Guns rights vs Parental rights

[Ma'ake]

Fascinating debate going on in the Utah Legislature: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55925027-90/bill-parents-gun-teachers.html.csp

Basically, the issue is the 2nd Amendment and privacy rights of teachers who might be carrying concealed weapons vs parents' rights to know which teachers might be carrying weapons.

Are parents entitled to this information, so they can make decisions about whether to have their child in a class where the kids have a teacher who can protect them from a Sandy Hook situation, or if they choose to have their kids in a class where there is reduced chance of accidental discharge of a firearm?

Do gun rights trump the rights of parents in assessing safety risks for their child?

[Corvan]

We have an interesting conversation about this several years back with a couple of friends that owned a bar. They had a policy of No Weapons allowed in the bar. One night one of the patrons who had a CCW permit decided to challenge who's right trumped the other. He walked into the displaying his weapon and his permit. His argument was that the permit gives him the right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the state of Utah. The bar owners' side was that they, as both owners of the property and owners of the business had the right to decide if weapons are allowed on their property.

I don't know if this has ever been ruled on legally but that night the ruling was clear. Either way the bar had a clearly displayed sign indicating the right to refuse service to anyone. The owners told the bartender that effective immediately it was policy not to serve anyone known to be carrying a weapon. After about an hour of posturing the patron decided that a beer was better than a bullet.

[Diehard Ute]

We have an interesting conversation about this several years back with a couple of friends that owned a bar. They had a policy of No Weapons allowed in the bar. One night one of the patrons who had a CCW permit decided to challenge who's right trumped the other. He walked into the displaying his weapon and his permit. His argument was that the permit gives him the right to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the state of Utah. The bar owners' side was that they, as both owners of the property and owners of the business had the right to decide if weapons are allowed on their property.

I don't know if this has ever been ruled on legally but that night the ruling was clear. Either way the bar had a clearly displayed sign indicating the right to refuse service to anyone. The owners told the bartender that effective immediately it was policy not to serve anyone known to be carrying a weapon. After about an hour of posturing the patron decided that a beer was better than a bullet.

In Utah you can register with the state and ban concealed weapons. The LDS Church and Kennecot have both done so. It has a negative side effect though, it also band all off duty law enforcement officers from carrying on the property.

[Corvan]

Thanks for the info, Diehard. This was probably at least 10 years ago so I don't know if that provision was in place back then. Either way I thought the bar owners' solution was creative if nothing else.

[Ma'ake]

I know there was a law passed (?) a few years ago in Utah that prohibits private employers from banning employees from having guns in their cars in the work parking lot.

It looks like Gov Herbert is having some problems with the "Constitutional Carry" bill in the Utah House, essentially doing away with the conceal carry permit process, just making it legal for anyone above 18 (who hasn't been convicted of a felony or had drug problems or been declared legally insane) can carry concealed firearms.

[sharpone]

In Utah you can register with the state and ban concealed weapons. The LDS Church and Kennecot have both done so. It has a negative side effect though, it also band all off duty law enforcement officers from carrying on the property.

IANAL, but AFAIK this isn't exactly accurate. There is a statute regarding carry in a 'House of Worship' or 'Private Residence', and federal/state 'secured' buildings but that's it. http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE76/htm/76_10_053000.htm

As far as non-resident private property (businesses, et al.), I suppose they could try and cite you with trespassing, but whether their policy trumps your civil right to carry (as currently defined) is a matter for the courts I suppose. More information here http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/utah.pdf. Some states DO make it illegal to enter ANY private property which has clearly posted its desire to have no weapons on its premises, but Utah is not one of them. Do you have references to Kennecott 'registering with the state' to this effect? I'd be curious to see them.

I generally ignore signs of property that isn't referenced in 76-10-530. I'd much rather have it concealed, not need it, and risk being asked to leave than be caught in some mall shooting defenseless because I chose to obey a sign which doesn't seem to have much if any legal backing. It's never been a problem for me in the past, because it's concealed and as far as I know, no one has ever noticed a weapon on me. The only issue I've had is the Energy Solutions Arena, where metal detectors were in use at the time. I was fine putting it away there because everyone had to go through the same security.

I know there are a few lawyers on the board, maybe they can add to this discussion and correct me where I'm wrong.

[sharpone]

Fascinating debate going on in the Utah Legislature: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/55925027-90/bill-parents-gun-teachers.html.csp

Basically, the issue is the 2nd Amendment and privacy rights of teachers who might be carrying concealed weapons vs parents' rights to know which teachers might be carrying weapons.

Are parents entitled to this information, so they can make decisions about whether to have their child in a class where the kids have a teacher who can protect them from a Sandy Hook situation, or if they choose to have their kids in a class where there is reduced chance of accidental discharge of a firearm?

Do gun rights trump the rights of parents in assessing safety risks for their child?

Interesting and polarizing discussion. I have mixed feelings on it I guess. I'd like to know, but probably for a different reason than most. I'd be more likely to ensure that my kids are IN that class. I've wanted to ask my kids teachers what their security plan is, if they are armed or what other plan they have if any.

Perhaps, less-than-lethal options might be a good alternative for teachers worried about accidental firearm discharge, or other mishaps. I imagine a nut job who is sprayed with pepper spray from 20 ft away or tazed will become disabled and perhaps give the authorities the chance to get one of these guys alive. That has to be better than those Sandy Hook teachers who 'lunged' at the attacker, and forfeited their life in the process.

[Diehard Ute]

Since any private property owner can ask you to leave for no reason at all it doesn't matter. If they ask you to leave and go refuse you're trespassing and can be arrested.

Your right to carry a gun does not trump a property owners rights to not allow someone on their property.

[Diehard Ute]

Interesting and polarizing discussion. I have mixed feelings on it I guess. I'd like to know, but probably for a different reason than most. I'd be more likely to ensure that my kids are IN that class. I've wanted to ask my kids teachers what their security plan is, if they are armed or what other plan they have if any.

Perhaps, less-than-lethal options might be a good alternative for teachers worried about accidental firearm discharge, or other mishaps. I imagine a nut job who is sprayed with pepper spray from 20 ft away or tazed will become disabled and perhaps give the authorities the chance to get one of these guys alive. That has to be better than those Sandy Hook teachers who 'lunged' at the attacker, and forfeited their life in the process.

Having been tased and sprayed with O.C. (Pepper Spray) they're lousy options. While the civilian version of the taser has a 30 second duration as opposed to 5 seconds for the law enforcement version it still stops at some point and the person will be fine. Also tasing someone causes muscle contractions which can cause the person to fire a weapon.

O.C. Will affect everyone in the room adversely, and while it's hell, a determined person can fight through it.

Reality is a lightly trained teacher or other such person is really not likely to stop any such attack. The fact that an unsecured firearm is always present is a threat. People try to take guns from officers who spend hours training on how to keep their weapons, and sometimes still get them. Imagine someone who has little or no training.

This doesn't even get into the subject of using a weapon in a stressful situation. It's a complex issue for sure.

[Diehard Ute]

sharpone: I think they changed the law on registering. At one point they were going to allow anyone to register but I think they changed it to what you mentioned. Kennecot does not allow weapons and will ask you to leave I know that.

[sharpone]

Diehard, I don't disagree w/ anything you said really. An armed, lightly trained teacher is probably not likely to stop an attack as you said. Operating a weapon efficiently under stress is something only known really to people like yourself and those who have been in combat. But they may be able to draw attention and occupy the attacker long enough for the cavalry to arrive, steering attention way from defenseless others. Or they might just get killed straight away and give the attacker another weapon and a bit more ammunition. It seems that in the recent cases of these nutjobs shooting up unarmed people, they tend to be cowards who refuse to fight when resistance does finally present itself. It might be just as likely that the attacker would run and hide, or run and kill themselves as soon as they are engaged.

The key really is the training. Teachers will never be trained soldiers, but I would hope that no one who exercises the responsibility of carrying a firearm thinks that having a weapon is enough. Especially teachers who, one would presume, has every intention of defending not only themselves but the kids in their care. They must be trained, just like any person with any other tool needs training on how to use it safely. When I decided to start carrying, I invested in training and continue to do so. Not as much as you have to be sure, but some training is better than nothing. I know not everyone with a CFP thinks that way, but I would hope most do. I might even be in favor of publicly funding teachers who want to receive such training.

One thing you said, regarding having a firearm taken and used against the owner, pushes me to the side of not making the carrying status of a teacher known. The element of surprise may just well be part of the teacher's overall defensive plan. It certainly is with me, and is why (among other reasons) I choose not to open carry, ever.

[Diehard Ute]

Frankly, given the situation, I would prefer if that ever does happen (teachers carrying), which I do not support, that they be required to show annual proficiency with their weapon. Not only shooting it, but managing malfunctions etc.

Utah certainly does not care if a CCW holder can manipulate or fire their gun safely and accurately, so I doubt tht would happen, but I can hope. (If the new proposed law passes, anyone will be able to carry a non-chambered handgun concealed, which is a whole different subject)

[Jarid in Cedar]

This is a great discussion. I work in a high stress environment that requires ongoing training and proof of proficency to maintain the highest level of safety. I have a CFP, feel that I am well trained in using a firearm, but I don't even pretend that I could always act correctly in a high stress/high danger situation. I can't imagine the majority of school teachers being better than I am. I think that if the idea is to have someone armed on school premises, it would be better to be an administrator/custodian, IE someone not tied to one location.

[sharpone]

(If the new proposed law passes, anyone will be able to carry a non-chambered handgun concealed, which is a whole different subject)

I wonder if GH would sign this bill, based on comments he has made.

[Diehard Ute]

I wonder if GH would sign this bill, based on comments he has made.

Well the change to a unchambered gun came today after talks with him, so I'm not sure.

The problem with that is how does one enforce a law written as such?

[sharpone]

Well the change to a unchambered gun came today after talks with him, so I'm not sure.

The problem with that is how does one enforce a law written as such?

Interesting, hadn't seen that yet. I don't know how it could be enforced. Probably a case where its violation would be an additional charge tacked on with the other charges a suspect is charged with. To get a little more time added or whatever. I can't really see the cops out frisking every passer by to see if they are carrying, if its loaded or not, if they are CFP or 'constitution' carry, etc. It looks like this bill won't allow non-permit holders to carry on school grounds either. But again, the nature of a concealed weapon is that, well, it's concealed. So yeah, hard to enforce.

[Diehard Ute]

Interesting, hadn't seen that yet. I don't know how it could be enforced. Probably a case where its violation would be an additional charge tacked on with the other charges a suspect is charged with. To get a little more time added or whatever. I can't really see the cops out frisking every passer by to see if they are carrying, if its loaded or not, if they are CFP or 'constitution' carry, etc. It looks like this bill won't allow non-permit holders to carry on school grounds either. But again, the nature of a concealed weapon is that, well, it's concealed. So yeah, hard to enforce.

Which is why it's a silly law. The Utah definition of a loaded weapon really calls for "self policing" which an we know rarely works.

This law seems like a gross overreaction by the sponsor to what he has admitted was one story related to him. The system works ok now, don't see the need to change it.

[Snowman]

Anyone who thinks teachers carrying guns in schools is a reasonable plan is completely hysterical. On any given day, even in the most violent school districts in America, the chances of needing a gun are a billion to one. If a Newtown massacre happened somewhere everyday it would still be a million to one. Let teachers be teachers and cops be cops.

[U-Ute]

I wonder: Is the state capitol building a gun free zone?

[GarthUte]

Anyone who thinks teachers carrying guns in schools is a reasonable plan is completely hysterical. On any given day, even in the most violent school districts in America, the chances of needing a gun are a billion to one. If a Newtown massacre happened somewhere everyday it would still be a million to one. Let teachers be teachers and cops be cops.

So, would you be against retired cops or military being hired to be armed guards in schools?

[GarthUte]

I wonder: Is the state capitol building a gun free zone?

Are you asking because of the rally there last weekend? If so, I'm sure the organizers petitioned for and got some sort of temporary exemption.

[Newbomb Turk]

So, would you be against retired cops or military being hired to be armed guards in schools?

I would be against it if they pay for those armed guards by cutting back on books, supplies, curricula, or teacher's pay.

[U-Ute]

Are you asking because of the rally there last weekend? If so, I'm sure the organizers petitioned for and got some sort of temporary exemption.

I didn't hear about the rally. So, it wasn't because of that.

I ask because it would be hypocritical for them to keep the capitol building a "gun free zone" while fighting to allow guns everywhere else.

[GarthUte]

I didn't hear about the rally. So, it wasn't because of that.

I ask because it would be hypocritical for them to keep the capitol building a "gun free zone" while fighting to allow guns everywhere else.

I agree that it would be hypocritical to do that. I did a search and found this (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-51008.html) article from 2003 that said that citizens are allowed to carry in the Capitol Building. I've not found anything that says it's no longer the case.

[U-Ute]

I agree that it would be hypocritical to do that. I did a search and found this (http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-51008.html) article from 2003 that said that citizens are allowed to carry in the Capitol Building. I've not found anything that says it's no longer the case.

That answers my question then. Thanks.

[Diehard Ute]

I wonder: Is the state capitol building a gun free zone?

No it's not

[Diehard Ute]

So, would you be against retired cops or military being hired to be armed guards in schools?

A couple things.

1) Retired officers can maintain their ability to carry if the continue to pass their departments qualification shoot, so they might not be a bad idea

2) Military is a whole different animal. A lot depends on the person. Many in the military have little firearms training after basic. The military doesn't let personnel take weapons home etc. Former MP's would be a more likely person than a aircraft maintenance person for example

Of course the real issue is training. Dealing with what's known as an active shooter is not really about just having a gun. It's about having the proper mindset.

In the US 15 active shooters have been stopped by a 'civilian' since such things have been tracked. In 10 of those cases the person who stopped the shooter was unarmed.

The key isn't having a gun, the key is having the mental ability to deal with the situation.

[Snowman]

So, would you be against retired cops or military being hired to be armed guards in schools?

In the school district I live in now a middle school kid tackled the school resource officer (a regular on duty city cop) and wrestled her gun away from her. In low crime communities one strong competant active cop per 1000 students is fine. But every school needs one active duty cop regardless of size. It's a boring, easy gig for the most part but they can start anti-bullying clubs, and mentoring programs and so on. In high crime areas they may need one cop per 500 students or more. The police are needed to arrest students who start brawls, steal from one another, assualt their teachers, smoke meth in the restroom, and so on. The Columbine\Newtown scenerio is sad and unfortunate but too rare to worry about.

[Solon]

Anyone who thinks teachers carrying guns in schools is a reasonable plan is completely hysterical. On any given day, even in the most violent school districts in America, the chances of needing a gun are a billion to one. If a Newtown massacre happened somewhere everyday it would still be a million to one. Let teachers be teachers and cops be cops.

Teachers make all kinds of bad decisions too.
Like going into teaching. (Just kidding.)

How long would it be before some teacher snapped and fired a shot in the air to get the kids' attention? Or winged little Johnny for mouthing off in 9th grade math?

I know it sounds far-fetched, but it also used to sound far-fetched that someone would hose down kindergarteners with an assault rifle.

[Devildog]

We need an independent (of related subjects) gun thread here.

But, this fits here anyway.

I didn't fact check this guy, but I'll bet he is correct about this.

Not sayin'.... Just sayin'

It's no wonder so many liberals fear guns...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTCkoXslsE

[Diehard Ute]

We need an independent (of related subjects) gun thread here.

But, this fits here anyway.

I didn't fact check this guy, but I'll bet he is correct about this.

Not sayin'.... Just sayin'

It's no wonder so many liberals fear guns...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTCkoXslsE

This is a video based on an Internet meme which has little to no factual basis, and in some cases is just wrong.

http://m.jacksonville.com/news/premium-news/2013-03-14/story/fact-check-email-was-wrong-about-recent-mass-killers-being

[Devildog]

This is a video based on an Internet meme which has little to no factual basis, and in some cases is just wrong.

http://m.jacksonville.com/news/premium-news/2013-03-14/story/fact-check-email-was-wrong-about-recent-mass-killers-being

Yeah, I'm not really invested in the idea.

I thought the video was kinda funny.

The link you provided doesn't work for me without registering with that site. All I get is the headline... no story.

[Diehard Ute]

Yeah, I'm not really invested in the idea.

I thought the video was kinda funny.

The link you provided doesn't work for me without registering with that site. All I get is the headline... no story.

Basically debunks it. Hassan lived in VA and TX, neither state allows party declaration when registering to vote. Continues to find no evidence anyone was a democrat, just lots of Internet tales

[Devildog]

Registering democrat and being a liberal are not necessarily the same thing.

I really don't believe that all active shooters have any one thing in common politically.

I think it could be said that Timothy McVeigh was an example of an extreme right winger, but then again, he didn't use a gun either.

Extremists on either side are often trouble.

[LA Ute]

Very interesting CBS interview with the Parkers about their meeting with the shooter's father. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50143361n)

[LA Ute]

GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE GROCERY STORE (http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx)

I'm not endorsing anything. Just an interesting story.

[Diehard Ute]

GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE GROCERY STORE (http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx)

I'm not endorsing anything. Just an interesting story.

It does happen occasionally. Probably more than the left would like to admit and less than the right would like to admit.

[chrisrenrut]

GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE GROCERY STORE (http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx)

I'm not endorsing anything. Just an interesting story.

Curious how this got dragged up from last year. My brother was at that grocery store when it happened. He didn't witness it, but saw all the commotion and aftermath it caused.

[LA Ute]

Curious how this got dragged up from last year. My brother was at that grocery store when it happened. He didn't witness it, but saw all the commotion and aftermath it caused.

Heh. I didn't realize the story was a year old. I saw it on Instapundit, a website by a libertarian law professor at Tennessee. I wonder if he knew it was old?

[LA Ute]

Apparently a 5 year-old boy brought a plastic cap gun to school. He was interviewed (interrogated?) for 2 hours and wet his pants in the process. I don't now how true that is but it sounds over-the-top to me.

http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailycaller/#!/entry/suspension-wont-be-removed-for-fiveyearold-grilled-over-cap-gun,51c00b6eda27f5d9d0e2f579

[Diehard Ute]

Apparently a 5 year-old boy brought a plastic cap gun to school. He was interviewed (interrogated?) for 2 hours and wet his pants in the process. I don't now how true that is but it sounds over-the-top to me.

http://o.dailycaller.com/thedailycaller/#!/entry/suspension-wont-be-removed-for-fiveyearold-grilled-over-cap-gun,51c00b6eda27f5d9d0e2f579

I can't find anything other than the mothers statement. The school has said they talked to him for 5 to 7 minutes.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/education/school-refuses-lift-suspension-5-year-old-who-they-interrogated-over-cap-gun


No idea what really happened. I'd be curious to know if the 2 hour period came from the boy or another source. Young children often struggle to estimate time.

[pangloss]

In the US 15 active shooters have been stopped by a 'civilian' since such things have been tracked. In 10 of those cases the person who stopped the shooter was unarmed.



Do you know the time frame for the stat? Also, what's the definition of 'active shooter'? Would that include armed home invasion - where a bad guy with a gun enters a house and is stopped by an armed homeowner?


Thanks - I enjoy reading your perspective on the topic.

[Diehard Ute]

Do you know the time frame for the stat? Also, what's the definition of 'active shooter'? Would that include armed home invasion - where a bad guy with a gun enters a house and is stopped by an armed homeowner?


Thanks - I enjoy reading your perspective on the topic.

That's since such data started being tracked in the 70's or so.

Active shooter would not relate to a home invasion. It refers to someone entering a public area with the purpose of causing mass casualties.

Homeowners stopping home invasions with firearms is fairly rare as well.

[pangloss]

We need an independent (of related subjects) gun thread here.

But, this fits here anyway.

I didn't fact check this guy, but I'll bet he is correct about this.

Not sayin'.... Just sayin'

It's no wonder so many liberals fear guns...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FeTCkoXslsE

Not that it proves a damned thing because connecting sociopathic acts to political philosophy is preposterous and profoundly un-American, but Wild Bill conveniently fails to mention the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh - an ultra right-wing miltia movement psychopath. His bomb killed 168 people.

And again, not that it proves a damned thing, but Nancy Lanza, the mother of Adam Lanza the Newtown massacre psychopath, was a gun enthusiast. Adam Lanza was a warfare video game enthusiast -- an equally irrelevant fact.

Oh, and I own guns and am not afraid of them.

cheers, just saying

[GarthUte]

Not that it proves a damned thing because connecting sociopathic acts to political philosophy is preposterous and profoundly un-American, but Wild Bill conveniently fails to mention the Oklahoma City bomber, Timothy McVeigh - an ultra right-wing miltia movement psychopath. His bomb killed 168 people.

And again, not that it proves a damned thing, but Nancy Lanza, the mother of Adam Lanza the Newtown massacre psychopath, was a gun enthusiast. Adam Lanza was a warfare video game enthusiast -- an equally irrelevant fact.

Oh, and I own guns and am not afraid of them.

cheers, just saying

Are you willing to limit your 2nd Amendment right in order for security that in reality is only an illusion? I'm not.

[pangloss]

Are you willing to limit your 2nd Amendment right in order for security that in reality is only an illusion? I'm not.

Well, sure, I think the 2nd needs to continue to be limited and additional regulations need to be added. For example, I don't think the public should be able to buy fully automatic heavy machine guns. No one needs 50 cal mounted on the back of Toyota pickup. I know they're popular in Libya and Syria, but I just don't think we need to repeal that 2nd Amendment limit. In fact I think all the limitations on fully automatic weapons ought to be continued.

I also think background checks ought to be added to the limits.

And, I think we ought to license the public possession of operational weapons.

I think those are common sense solutions that are consistent with the Bill of Rights and are adapted to life in 2013 USA.

[LA Ute]

Well, sure, I think the 2nd needs to continue to be limited and additional regulations need to be added. For example, I don't think the public should be able to buy fully automatic heavy machine guns. No one needs 50 cal mounted on the back of Toyota pickup. I know they're popular in Libya and Syria, but I just don't think we need to repeal that 2nd Amendment limit. In fact I think all the limitations on fully automatic weapons ought to be continued.

I also think background checks ought to be added to the limits.

And, I think we ought to license the public possession of operational weapons.

I think those are common sense solutions that are consistent with the Bill of Rights and are adapted to life in 2013 USA.

I'm pretty sure machine guns are illegal for just about any private citizen to own. My knowledge of such matters is limited, however.

[GarthUte]

Well, sure, I think the 2nd needs to continue to be limited and additional regulations need to be added. For example, I don't think the public should be able to buy fully automatic heavy machine guns. No one needs 50 cal mounted on the back of Toyota pickup. I know they're popular in Libya and Syria, but I just don't think we need to repeal that 2nd Amendment limit. In fact I think all the limitations on fully automatic weapons ought to be continued.

I also think background checks ought to be added to the limits.

And, I think we ought to license the public possession of operational weapons.

I think those are common sense solutions that are consistent with the Bill of Rights and are adapted to life in 2013 USA.

The purchase of machine guns is already limited. There are already background checks. I disagree about licensing so-called operational weapons.

I'm talking about additional restrictions. I can live with those that are already in place, but I'm not willing to place more limitations on the 2nd Amendment. The vast majority of those who endanger society already ignore the limitations we already have, so , more limitations won't do anything to increase public safety.

[GarthUte]

I'm pretty sure machine guns are illegal for just about any private citizen to own. My knowledge of such matters is limited, however.

Private citizens can purchase machine guns, but there are a ton of hoops they have to go through in order to do it and the background checks, IIRC are much more intensive.

[LA Ute]

Private citizens can purchase machine guns, but there are a ton of hoops they have to go through in order to do it and the background checks, IIRC are much more intensive.

Are machine guns legal to purchase? Where? (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100324005111AAMbemt)

Cool. I've always wanted one. You know, just to have it.

[GarthUte]

Are machine guns legal to purchase? Where? (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100324005111AAMbemt)

Cool. I've always wanted one. You know, just to have it.

:rockon:

[Diehard Ute]

The purchase of machine guns is already limited. There are already background checks. I disagree about licensing so-called operational weapons.

I'm talking about additional restrictions. I can live with those that are already in place, but I'm not willing to place more limitations on the 2nd Amendment. The vast majority of those who endanger society already ignore the limitations we already have, so , more limitations won't do anything to increase public safety.

There are some background checks. Private sales and gun shows are exempt under current law. About 40% of all sales in the US lack any background check.

[Diehard Ute]

Private citizens can purchase machine guns, but there are a ton of hoops they have to go through in order to do it and the background checks, IIRC are much more intensive.

It takes some time, but its mostly just applying for an NFA stamp. Same thing you have to do to get a short barrel or a silencer.

The big restriction on full auto weapons is new ones can't be registered so almost all sales are used.

And LA, you live in California, pretty sure you can own a squirt gun, let alone a machine gun ;)

[LA Ute]

It takes some time, but its mostly just applying for an NFA stamp. Same thing you have to do to get a short barrel or a silencer.

The big restriction on full auto weapons is new ones can't be registered so almost all sales are used.

And LA, you live in California, pretty sure you can own a squirt gun, let alone a machine gun ;)

Sure, go ahead, rub it in.

[GarthUte]

There are some background checks. Private sales and gun shows are exempt under current law. About 40% of all sales in the US lack any background check.

That's a statistic that the left loves to put out there, but it may or may not be accurate, considering it comes from a poll that was taken almost 20 years ago and the number of people asked was fewer than 300.

http://factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

[Diehard Ute]

That's a statistic that the left loves to put out there, but it may or may not be accurate, considering it comes from a poll that was taken almost 20 years ago and the number of people asked was fewer than 300.

http://factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/

The bottom line is we need to do a better job with background checks, I think we can all agree on that

[pangloss]

Private citizens can purchase machine guns, but there are a ton of hoops they have to go through in order to do it and the background checks, IIRC are much more intensive.


Garth, the question you ask above is "Are you willing to limit your 2nd Amendment right in order for security that in reality is only an illusion?." And you answered your question, "I'm not".

My answer is yes, I am willing to limit 2nd Amendment rights and cited examples of limits already in place. As you and couple posters point out, fully automatic weapons cannot be purchased without heavy limits. 50 cal. ammunition of certain types cannot be purchased. Rocket launchers cannot be purchased. Clearly, those are existing limits on 2nd Amendment rights. Do those limits count?

The technology jump from an eighteen century musket to a semi-auto 30.06 with a 3-12 variable scope is greater than the jump from that 30.06 to a fully auto BAR. Yet some folks think a background check or a 48 hour waiting period is tantamount to swearing allegiance to satan.

So I'll ask, are you in favor of removing the existing limits to your 2nd Amendment rights?

[pangloss]

The purchase of machine guns is already limited. There are already background checks. I disagree about licensing so-called operational weapons.

I'm talking about additional restrictions. I can live with those that are already in place, but I'm not willing to place more limitations on the 2nd Amendment. The vast majority of those who endanger society already ignore the limitations we already have, so , more limitations won't do anything to increase public safety.

Whoops, I missed your comment that you support limits on 2nd Amendment rights already in place. I'm curious, why is every extension or re-definition of gun control & regulation opposed by the NRA and the other organizations. It seems to me if an advance in technology that makes the existing regulations more effective, or an advance in technology that makes existing weapons more lethal then changes in the laws ought to be pursued. For example, an effective background check system. Or suppose a manufacturer develops a pistol bullet that goes through body armor - like the illegal teflon coated bullets - basically a cop killer bullet. It seems reasonable that a technology like that ought to be very strictly restricted. But I would bet the NRA would oppose laws restricting sales of that type of bullet.

Oh, and the licensing I describe is public possession. Gun registration is a non-starter - it won't happen and with the number of guns already in circulation it would be ineffective anyway. What I suggest is http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=24890166&itype=storyID

cheers

[GarthUte]

Whoops, I missed your comment that you support limits on 2nd Amendment rights already in place. I'm curious, why is every extension or re-definition of gun control & regulation opposed by the NRA and the other organizations. It seems to me if an advance in technology that makes the existing regulations more effective, or an advance in technology that makes existing weapons more lethal then changes in the laws ought to be pursued. For example, an effective background check system. Or suppose a manufacturer develops a pistol bullet that goes through body armor - like the illegal teflon coated bullets - basically a cop killer bullet. It seems reasonable that a technology like that ought to be very strictly restricted. But I would bet the NRA would oppose laws restricting sales of that type of bullet.

Oh, and the licensing I describe is public possession. Gun registration is a non-starter - it won't happen and with the number of guns already in circulation it would be ineffective anyway. What I suggest is http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=24890166&itype=storyID

cheers

The reason I'm against opposed to more restrictions is because they won't do anything to stop someone who his hellbent on obtaining a gun to kill others. The current restrictions haven't done anything. As you already pointed out, teflon coated bullets are already illegal. More restrictions aren't going to stop criminals from obtaining them.

[Diehard Ute]

The reason I'm against opposed to more restrictions is because they won't do anything to stop someone who his hellbent on obtaining a gun to kill others. The current restrictions haven't done anything. As you already pointed out, teflon coated bullets are already illegal. More restrictions aren't going to stop criminals from obtaining them.

Here's my proposal, to aid in background checks and enforcement.

If you own guns you obtain a federal firearms license. You do not have to register your guns, it merely is a database, and card, that says you are legally allowed to purchase and own firearms.

It would make background checks universal and more simple, and would allow law enforcement the tool to catch those who shouldn't legally have guns.

No one would know what guns you have, just that you aren't restricted from possessing them.

Would you have an issue with such a program?

[GarthUte]

Here's my proposal, to aid in background checks and enforcement.

If you own guns you obtain a federal firearms license. You do not have to register your guns, it merely is a database, and card, that says you are legally allowed to purchase and own firearms.

It would make background checks universal and more simple, and would allow law enforcement the tool to catch those who shouldn't legally have guns.

No one would know what guns you have, just that you aren't restricted from possessing them.

Would you have an issue with such a program?

Yes, I would. The reason is because I don't trust the government to not abuse its power. What guarantees are there down the road that feds won't show up at anyone's house demanding to know what weapons, if any, are in the house?

The 2nd Amendment is about the right for a citizen to own guns. There is nothing in there about the citizen needing permission from the government to own them.

[Diehard Ute]

Yes, I would. The reason is because I don't trust the government to not abuse its power. What guarantees are there down the road that feds won't show up at anyone's house demanding to know what weapons, if any, are in the house?

The 2nd Amendment is about the right for a citizen to own guns. There is nothing in there about the citizen needing permission from the government to own them.

Felons are still citizens, do you support their second amendment rights? What about people who aren't citizens?

What is your stance on vehicle registration? Driver licenses?

[chrisrenrut]

Felons are still citizens, do you support their second amendment rights? What about people who aren't citizens?

What is your stance on vehicle registration? Driver licenses?

The standard answers to these are:

Felons give up some of their rights when convicted

Non-citizens, not sure

Owning and driving a vehicle is a priviledge, not a right.

[Diehard Ute]

The standard answers to these are:

Felons give up some of their rights when convicted

Non-citizens, not sure

Owning and driving a vehicle is a priviledge, not a right.

But that's the government telling people who can own guns, by Garth's statement the 2nd amendment doesn't allow for that.

The courts have ruled the 1st and 4th (and other) amendments apply to anyone on US soil, so should the 2nd? How will conservatives who are anti immigration and pro gun reconcile such things?

As for cars, the point isn't right vs privilege in this case. If you're so fearful of the government, why would you register a car or get a license and give the government all that info?

The point is, people are willing to twist and interpret things they're passionate about to suit what they want. There are many ways to read the 2nd amendment. I'm trying to see just how far Garth is wiling to go to protect the "right" of people to own guns, and if there is a cut off point, why there.

Of course going back to Garth's post, there's nothing stopping the Feds from knocking on your door and asking that question today :)

[GarthUte]

Felons are still citizens, do you support their second amendment rights? What about people who aren't citizens?

What is your stance on vehicle registration? Driver licenses?

It's against the law for felons to own weapons. I don't have a problem with that, as they are felons.

Non-citizens should not be allowed the same privileges as citizens.

I'm not a fan of vehicle registration or driver licenses, but because they were in place before I was born, there is nothing that can be done about it, so I can live with it, despite the fact that this has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

[GarthUte]

B

The courts have ruled the 1st and 4th (and other) amendments apply to anyone on US soil, so should the 2nd? How will conservatives who are anti immigration and pro gun reconcile such things?

I am not anti-immigration. I'm all for legal immigration. But that has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

[pangloss]

Here's my proposal, to aid in background checks and enforcement.

If you own guns you obtain a federal firearms license. You do not have to register your guns, it merely is a database, and card, that says you are legally allowed to purchase and own firearms.

It would make background checks universal and more simple, and would allow law enforcement the tool to catch those who shouldn't legally have guns.

No one would know what guns you have, just that you aren't restricted from possessing them.

Would you have an issue with such a program?

Just an idle thought - I think the license should enable the possession of an operational firearm in public. If it includes the right to own a gun - and you don't have the right without a license then the 2nd amendment folks go wild. If someone wants to stockpile weapons in their basement and never register or get a license, fine, more power to 'em.

If you want to transport a weapon you either need a license or the weapon must be non-operational - gun lock or dis-assembled. Public possession of an operational gun without a license is a crime - misdemeanor of some sort. A license holder must be sane, mature and stable. Doing something stupid like discharging a firearm inside city limits without cause loses your license for six months (or something), same thing for domestic violence. Reckless or impaired driving indicates lack of stability and results in firearm license revocation.

Idle thoughts. If an event as ghastly as Sandyhook doesn't stir the country to action I doubt anything will.

[Ma'ake]

I'm pretty sure the 2nd Amendment applies to non-citizens. I work with a greencard Canadian who just bought a shotgun.

If a Immigration bill passes that allows millions of aliens to remain as residents, they should absolutely be prepared for a backlash against their presence here. A neighborhood full of Hispanics should absolutely be well armed, to keep the anti-immigration vigilantes at bay.

[GarthUte]

I'm pretty sure the 2nd Amendment applies to non-citizens. I work with a greencard Canadian who just bought a shotgun.

If a Immigration bill passes that allows millions of aliens to remain as residents, they should absolutely be prepared for a backlash against their presence here. A neighborhood full of Hispanics should absolutely be well armed, to keep the anti-immigration vigilantes at bay.

You're assuming that the anti-immigrant folks are vigilantes and would take the law into their own hands. That's a rather ludicrous assumption on your part, isn't it?

[LA Ute]

Not an exact fit for this thread, but look at this photo of Mayor Bloomberg's big gun take-down press conference (http://rt.com/usa/new-york-gun-seizure-678/). Can you spot the fundamental gun safety slip-up? Even I, non-gun owner, can see it.

[U-Ute]

It's against the law for felons to own weapons. I don't have a problem with that, as they are felons.

Non-citizens should not be allowed the same privileges as citizens.

I find this comment interesting as the Constitution says nothing about exceptions for felons. So we already have an example where we have revoked the 2nd amendment for a certain class of citizens.