-auto only and cannot be converted to full-auto. This firearm is BATF approved and may be legally owned in all states except California
MG34 8mm Receiver
Part #REC-MG34 REC-MG34
Price Qty
$1,899.99 Detailed Description MG34 receiver Semi-auto Made by TNW
I wonder what they realy meant?
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress. If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
—Patrick Henry
All excellent points.
We must be balanced in our approach to all civil rights. Too much freedom is bad for the public. < /sarcasm >
Sorry, but semi-autos aren’t machine guns as any reasonable person understands the term.
It doesn't "forbid" keeping records - the market sees to that - but it removed the REQUIREMENT to keep records.
Just as, BTW, there was no requirement to keep ammo sales records prior to about, what? 1970-something?
And I don't recall the '50s and '60s as being especially bad for handgun violence.
Where this writer tells a MAJOR lie is when he says the FOPA removed the requirement for dealers to keep records: that's not just a lie, that's a damn lie!
The gun control act of 1986 made the MANUFACTURE or importation of full-auto weapons illegal.
Possession is still legal of course, depending on the state you live in.
UConn
'Nuff said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
