Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumNRA wants new open-carry gun law in Florida
Marion Hammer, executive director of the NRA's state lobbying organization, Unified Sportsmen of Florida, told the Tampa Bay Times that the envisioned legislation would make it legal for holders of concealed-weapons permits to carry exposed guns in public.
Hammer said the bill is necessary to protect such gun owners from harassment by police when they accidentally reveal concealed weapons in public. A 2011 compromise that tweaked existing regulations to remove penalties for those who unintentionally expose a gun has not been sufficient protection, she said. As a result, the NRA has reverted to its original goal of open carry for concealed-weapons permit holders.
"We are going to address the problem of law-abiding gun owners exercising their Second Amendment rights, because they're being harassed," Hammer said. "The goal of the new bill will be exactly as it was in 2011 to protect law-abiding people who have a license to carry."
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/marion-hammer-nra-wants-new-open-carry-law-in-florida/1244820
ileus
(15,396 posts)No reason to deny the people the most progressive form of carry.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I know it's still early this AM.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)guns for everyone, everywhere, all the time.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Go ahead post some threads where I mention the NRA in a positive light.
Thanks.
Now if you want to call me a supporter of Open Carry, you may. If you want to say I'm a supporter of the 2A that's fine also.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Perhaps I erred.
hack89
(39,171 posts)is actually a NRA policy? Or did you just pull a huge pile of stinking hyperbole out of your ass?
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Meaning some limit to "guns for everyone, everywhere, all the time."
hack89
(39,171 posts)after Va Tech they enthusiastically supported the legislation that strengthened that system.
The fact of the matter is that the NRA supports keeping guns out of the hands of felons and mentally ill people. They just happen to think that non-felons and non-mentally ill people are responsible enough to own guns. The record low rate of gun violence would appear to prove them right.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)which are then sold illegally. They know this is the case yet refuse to allow any limitation.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the NRA certainly endorses the notion that the police do their jobs and crackdown on illegal firearm activity.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)wink, wink!
hack89
(39,171 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)They just don't believe that your solutions would work.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)the BATFE would like to hire you.
They seem to have a problem in that area.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Not one.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)Not sure about long arms.
Missycim
(950 posts)of needs, I'll be sure to send your name to them to head the dept.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Really? A cite to your authority credentials, please?
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)AA cite to your authority credentials, please?
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)1. That's not how debate works. You made a claim, support it with evidence.
2. That's not how we do things in this country. If you want to impose a restriction, you must justify the need for such restriction. Which you have manifestly not done yet. Good luck with that.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)and it is just as empty.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)why should that be a problem?
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Compulsive hoarding is not healthy.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Yer Amater Sykolojee is teh Phale.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)Sure, nothing unbalanced about that.
Learn to spell, dummy.
Trunk Monkey
(950 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I don't have to justify my "need" for anything, including guns, that I may wish to buy. If I have the money and the purchase is not illegal, then I can buy it.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)"guns for everyone, everywhere, all the time." is the articulated position of the NRA.
Missycim
(950 posts)always wrong...(before you waste your time I am not a member or have ever been)
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)everything is a plot to confiscate guns according to them. They deserve no support on this board.
Missycim
(950 posts)explain them supporting Democrats in the past, present and future?
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)You are kidding, aren't you?
Missycim
(950 posts)They support many Dem candidates, Harry Reid that i can think off hand.
So please explain to me why they support Dems if they are soley on repubs side?
Missycim
(950 posts)but if the Democrats supported the 2nd more earnestly the NRA would swing to the center.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)they might have the support of more Democrats.
Missycim
(950 posts)but for the brady campaign and other Democrats pushing for gun bans in the 90's. The Front lash wouldn't have been so huge if they didn't go for out right bans.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Missycim
(950 posts)support the NRA, they should support the 2nd more.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)or the "well-regulated" interpretation of the 2nd which most Democrats already support.
Missycim
(950 posts)Well-regulated meant something different then laws and banning weapons.
It meant well functioning and disciplined. So as I asked Hoyt since every grabber I know or read says the 2nd pertains to militias, as long as private citizens form one thats ok? (barring that they arent racist and or T-bagging (whatever that means)
hack89
(39,171 posts)they hand the NRA powerful political weapons to bludgeon Democrats and increase their donations/membership. The AWB was the greatest gift the NRA has ever received.
The Democrats need a more nuanced view of gun control - their self inflicted wounds have done more to kill gun control than the NRA.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)If the Democrats had control of Congress in 2004, I doubt they would have let the AWB expire.
Two Thirds of Public, One Third of NRA Members Support
Extending Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Downloads/Political_Communication/naes/2004_03_guns_09-06_pr.pdf
hack89
(39,171 posts)I am not sure of your point. Lets remember that the only poll that really counts is election day.
Did you forget that 54 seat swing in the 1994 elections?
My point is simple - after the AWB it was impossible to say that gun control was not about banning guns. A potent message was given to the NRA which they used ruthlessly to destroy the gun control movement in America.
The AWB was a disaster for gun control advocates in America - it was their high water mark and has been followed by defeat after defeat. All it did was provoke a powerful opponent
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 04:59 PM - Edit history (1)
The AWB may have been a factor in the 1994 election but it certainly didn't play a "large role" as you and the NRA claim. The "Contract With America" captured the imaginations of many Americans and helped the Republicans gain control of Congress. The "Contract With America" made no mention of the AWB and made no promises to overturn the law.
Using your logic it would be fair to claim that the Democrats were able to regain control of Congress in 2006 after the Republicans allowed the AWB to expire in 2004.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Bill Clinton? Bill himself said so.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)It is hard to make a case that the assault weapons ban was decisive in 1994.
The law certainly enraged many N.R.A. members and might explain the loss of certain Democratic seats. However, there were other major factors in the Democrats 1994 loss, starting with perceived Democratic arrogance and corruption (overdrafts at the House bank came to symbolize that).
Add to that voter unhappiness with Mr. Clintons budget, his health care fiasco, the Republican Partys success in recruiting appealing candidates, and that ingenious Republican vehicle for nationalizing the elections known as the Contract With America. The contract, by the way, did not mention guns.
Mr. Clintons successful 1996 re-election campaign actually stressed his gun control achievements. James and Sarah Brady spoke in prime time at the 96 Democratic convention, and Clinton campaign ads trumpeted his role in enacting the assault weapons ban and the 93 Brady law requiring background checks for gun buyers.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/opinion/09sat4.html
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)speaking at the convention, even if I agreed with something they said. Did the Bradys mention how bipartisan the vote it was? Even people like Strom Thurmond (when my daughter was a toddler, she threw food at him once), Trent Lott, and I forgot the guy from North Carolina's name.
I would say Clinton won mostly because Bob Dole had a shitty campaign, almost like he didn't want to win it. That and people remembered Pat Buchanan's racist rant four years earlier.
The last time it was reintroduced that I know of, 2008, it had two sponsors. Both were obscure Republicans.
hack89
(39,171 posts)So would Al Gore - according to him gun control is why he didn't win his home state in 2000.
As for 2006, perhaps the fact that they were silent on the issue of gun control had more to do with it. 2006 was a referendum on Bush and his handling of the economy, Katrina and an increasingly unpopular war.
There is a reason Democratic politicians don't talk about gun control anymore - if it were popular with voters do you think that would be the case?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)From "My Life" by Bill Clinton
"The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list."
hack89
(39,171 posts)either the NRA is a paper tiger or it is not.
Why do you think the politicians ignore gun control? Is it less the NRA and more the actual voters of America?
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)I do dispute the myth of Republicans gaining control of Congress in 1994 as backlash for the AWB.
hack89
(39,171 posts)the fact that they won't touch a new AWB says it all as far as I am concerned.
spin
(17,493 posts)Prior to the passage of the law few of the shooters that I knew had any great interest in owning an "assault weapon." Assault style semi-automatic plastic "black rifles" were considered inaccurate, unreliable and underpowered. Revolvers were still very popular, although many shooters liked 1911 style .45 automatics for target shooting and self defense. The .45 auto (actually just semi-auto) is a fine weapon but at that time had a reputation of being less reliable than a revolver as it was far more prone to jamming unless it had significant work done by a competent gunsmith.
Along comes the Assault Weapons Ban. It banned firearms that had certain cosmetic features. (To view those features visit this link.)
Federal Assault Weapons Ban
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons". There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" in the U.S. prior to the law's enactment. The 10-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired on September 13, 2004, as part of the law's sunset provision. There have been multiple attempts to renew the ban,[1] but no bill has reached the floor for a vote.
***snip***
Effect on crime
The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9]
emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
The manufacturers simply modified their products to remove certain cosmetic features such as a flash suppressor or a grenade launcher and continued to sell them. Such items are largely irreverent to shooters.
Some of the shooters that I knew grew interested in owning an assault weapon. Some bought a back rifle and reported that they actually worked well and surprising accurate. (Banning anything causes increased interest because of human nature.) After hearing the positive reports, other shooters decided to purchase at least one rifle and one or two high capacity magazines to go with it. (High capacity magazines were only banned if they had been after a certain date and the manufacturers of this accessory started producing them on a 24/7 schedule prior to the date and then sold them for a high price. Consequently they were never unavailable to any individual who wanted one.)
Consequently today black rifles are selling like hot cakes and are used for competitive target shooting, self defense and even hunting. They are easily to modify and a large number of accessories are available. There is now a number of such rifles manufactured in calibers that make them suitable for hunting large game rather than varmints. (Most states limit the magazine size of such weapons used for hunting deer or similar game to only five rounds so the argument that no one needs a 100 round magazine to hunt deer is totally irreverent and a distortion of the truth.)
The Glock pistol became very popular with police departments across our nation and many shooters found that they were very reliable and accurate. Shooters liked the idea of having a firearm that held more rounds than a revolver for self defense (although most gun fights end with less than six rounds being fired.) Once again these weapons were limited to a magazine size of ten rounds when purchased but higher capacity magazines were readily available. Revolvers were considered outdated and old fashioned.
"Shall issue" concealed carry swept across our nation. People who obtained such licenses found that carrying a large handgun for the faint chance that they might actually have to use it for self defense was a pain in the ass. Gun manufacturers who realized that full sized semi-auto pistols had become more popular than revolvers decided to design smaller more compact semi-auto pistols which can be easily concealed but are extremely reliable. Such handguns have proven to be VERY popular.
Overall the Assault Weapons Ban was a failure since it was so poorly written and it also caused the NRA to gain support against those who wish to ban certain classes of firearms or to ban and confiscate all firearms. Democrats who supported such gun control laws lost many close elections and consequently our nation suffered.
When the Assault Weapons Ban passed groups such as the Brady Campaign were riding high in the saddle. After the ban they lost power and influence. Rather than work on truly sensible gun control laws, such groups chose to use an incremental approach to banning all firearms. Since it was fairly obvious that this was indeed their goal, the estimated 80 million gun owners and members of their family were motivated to go to the polls and vote against any politician who favored such ideas. Republicans were able to successfully use the argument as a wedge issue. Republicans still use the gun control issue to this date for their benefit. Gun owners trust Republicans far more than Democrats on the issue, but an fair examination of history would show that if given a chance Republicans might well sell out gun owners in a heartbeat if they saw a political advantage. Republicans support the very rich and the 1% and members of that group want to have the privilege of owning firearms but fear that the 99% might eventually rebel against their greed and control of those we elect to Congress.
I should point out I own a small collection of firearms, have enjoyed shooting for over 40 years and also have a concealed weapons permit in Florida. However at this time I do not own any firearm that would be considered an "assault weapon." I may buy a black rifle if I move to a more rural area with several acres of land if a large number of feral hogs are on my property. They are considered destructive pests and while not overly dangerous to hunt, they do have sharp tusks. I've known several people who tried to shoot a hog and ended up in a tree. A semi-auto rifle with a revolver as a backup might be a good idea. Feral hog is tasty when prepared properly and I have had the chance to eat it on several occasions. I personally feel it is more tasty than store bought pork.
You obviously support another Assault Weapons Ban. I will ask you how you would write such a law so that it is far more effective than the last one and would actually accomplish something? Obviously you might say that you would totally ban the future sale of such weapons and high capacity magazines but how would you deal with the current existence of millions of such weapons and magazines? Would you require that they be turned in by a certain date? Would you require registration of all such weapons in order to facilitate law enforcement activity to confiscate them? Realistically how much chance do you feel that you would have to pass such a law? Do you realize that there is a chance that even if you succeeded it might result in a backlash that could give the Presidency and control of both houses of Congress to the Republicans?
I will politely suggest that we both work together to attempt to control the sale of all firearms to honest and sane people and also better enforce and improve existing gun control laws. This sensible approach might produce far better results. I realize that my idea would be very difficult to accomplish but still has a far better chance of becoming reality than a lofty goal of imposing another ban similar to the one that was allowed to expire because it proved to be an embarrassing failure.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)What are you talking about?
Missycim
(950 posts)but can you do a simple google search and find his words on gun control before he came to the WH?
I SAID THAT HE HAS DONE NOTHING TO TAKE RIGHTS AWAY, I meant his votes before he came to the WH.
If truth be told we only got that one rule change to carrying in fed lands due to the Credit card bill he wanted.
rfranklin
(13,200 posts)You and the NRA?
Missycim
(950 posts)that support every Right.
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)But he's made his position known. I'm sure the NRA would love to support the president, but that would require him saying things like he opposed a new assault weapons ban. I'm a pro gun liberal, which is why I donate to the president's campaign AND am a member of the NRA.
NewMoonTherian
(883 posts)Guns for everyone(of age, who hasn't proven to be untrustworthy or incapable), everywhere, all the time. That's pretty much my exact philosophy. I haven't seen any compelling argument to sway me from that. I also don't speak for any other pro-gun DUer - only myself. So if you want to use that whole long thing as a slur against me, you can do that. It doesn't flow off the tongue quite as well as yours, but at least it's not a blatant lie.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The Demographics of Florida shows that Florida is the fourth most populous of the states. It contains the highest percentage of people over 65 (17.3%), and the 8th fewest people under 18 (21.9%).[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Florida
One in eight older Americans
has Alzheimers disease.
http://www.alz.org/downloads/facts_figures_2012.pdf
And at least half of the rest of us have vision and hearing impairments and/or physical impairments that slow reaction time.
Lots of moving targets, and lots of those targets carrying guns.
If Florida passes this bill, I am for sure staying out of Florida.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)most of those folks are from New York and Canada. Many of them are not gun owners to begin with. Even fewer are likely to carry. In places were open carry is legal and not controversial, it is not customary. Even if you go to Wyoming, which has one of the highest gun ownership rates, open carry is almost non existent.
Based on the limited information you have, I understand your point. When you add more relevant information to it, it becomes less of an issue.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)within 50 yards of a gun. To begin with, I'd probably drop it. And as for seeing a target?
I just had to apologize because I misread the name of someone on DU.
Not everyone should have a gun.
But when everyone else as a gun, what happens to the person without one?
Some argue that bullets will stop a threat.
Whether that is true or not, one thing is certain, bullets don't stop just because you are not a threat.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Some evidence supporting that would seem to be in order.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Why would Florida be special and have problems?
Reasonable_Argument
(881 posts)If people start getting use to the idea of people carrying weapons openly without all the "blood in the streets" they have a harder time lying to people to pursue their goals.
spin
(17,493 posts)Remember that many tourists in Florida come not only from the other 50 states but also from many foreign nations.
Since handguns are required to be concealed, even with a license to carry in Florida, few tourists realize that over 800,000 resident Floridians have a license to carry.
I personally feel that requiring weapons to be concealed presents no serious problems to a person who has a concealed weapons permit in Florida. I have a license to carry and I have successfully carried a large Colt .45 auto concealed without being detected on many occasions. Since I have little fear of an attack and because a .45 auto is heavy and uncomfortable to carry, I have chosen to carry a much lighter and compact S&W five shot revolver in recent years.
However during most months in the Florida heat it would be easier to carry a legal handgun without having to bother with a garment to cover it. The obvious disadvantages of doing so are that you tend to scare others who lack knowledge of firearms and that you might become a target for a predator as firearms are often very valuable items.
The last thing that I ever want to do is to disturb anyone because I choose to legally carry a handgun, nor do I want to attract the attention of a predator. However since I do suffer from degenerative disc disease and am also a candidate for a hip replacement I walk with a noticeable limp. Years ago I had some martial arts training and was in far better shape to defend myself. Today I might be considered by a predator to be the weakest member of the herd. Obviously if I find myself under attack by an individual who intends to seriously injure or kill me and because I consider my life to be valuable to not only myself but to other members of my family, I prefer to have an effective method of stopping an attacker. I do often carry pepper spray but ultimately a handgun is the best deterrent.
If I am ever attacked by a predator I only wish to have a fair chance of surviving without serious injury or ending up six feet under. While this is highly unlikely it still is possible. Hopefully the fact that I am armed will stop my attacker as I never wish to shoot another individual and the fact is that often this happens. I am definitely not a vigilante nor am I a cop. I don't go looking for trouble and consequently if I find myself in a life or death situation, I bear no fault.
I have over 40 years experience with shooting handguns on a regular basis. I also practice "situational awareness" which merely means that I don't walk around with a cell phone glued to my ear but am instead alert to my surroundings.
Feel free to disagree with my viewpoint. I have no problem with this as there are good arguments on both sides of this issue. Firearms are indeed extremely dangerous items as they can definitely cause tragedy. I have personally experienced that fact within my family when a firearm was misused. I will only request that you reply in a polite manner.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)As I recall, the same argument was used when they started the CC laws. Didn't seem to happen as claimed then either.
Let's not fall into the same hypothetical-traps the anti's try to use.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)like Arizona for example.
spin
(17,493 posts)This link shows a map of open carry states:
http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html
It might be something that I am basically unfamiliar with and over time it could gain acceptance.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)There are certain times when I would like to open carry, although those are rare.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I would tweak current law. As it is now, hunters may open carry pistols during hunting season in a hunting area. I would expand that to allow open carry while hiking, camping etc. in rural non tourist areas. The idea of former New Yorkers walking around Tampa or tourists in Key West....................naw.
Like I said before, I don't see anyone actually doing it even if it were legal.