More on "reasonable" gun laws.

[PavePusher]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/guns/2012/feb/8/miller-emily-got-her-gun/

MILLER: Emily got her gun!

I finally got my gun in Washington, D.C. I brought it home today from the District’s firearms’ registry office.

After months of aggravation, hundreds of dollars in fees, countless hours jumping over hurdles, I am now a gun owner and finally exercising my second amendment right to keep arms (bearing arms is still illegal in the nation’s capital).

When I first started the “Emily Gets Her Gun” series, I thought I would be waiting in long lines and filling out lots of paperwork. I never could have imagined that the D.C. gun laws made it so unearthly difficult to get a legal handgun. However, I also never could have believed that this newspaper series would encourage change in Washington's gun laws.

The bad guys buy guns off the street in five minutes, and the city has no record of the transaction. Law-abiding citizens have to take a five-hour class that is only taught outside of the District, pay $465 in fees, sign six forms, pass a written test on gun laws, get fingerprinted, be subject to a police ballistics test and take days off work.

Anyone who thinks that the D.C. laws are "reasonable" should also volunteer to submit to similar laws for their other Civil Rights.

Thus far, I've never seen this occur. Hmmmm....

[msongs]

1. all gun laws are unreasonable. free and open carry from birth to after death nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. WWJPIH?

[PavePusher]

3. Thanks for the gratuitous hyperbole.

I'd ask if you had anything relevent to actually... you know... "discuss", but... it's you.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. you know what they say about those ALL and NEVER sentences don't you.... FALSE

dismissed.



next?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Even you must admit the laws in DC are draconian

[TheWraith]

77. Nah, he won't.

To him, any set of gun laws where you're allowed to own anything more than a flint-lock musket, carefully locked in a vault at the gun club, and you don't weep with guilt and self flagellate every evening over owning such a horrible object, is overly generous.

Of course if anyone on the pro-gun-control side thinks that's a stupid exaggeration... well, now you know how everyone else views the "mandatory open carry for toddlers!11!!one!" hysterical crap that gets spouted on every one of these sorts of articles.

[socialindependocrat]

5. They win the right to own guns in court

and then the "anti's" create a bunch of rules that mak it difficult to acquire a gun.

This is like California allowing Marijuana dispensaries
and the Feds come in and make life miserable.

There will always be a small group of people who will oppose
change. Why does our legal system allow a small group of people
to screw things up for years until the change gets to be old-hat and the "anti's" find some other cause and inflict missery on them?

It would be nice to have one state where we could be progressive in our laws and our elected officials would protect the people from
all "outsiders".

I retired and am looking for a place to move to. Is there any state that is liberal and allows it's residents to breath the air and drink the water without the requirement of a tax or a license?

[lastlib]

6. I hear Somalia has some gun laws you might like.

Move there with your gun.

[socialindependocrat]

8. I'll bet I could even shoot in my own back yard!!

[Straw Man]

40. I hear North Korea has some YOU might like.

I think you get the picture.

[COLGATE4]

7. Marvellous sourcing -

the 'Washington Times'. Just more NRA crapola.

[krispos42]

9. I await a liberal news (or non-batshit-insane) outlet to do their own purchase saga.

Since, to my knowledge, they're not, either they have no interest in how hard it is or they know they'll only be reinforcing the Times story.


Neither possibility looks good for your point of view, in my opinion, unless you have a third, distinct, possibility?

[COLGATE4]

10. The third distinct possibility -

as the Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions, the State has a legitimate interest in regulating the purchase and ownership of firearms, particularly handguns. Washington does it. And I don't have a problem with it, particularly when the whine is coming from a Washington Times shill who is thrilled on "how great she looks with the gun in her hand". Just the type of purchaser the law IMO should be careful about licensing.

[PavePusher]

13. Both D.C. and you seem to be mistaking "regulating" for "obstructing".

The Supreme Court will not be as amused as you seem to be.

[COLGATE4]

16. Don't bet on it.

[beevul]

27. "the State has a legitimate interest "

Could it be said that "the State has a legitimate interest" in forcing one to bear witness against themself?

Could it be said that ""the State has a legitimate interest" in searching without warrants?

If not, why not?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."

The restrictions on government contained within the bill of rights exist, whether they're ignored or "reinterpreted" at the behest of those with certain beliefs, or special interest groups who would like to see certain rights effectively minimized in their exercise. Or entirerly eliminated.

A government that ignores or "reinterprets" the restrictions that bind it, contained in the bill of rights,
undercuts its own legitimacy.

Of course, you'll reply with "no right is absolute".

Yes, no right is absolute, however...


The intention of the restrictions contained in the bill of rights, was that with few exceptions, government may not interfere.

Rather than "with few exceptions, government may interfere".

[COLGATE4]

45. That's an interesting observation

But existing jurisprudence doesn't support that view. As you correctly note, no rights are absolute, and the exercise of all rights is to a degree circumscribed by us having to live in an ordered society. There is no absolute right to free speech, there is no absolute right to religious practice and there is certainly no absolute right to own a firearm without some rules and regulations. That's the way civilizations evolve.

[krispos42]

31. That's not the issue

The issue is how much time, money, and effort a person has to put into the system to get a gun.

[oneshooter]

33. Do you believe that DC's regulations are reasonable?

If not then what changes would you make?

[one-eyed fat man]

43. Just the type of purchaser the law IMO should be careful about licensing.

Yes, you don't want them to actually go after the criminals. If they didn't practice "catch and release" they would soon run out of thugs to chase. What would all those in industrial prison complex do then?

Girlfriend is moving out of place where she lived with boyfriend, a Crips member with a very long rap sheet. He attacks her, tries to throw her from a second floor landing. She speeds away while he fires five shots at her from a sawed-off shotgun. She reports situation to police, adding that boyfriend might be staying at the house of his stepmother.

Results in an interesting Fourth Amendment case

Messerschmidt v. Millender

To me, there is one startling passage..;. but then this case did come out of California. Boyfriend had been arrested 31 times, including three times for assault with a deadly weapon, three times for other violent offenses, and nine times for firearm offenses. And he's out on the street....

Gun control laws have never been about crime.

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns."

-U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns."

-U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993


"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns."

-U.S. Senator. Howard Metzenbaum, 1994

[gejohnston]

78. type of purchaser?

Because she works at the Washington Times?
I (most likely) a Republican?

Are you saying voter registration should be submitted to NICS to filter out the "other" of the week?

[burf]

11. I guessed you missed the entire saga

of Emily and her quest to legally own a gun in the District.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117210722#post32

There is a brief story by CNN that was broadcast after the fact. The Brady Bunch take on the laws of DC was mentioned:

"One of the reasons we strongly support the District of Columbia's gun laws, is we think that anybody who wants to exercise the responsibility that is gun ownership should be primarily concerned with protecting the lives of innocent people," Caroline Brewer said. "There are obviously a number of different steps and the processes are there because they are trying to take the greatest care to make sure that the people who receive these guns are responsible."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/08/a-loaded-issue-newspaper-editor-gets-her-gun/

You don't like the source, fine. Can you prove any false reporting by Ms Miller on the story? Do you consider the District's gun laws to be reasonable? Would you be in support of similar laws imposed on others attempting to exercise Constitutional guarantees such as voting, assembly, free speech, religion?

[COLGATE4]

14. I don't believe that restrictions on firearm purchase

rise to the level of Constitutional protection that 1st Amendment freedoms have traditionally enjoyed. The Second Amendment has never enjoyed the broad protetions given under the First Amendment. That has consistently been the jurisprudence of the courts of the land, including the USSCt until the very recent (and, in my considered legal opinion flawed) decision of this Conservative packed Supreme Court announcing that the Second Amendment now applies to iindividual bearing of arms, notwithstanding the clear language of the Second Amendment. Even so, the Supremes have made clear that reasonble restrictions can and should be made when dealing with firearm purchasing and ownership. What Washington has done is perfecly consistent with that jurisprudence.

So to answer your question No, I would not be "be in support of similar laws imposed on others attempting to exercise Constitutional guarantees such as voting, assembly, free speech, religion". There is no jurisprudence to support this proposition. But as far as the Second Amendment goes, absolutely.

[PavePusher]

18. Ah, so the Amendments are not equal in weight and standing?

On what basis do you claim this?

[COLGATE4]

20. Having taught Constititional Law

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. Constititional Law ...???

Having taught Constititional Law

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. At a distingished univirsity, no doubt...

[PavePusher]

35. Shhhppwwwwaaaaahhhh.......

[COLGATE4]

65. Thomas M. Cooley School of Law, Lansing, Michigan

(the second largest Law School in the U.S.)

[DanTex]

75. Appreciate your expertise.

Always nice to hear more voices of reason in the gungeon. We're a bit short on reason here, and a bit long on talking points from FOXnews/WTimes/WorldNetDaily...

[ellisonz]

90. +1

Amen.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. interesting -

Controversies
Thomas M. Cooley Law School has been the subject of derision from, and has therefore acquired unusual notoriety among, other members of the legal community, regarding its comparative overall quality as a law school. This has arisen in a context within the American legal community of a perceived identity between the quality of its graduates and the quality of the law school. The basis for much of this ridicule seems to have arisen from a comparison of U.S. News and World Report "rankings" as to U.S. law schools. However, Thomas M. Cooley Law School has remained accredited to the American Bar Association for more than thirty-five years, graduation from an ABA-accredited law school being the primary determinant of applicant eligibility to attempt the bar examination in most U.S. States, the successful completion of which is a prerequisite to the admission to practice law. The visibility of these issues has also been said to influence employer perception of the comparative quality of its graduates on their basis. The law school is known to use curricula and teaching methods substantially identical to many of the most prominent law schools, and has counted nationally-known members of the legal academy among its faculty, on numerous occasions.

Several lawsuits have been brought, by both the law school and others, to focus judicial scrutiny on these issues.

more at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooley_Law_School

[gejohnston]

89. I was hesitant to go there

but now that the genie is out of the bottle.

http://www.top-law-schools.com/thomas-cooley-school-of-law.html

[Tuesday Afternoon]

91. oh yeah,,, let us do go there... I wondered if that was why you self-deleted.

[gejohnston]

92. Yes it was nt

[PavePusher]

30. Excellent. Can you explain to one of the great unwashed.....

what precindent/case law/anything supports your assertion?

Thanks in advance.

[COLGATE4]

44. Yep. US v Cruickshank

Presser v Illinois and US v Miller. And the correct term is 'precedent', not 'precident'. Enjoy your reading.

[PavePusher]

51. I think we're all typing with our elbows this week.

I've read parts of all those cases and I'm not sure they say what you think they do. But it's been a while and they are all good info, so I'll review and get back to you. Thanks!

[PavePusher]

52. P.S. My apology for the snide tone, you've been nothing but polite and did not deserve that.

It's been a while since I've had some time off, things are pretty hectic at work, and I let the tension bleed over where it didn't belong. Mea culpa.

[COLGATE4]

59. No problem. Happens to all of us. But thanks.

[gejohnston]

53. Cruikshank also said the 1st (right to assembly) did not apply to the states.

If I remeber my high school civics correctly, the view was that the the BoR only limited the federal government. That changed in the 1890s when the SCOTUS started applying the incorporation doctrine based on the 14th Amendment. Cruikshank has since been overturned by DeJonge v. Oregon in (1937) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). McDonald also overturned Presser. Both sides claim Miller as their win, but I fail to see how a one sided argument should really matter.

[burf]

54. Yea, Chicago won the McDonald case.

That's why Rahm had to write the check for 400K, with more to follow.

[COLGATE4]

60. You are correct that the BOR was made applicable

to the States (as opposed to the Federal government) based on the 14th Amendment late in the 19th Century. The gentleman asked me for some precedent. Miller is, in my considered legal opinion is a correct statement of the law notwithstanding this Court's newly discovered "indvidual right to bear arms". Nonetheless, the genie is out of the bottle now.

[oneshooter]

61. again, do you believe that DC's lgun laws are reasonable?

And if not, then what would you change?

[COLGATE4]

62. I personally don't have any problem with

DC's rules. As far as I'm concerned, the more carefully handgun ownership is monitored and controlled the better. I'm not wild about all the hoops I have to jump through every time I have to go to the DMV either but that's the way it is in a civilized society. There is certainly nothing illegal in the way D.C. chooses to license handgun ownership.

[gejohnston]

68. I have to disagree

DMV is nothing like she described, or at least anywhere I have been. Any trip I have ever made to DMV was at most a couple of hours of one day. While registration/licensing may be (never defined) reasonable and sane for DC, but making it more cumbersome than it needs (apparently to discourage participation) is not.

[burf]

70. After waiting from Oct 5th until the 3rd of Feb,

Emily was still forced to observe the ten day waiting period before she could take possession of her gun. By what stretch of your imagination is this reasonable?

[oneshooter]

73. So you would agree with using the same process in order to vote.

As all civil rights are the equal before the law.

[COLGATE4]

82. There are regulations and hurdles

for you to vote as well (and in fact they are becoming a great deal more difficult for this Presidential election). In many states you must register to vote before a certain date- if you miss it, you probably won't get to vote. Same with different regs for I.D. to vote. And residency requirements. And for mail-in ballots. And for provisional ballots. It should be obvious that different government activities have different requirements and will require more or less time, and more or less jumping through hoops. She got her gun. All we're talking about here is how long it took her to get it. Her 'civil right' to purchase a firearm was respected.

[gejohnston]

83. complied with, but not respected

There are regulations and hurdles for you to vote as well (and in fact they are becoming a great deal more difficult for this Presidential election). In many states you must register to vote before a certain date- if you miss it, you probably won't get to vote.

None of them are anything like the DC gun maze. The voting requirements are becoming more difficult in a few states where the right wing took over the state government and want to stay there. These voter suppression laws are designed keep certain groups of people from voting like working class, elderly, and the poor.
The question is, is DC basically doing the same thing with guns? We are saying yes. We hear all of the time about "reasonable and sane laws" with out ever defining "reasonable and sane" even when asked. Most of these people have little or no knowledge what US and their state laws are and not the slightest clue about the laws of the countries they point to, as you demonstrated below. We are saying that DC's process is unreasonable.

[COLGATE4]

84. This discussion is rapidly reaching the

point of diminishing returns. The question was whether very strict licensing laws (like D.C.'s) violate an individual's civil rights under the Second Amendment, and whether this isn't subsantially similar to restrictions on the right to vote. Legally speaking, the answer is no to both. The State may to enact restrictions on existing rights, but those laws can then be challenged. The question then becomes what degree of scutiny the court examining the restriction should use when deciding if the restriction is constitutional. There are two degrees of scrutiny - the "rational basis test" and "strict scrutiny". "Rational basis" has been coloquially defined as the "not crazy" test, i.e. so long as the State can demonstrate a 'not totally crazy' basis for having enacted the law in the first place, it will stand. Strict scrutiny is a much tougher standard, and many laws run afoul of a strict scrutiny review.

Firearm regulation is subject to the Rational Basis test. So long as the State (D.C. in this case) can demonstrate that there is a 'not crazy' reason for having the regulations it has, their laws will not be found to violate the Constitution's the Second Amendment. This is fundamentally different from other laws affecting Freedom of Speech or the Right to Suffrage, which are subjected to Strict Scrutiny by the court.

So, in conclusion, my point was (and is) that DC's regs are not unconstitutional. So what we're left talking about is how long is 'too long'? That's a matter of opinion, not law.

[burf]

85. If DC was not violating the Second Amendment then why are they arguing how much they

have to pay Heller's attorneys?

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/02/both-sides-file-appeals-over-fee-award-in-dc-gun-case-72977.html

[COLGATE4]

86. Because Heller was about whether

a State (or other governmental unit) could totally prohibit handguns. The court decided that because this was an outright prohibition, rather than a mere regulation the case merited strict scrutiny and declined to uphold DC's ban on handguns. On the other hand, no court, including the Supremes has yet held that the State cannot regulate handguns (which is was the article in question and the later comments was about).

[oneshooter]

74. Then you would agree to the same process in order to vote.

After all, all civil rights are equal under the law.

[COLGATE4]

81. You are mistaken. Firearm ownership is

not a civil right.

[friendly_iconoclast]

93. A certain honors graduate of Harvard Law (& lecturer at the U. of Chicago School of Law) disagrees:

" ...Now, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. And the courts have settled that as the law of the land. In this country, we have a strong tradition of gun ownership that's handed from generation to generation. Hunting and shooting are part of our national heritage. And, in fact, my administration has not curtailed the rights of gun owners - it has expanded them, including allowing people to carry their guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.

The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept..."

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1kV5SUkry

[gejohnston]

69. could you have picked better cases?

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 12:21 AM - Edit history (1)

In my considered layperson's opinion, Miller probably didn't decide anything of consequence if anything at all. How else can both sides claim victory while claiming to be "objective"? My question is, why did you choose Presser and Cruiskshank? Besides being made irrelevent, neither are exactly shining examples of social progress. I'll give you Presser as it applied to private armies (in spite of its anti-labor background). Regardless of the gun issue, Cruiskshank was a wet kiss to Jim Crow because if its larger implications.
As Leonard Levy put it "Cruikshank paralyzed the federal government's attempt to protect black citizens by punishing violators of their Civil Rights and, in effect, shaped the Constitution to the advantage of the Ku Klux Klan."

[COLGATE4]

87. Try these

US v Hall 331 F3d 257; US v Scroggins 551 F3d 257; US v Skoien 587 F3d 803; US v Hernandez-Mendoza; US v Rene 583 F3d 8.

[gejohnston]

94. How do they contradict the majority opinion

in Heller?
All of these are post Heller, how do they challenge Heller?

I am not asking as a rabid "gun militant", it is an honest question. From the best I can tell (as a layman who never stayed in a Holiday Inn Express) the defense lawyers also tried to make 4A and 14A cases out of them as well.

Regardless of what the founders intended or the judges' views, all of those cases were guaranteed losses. Like Miller, they were not the kind of people neither one of us want to have access to guns. No judge is going to be on the front page news as the guy that ruled that drug dealers, felons, minors, and wife beaters should be able to legally buy a gun. If I were one of the judges, I would rule the same way.

before I get accused of being anti-intellectual or a conspiracy nut:
"Judges Are Politicians in Robes" progressive radio host and former lawyer Norman Goldman

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. :)

[ellisonz]

37. That's not what he said at all. n/t

[burf]

23. So, the poll taxes and tests required to vote would

be alright if they were only administered properly? How about the proposition that only land holders could be vote? Wasn't DC told in the Heller case they were to revise their gun restrictions. hence the hearings and proposals at the local DC council level?

The SC has ruled that the 2nd pertains to an individual right, as far as keeping arms, and so far it appears the bearing of arms will be addressed in the future in a case that the court decides is appropriate.

Time will tell.

[PavePusher]

12. Did you take the time to evaluate the actual content?

If not, why? Are you afraid of having your assumptions challenged, or your memes shown to be faulty or false?

[COLGATE4]

15. Yes, I did. Try reading my answer Reply #14.

[Dr_Scholl]

17. Let me see if I can get this straight.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 2A is an individual right, correct? They've also ruled that you can't tax a right, am I correct again?

So how are registration fees, lengthy application processes, and courses not the equivalent of literacy tests and poll taxes which have been ruled unconstitutional?

[COLGATE4]

19. I'm not sure where you got the notion that a exercising a

right cannot be taxed, but in any case, comparing licensing processes and fees to literacy tests is a non-starter. You would have to show in court that the regs are designed for the specific purpose of prohibting a given class of persons from exercising an inalienable right. The right to bear arms is not inaleniable - check laws prohibiting felons from having firearms, for example.

[PavePusher]

34. Perhaps, as a "Constititional Law" teacher, can you explain this....

https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=58+Tul.+L.+Rev.+1073&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=36e68ba987824d22199239525278688f

http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/first-amendment-freedom-of-expression/minneapolis-star-and-tribune-company-v-minnesota-commissioner-of-revenue/

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)
http://www.garretwilson.com/education/institutions/usf/law/constitutional/cases.html (a little less than half-way down the page).

[gejohnston]

79. I have the distinct

feeling that you will be waiting a very long time for an explanation from him.

[DanTex]

25. They didn't rule that "you can't tax a right".

They ruled specifically that you can't have a poll tax. Not all rights are treated identically, and none of them is unlimited. Even under the new right-wing interpretation of the second amendment that Scalia and company have saddled us with, there is still plenty of room for gun control laws that protect public safety, short of an outright ban on handguns.

[ellisonz]

58. +1000

in it

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. This is actually more comparable to Vote ID laws

After all, we want to make sure on those that meet all the qualifications vote.

[DanTex]

24. Awesome! Tom Delay's former communications director writing for the WTimes!

Y'all really know how to pick your heroes!

Grover Norquist, "civil rights" advocate!

[PavePusher]

36. Anything to say about the actual content? We'll wait while you sound out the bigger words.... n/t

[DanTex]

39. The content? Some wingnut whining about having register her guns?

Meh. Boring. I already know that right-wingers tend to be gun nuts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

41. "Whining" seems to be a synonym for "things I can't be arsed to refute"

[gejohnston]

42. I think you missed the point

Her issue seems to be more about the process, not actual registration itself. If you are going to have a licensing and registration system, at least have a simple and straight forward process. DMV does that with cars, why not DCPD with guns?

[PavePusher]

50. There's a leeeeeetle bit more to it than mere "registration".....

but I'll take your dodge (or ignorance?) as my answer.

Very telling.

[spin]

26. Since the Supremes ruled in favor of gun ownership...

it does appear that those who oppose gun ownership have decided to make legally owning a firearm so expensive and difficult that only fairly rich people with time on their hands will be able to own one.

Why should it be so difficult for an honest person in Washington D.C., Chicago or New Youk City to legally buy a firearm while it is much easier in most areas of our nation? Are the residents of these cities second class citizens?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. according to what I read on here, that is the way the good citizens of those cities want it to be.

but, then I read that on here that ALL COPS SUCK ... so, you know, I really don't know what to think about our good citizens in these major cities, just glad that I do not have those issues.

[spin]

55. While many of the citizens in thsoe cities...

want very restrictive gun laws, many other honest citizens of the same cities who live in very dangerous areas would love to have an effective means of home defense.

Gun owner ID cards soar in Chicago

BY FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter/[email protected] January 25, 2012 7:18PM

Chicago has seen a 16 percent spike in the number of people holding state firearm owner’s identification cards in the past two years, state officials said Wednesday.

About 122,000 people possessed FOID cards at the beginning of this year compared to 105,000 at the beginning of 2010, said Monique Bond, spokeswoman for the Illinois State Police.

***snip***

Todd Vandermyde, a legislative liaison for the National Rifle Association, said he believes Chicagoans are getting FOID cards to comply with state law but are snubbing their noses at the city ordinance because they believe the registration process is too onerous.

“They’re taking their chances with the city,” he said. “It’s just an ordinance violation.”
http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/10234844-418/gun-owner-id-cards-soar-in-chicago.html

[Tuesday Afternoon]

56. what slays me about DU is the way --

people say they hate cops and don't trust cops on the one hand and then on the other hand they want the cops to have all the guns and the private citizen to have none?!

honestly, what kind of sense does that make?

how do they live with that paradigm?

I totally do NOT GET that AT ALL.

[COLGATE4]

66. I feel a hell of a lot safer

with the cops having guns (and the idiots who shouldn't be within 100 yards of a gun NOT having them).

[oneshooter]

67. And how do you determine that the cops are not also the idiots?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. I guess you haven't read all the threads in GD about CopHaters, then -- and how they

think Cops Suck and that the Cops are the Idiots.

[COLGATE4]

46. I don't know - could it be perhaps because

cities like D.C. or NYC have a huge crime problem and are concerned about too many guns on the street???

[gejohnston]

47. wrong guns

Why should it be so difficult for an honest person in Washington D.C., Chicago or New Youk City to legally buy a firearm while it is much easier in most areas of our nation? Are the residents of these cities second class citizens?

which has what to do with the violent crime problem? The gun owners being affected are not the gun owners causing the problem.
When I read it, it seemed that she was not criticizing licensing and registration per se, but the process. If you are going to "register guns like cars" then shouldn't the process be equally simple and straight forward? That is how it works in Europe et al.

[COLGATE4]

48. Check the British laws about simple and straightforward

process they have to register handguns. (Hint - you can't - it's illegal).

[gejohnston]

49. since when did UK

represent all of Europe including Czech Republic, Switzerland, and Finland? Notice I said Europe (as in the continent as a whole) et al as in including New Zealand and Canada.
Hint-you didn't answer the question.

[oneshooter]

57. He seems a little selective about what questions he answers.

Seems to avoid the direct ones. Maybe a little frightened to do so.

oneshooter (4,369 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

33. Do you believe that DC's regulations are reasonable?

If not then what changes would you make?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[COLGATE4]

64. See my response #61. I think it answers the question.

[COLGATE4]

63. I don't pretend (as you do) to know the details of handgun

laws in the Czech Republic, Switzerland and Finland, although I would be willing to bet that those laws (insofar as they are permissive) deal with long guns, not handguns. I know for a fact that Canada is extremely strict about not permitting handguns, period. The issue here is about handguns, not hunting rifles.

[gejohnston]

71. Pretending to know something (and being arrogant about it)

Last edited Fri Feb 24, 2012, 03:39 AM - Edit history (3)

is no match for Google and personal experience. Actually, I was talking about handguns and you don't know. Handguns are legally owned in all of the above countries. Czech Republic is one of the most liberal (your license to own is also your CCW, although I doubt very many do.) I know for a fact you are wrong about Canada's laws. Some handguns are prohibited, but not all. If you have a valid "restricted" PAL you can order any of this pistols online and they will be delivered to your door:

http://www.canadaammo.com/manufacturers.php?manufacturerid=6
What is really cool about the Canadian system, is that you can register your new gun online. Much more reasonable than DC or NYC.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/online_en-ligne/reg_enr-eng.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_Czech_Republic
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/rp-eng.htm

Now that you corrected me on Canadian handgun regulations (and keeping me on task with the subject at hand) would you like to discuss how France, Finland, and New Zealand regulate silencers? I'm all for reasoned discussion that open minds, challenge assumptions, and learning new things. However, I draw the line at condescending arrogance. It is especially insulting when it comes from someone who not only does not know anything about the subject, but is more than willing to school someone who does (or at least takes the time to look it up.)