The next lie.

[TPaine7]

I am moderately optimistic that Heller will deal a deathblow to the "collective right" bovine scatology, and new lies will have to be invented. What do you think they will be, and why?

Here's my guess:

"Keep" = store as a possession (with no implication that it allows storage on your personal property). This will allow the sophistry to be gradually developed that guns must be stored at official armories and that this requirement doesn't violate the Second Amendment. This will, of course, be only a "reasonable" "sensible" and "common sense" solution to rampant crime.

"Bear" = transport. This will mean that a person who has a new job in another area will (eventually with a written police permit from both cities and/or states, a pre-approved itinerary, and a heavy fee) have the right to transport his gun from one approved central storage cite to another.

(I heard a politician say something about the right to "transport" arms. The "keep" part is my guess.)

That's my prediction. What's yours?

PS. One of the few good consequence of the current Court's composition is that these bogus legal theories would be short-lived.

[iverglas]

1. jeez

If anybody else called one of your posts "the next lie", they'd be in deep poo.

How come it's okay for you to do it??

[beevul]

2. I'll say.

"If anybody else called one of your posts "the next lie", they'd be in deep poo."

He didn't call one of anyones posts "the next lie".

[iverglas]

3. but but

It's the subject line on his post! Isn't "A Tale of Two Cities" a tale of two cities??

[michreject]

13. I think that he was referring to gun grabbers

current interpretation of our 2nd amendment being the 1st lie.

[iverglas]

15. the penny just dropped

I say: If anybody else called one of your posts "the next lie", they'd be in deep poo.
How come it's okay for you to do it??

You say: He didn't call one of anyones posts "the next lie".
... ignoring the second line of my post.

Does it help if I say:
If anybody else called one of your posts "the next lie", they'd be in deep poo.
How come it's okay for you to call one of your posts "the next lie"??

?

[jmg257]

4. They have already laid that out: "arms", "keep" & "bear arms" were only used in a military context,

so obviously the framers only meant the right was secured for militia duty/use.

edit clarification of words in quotes

[TPaine7]

5. Yes,

but Heller should kill that lie.

[jmg257]

8. THIS should have killed that lie...

"7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them..."

Minority of the
Convention of Pennsylvania
1787


It is even conveniently placed in DC's own brief.


"In 1791, “Arms” and “bear Arms” were military terms describing the use of weap-ons in the common defense, and the word “keep” was used in connection with militiamen’s possession of the arms necessary for militia service..."

"Moreover, “bear Arms” refers idiomatically to using weapons in a military context..."

"Third, the majority read the phrase “bear Arms” unnaturally. “he enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense,” Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 188 (1824), and “one does not bear Arms against a rabbit” or an intruder, Garry Wills, To Keep and Bear Arms, N.Y. Rev. of Books, Sept. 21, 1995, at 63.."


Apparently they did, atleast in Pennsylvania.

[jmg257]

9. And THIS should have killed that lie...

The notion that the Congress who wrote that amendment would expect themselves, and the likes of John Adams & Thomas Jefferson to gladly give up the security of THEIR right to keep and bear arms, since they were exempt from militia duty.

I find that notion hard to believe.

[SteveM]

6. The next "lies" will run up against the history of gun control in the South...

something gun-controllers don't want to face. I mean, can't you imagine some ol' Cracker lecturing a "liberal" gun-controller on how not to deprive Second Amendment rights, using his/her own Jim Crow history? Enough irony to fill a foundry.

[Pab Sungenis]

7. Guns don't kill people...bullets do.

New tighter restrictions on sale, transport, and caliber of ammunition.

[beevul]

10. Implied...

If one has the right to keep and bear arms, the ammunition pertaining to those arms would seem to be implied as well, no?

[Pab Sungenis]

11. You would think....

...but I think that will be the next battlefield in the fight over guns.

[beevul]

12. If thats true...

If thats true, it could be one hell of a battle. I know CA does have some ammunition bills floating around that have alot of people bent out of shape.

Theres so much reloading equipment and components floating around though, and so much "once fired" brass. I'm a less than average reloader with a single stage press. I handload all my own ammunition, rimfire ammunition notwithstanding, and I have 2 or 3 thousand once fired brass laying around. I have heard of and read about people keeping alot more than I have. People who really shoot alot and have the big fancy dillon and lee multi-stage presses can crank out ammunition at an incredible rate...500 rounds per hour or better, I have heard.

Many hunters I know reload, and most target shooters I know iether reload or intend to start reloading. Ammunition prices being what they are, reloading is the only way to make target shooting affordable for alot of folks.

I can't say with certainty how many people in the big picture are reloaders, but my gut tells me its alot.

Time will tell I guess.

[benEzra]

26. So printing presses can't be banned, but paper and printing ink can? (n/t)

[iverglas]

17. so if, for example,

background checks are permissible for firearm sales, they would be for ammunition sales?

That would go some distance to plugging that gaping private sales hole ... used firearms are one thing, used ammunition is another.

Yes, yes; everybody's going to start making their own. I know the chorus.

[beevul]

19. You know...

"so if, for example,background checks are permissible for firearm sales, they would be for ammunition sales?"

Logically, there should be no difference between the 2 in terms in terms of permissibility.

You know, I myself wouldn't have any problem with that at all on first consideration, though I reserve the right to have a problem, since I haven't given it a ton of thought.

Indeed that sounds both common sense and reasonable, so long as we're talking only about instant background checks and not 50 rounds a month, or a 2 week waiting period to get your ammunition, and not having to fill out a 4473. I and others might have a concern about how much it raises the already expensive prices of ammunition though.

"used firearms are one thing, used ammunition is another."

How would private sales of ammunition fit into that? If as Slackmaster says, the federal government has no authority to regulate private firearm sales, I would think it would lack authority to do the same for ammunition. OTOH I may not be understanding what your saying there...Do you mean that private sales of ammunition is insignificant enough that it need not be considered?




And yeah, a small minority would start making thier own, but only a small minority. I'd argue that if ammunition were completely banned on a nationwide basis, that would be quite a different story, but were not having that discussion.

A decent idea to discuss at the very least. I'll give that some thought.

My compliments.



Thats the second thing I have agreed with you on today...what the hell is going on here?


On edit: A hypothetical - I wonder if after enacting background checks on ammunition at retail sale, we'd see the those denied at retail actually try to rob stores that sell the stuff, at gunpoint...probably not, but I bet smash-and-grabs would increase. I don't think that events like that would be a reason to oppose such a thing, though...just some musing.

[iverglas]

24. you may know

The same licence is required in Canada to buy ammunition as to buy firearms.

This wasn't always the case. That's why the teenaged punks who stole an illegally stored firearm from a home in a ritzy neighbourhood of Canada's capital city a few years ago were then able to sashay into the local Canadian Tire store and stock up on ammunition for the firearm, and drive down the crowded main business street at noon shooting out the car window. They killed a young engineer from England who was working temporarily in Canada.

That event was the trigger for a rule that just makes sense, as I'm glad you at least conditionally agree.



edit:

Do you mean that private sales of ammunition is insignificant enough that it need not be considered?

That was basically it. Ammunition is consumable, firearms are durable. You buy ammunition to use it up, you buy firearms to use.

It would be pretty hard to be selling on ammunition privately and claim it wasn't being done as a business, or being acquired as a straw purchase, i.e. for the purpose of resale, I'd think.

(So that would mean the corresponding measure of making ammunition sales, as a business, subject to the FFL requirement, so that the background check requirement could be applied and straw purchases/unlicensed dealing brought within the framework.)

[Indy Lurker]

32. Illinois has a FOID card

It's required to possess firearms, and required to purchase firearms or ammunition.

I'm not sure if it's necessary to possess ammunition.

In general I don't mind the FOID card, but I'm not sure it helps, (it certainly doesn't seem to in Chicago) the federal check is still run for each firearm purchase. anyone (even private sales) must keep a record of who they sold a firearm to for 10 years, but the information is not centrally stored.


The only problem with FOID cards was that it has taken up to 6 months to get at times. The law says the state police have 6 weeks to issue one, but it has gone much longer at times.

Many people are surprised they have to wait up to 6 months to get an ID card. Especially if they are trying to get a firearm because they were stalked, harassed, etc. Oh, and of course after waiting several weeks or months to get your ID card, you have to wait 3 days before you can pick up your handgun.

[iverglas]

33. well, there's one thing Canada does right!

Oh, and of course after waiting several weeks or months to get your ID card, you have to wait 3 days before you can pick up your handgun.


http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/online-en_ligne/form-assistance/PDFs/921_e.pdf

Application for a Possession and Acquisition Licence Under the Firearms Act
(For Individuals Aged 18 and Over)

PLEASE NOTE

- You must complete all sections of the form. An incomplete form will cause delays in processing your
application.

- Processing a firearms licence application involves a variety of background checks. In some cases, in-depth investigations are conducted. We require a minimum of forty-five (45) days to process your application.

- Once your licence application has been fully processed and you have met the eligibility criteria, you will be issued a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL).

- There is a minimum 28-day waiting period for all applicants who do not presently hold a valid firearms licence. A PAL is valid for a period of five (5) years.

-- and I can't for the life of me find it now, but I was just reading something the other day (you'll trust me on this) that said the 28 days was counted during the processing time, so there's no extra waiting time once the PAL is issued.

[michreject]

14. You do know that more people have died from a .22

than any other caliber ever made, don't you. Which caliber do you want to restrict?

[Pab Sungenis]

16. I don't want to restrict any.

I'm just predicting that's going to be the next battle for gun rights.

It's a very dark gray area, and one that I expect to be exploited.

[michreject]

21. Ah! I misunderstood

This is an interesting article.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/05/its-costing-big.html?loc=interstitialskip

[rdenney]

20. California is working on that right now, thankfully. No more buying ammo without an ID card.

[maxidivine]

25. You need ID to buy ammo anyway

California is probably just doing what it does best, and adding layers of legislation to an everyday activity.

[rdenney]

27. At present you DONT need ID as an adult in most states.

this too needs to be addessed so that felons, mentally ill and non Americans can't legally buy ammunition.

[maxidivine]

31. Well, you do, and even if you don't,

it doesn't really matter anyway. ammunition sales are a ridiculous thing to try to focus on. Anyone who could be prevented from causing harm by refusing them the purchase of ammuntion should have been caught by various nets well before that. No one is any more dangerous with a few boxes of bullets than without said bullets, unless they are mcguiver.

Are you mcguiver?

[pipoman]

22. Does anyone remember the talk

of ammo restrictions, primer restrictions and primers with expiration dates after which the primers would not work back in the early 1990's? The result was a run on primers and ammo like had never been seen before. Primers were back ordered, people were stock piling cases of primers and ammo, the militia movement exploded into hundreds or thousands of small local militia groups in nearly every state. And Democrats began loosing elections.

[TPaine7]

18. What about an honest approach?!

What if they go after the real child killers, the ones on the list far in front of guns, for instance?

What if they seek narrowly tailored means of catching and prosecuting those who make straw purchases as guilty for all the crimes committed with their guns? If you drive drunk and kill someone, you can be charged with 1st degree murder, regardless of your intent (IIRC). Why not if you sell guns indiscriminately, or willingly give or lend them to felons? Sell 1000 guns, get convicted of multiple murders, armed robberies, assaults, rapes, etc. Be the first on your block to go away for the rest of your life!

What if they teach basic gun safety? To kids, to adults, to everyone. Do ads on it.




*Shakes self awake*

LOL! An honest approach?! I must be delirious. Off to bed with me.

[old mark]

23. You expect reality and sense from the Antis

when they are using lies and delusion as the basis of their entire campaign.
The anti gun organizations are run for profit, anti gun people mainly operate on false information, ignorance and a desire to rule the world augmented by internalized anger and hatred.

Might as well expect fairness and good judgement from a crackhead robbing a 7-11. Wait-if you are unarmed, that is what you are doing-letting the criminals decide if you live or die.

mark

[rdenney]

28. I believe that loaning a gun to a prohibited person IS a crime in most states.

as well it should be. Off to prison with anyone who allows this!

[beevul]

29. I could be mistaken, but...

I could be mistaken, but I believe the word "knowingly" belongs in that sentence.

[rdenney]

35. OK, add "knowingly" to that. My mistake, although loaning a gun is a bad idea in general.

[maxidivine]

38. Why is loaning a gun a bad idea?

What if you are loaning a gun you are planning on selling to a friend who is planning on buying it, has his own guns already, and wants to take it out to see if he really likes it?

[TPaine7]

30. I want it to be more than "a" crime. . .

I want it to be "each and every crime" committed with that weapon. If they get convicted, all the prosecution need prove is that you gave/sold/lent it to them with the knowledge that they were not qualified or that you sold it promiscuously to them as an unlicensed dealer (as in "out of the back of your trunk").

[pipoman]

34. It could be prosecuted as a straw purchase, a fed crime

depending on the circumstances, some circumstances not so much.

I agree with you though, it should be prosecuted to get the most time possible.

It's a shame that with thousands of declined NICS, so few are prosecuted. They are very rarely prosecuted or even investigated. If someone is justly declined there is a reason, the applicant likely lied about it on a federal form. Some are felons, some are subject to domestic orders and he/she is looking to buy a gun! Why in hell shouldn't each one get some attention.

[TPaine7]

36. If you consciously open a gate at the zoo so that a wild animal can attack people. . .

you are responsible for whatever that animal does (or you should be).

I am simply applying the same principle to arming a felon. State or federal, I don't care who does it, but the feds could definitely get involved if the weapon crossed state lines.

[maxidivine]

39. I agree that there should be a flagging system

but the thing is, being turned down by the NICS doesn't really mean much at all. They are a weird little agency, and when they are busy they will turn people down for having a similiar name to a prohibited person, or they will delay people for no particular reason at all. I have been delayed three times this year, two times they called back within the three alotted days and approved me, the other time they didn't call back for a month, and they only called to say that the approval was expiring (I had changed my mind by then anyway).

So I can say out of personal experience it would certainly be awful to have every NICS denial checked out by the U.S. Marshals, a sure way to harass many many innocent people, and who knows how many criminals they would apprehend by doing that.

[pipoman]

40. That is why I said,

"If someone is justly declined there is a reason,..."

I know some declines are erroneous. It would require very little time or resources to sift through the declines. A call to the ffl for more info on the person. An NCIC search on the person. etc.

Here are the actual stats:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/bcft03.htm

* State and local agencies conducted background checks on about half of the applications for firearm transfers or permits in 2003, while the FBI was responsible for the remainder.
* In 2003, 126,000 (1.6%) of approximately 7,831,000 applications for firearms transfers or permits were rejected by the FBI or State and local agencies.
* An estimated 8,000 persons were arrested from 1999 to 2003 for an outstanding warrant or submission of false information on an application, according to ATF and checking agencies reporting arrests to FIST.

So in 2003 alone there were 126,000 rejections and between 1999 and 2003 only 8,000 people were arrested?

And in this report from the US Dept. of Justice the reasons for rejection are given:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/bcft03.pdf

"About 45% of rejections for firearm transfer among state and local checking agencies (about 29,000 applications in 2003) occurred because the applicant either had a felony conviction or was under felony indictment. The second most common reason for rejection was a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or a restraining order."

There is just no reason for the failure to investigate and/or prosecute these people...none.

This is one of the main reasons I completely reject new "common sense" laws...We have plenty of laws which aren't even being enforced.

If the people who allege to be concerned about gun violence would spend their time demanding that their government prosecute these extremely high risk individuals instead of levying prohibitive laws on the law abiding we would all be better off.

[TPaine7]

37. Other future lies:

After Heller the major media outlets will eventually admit that the public has been feed lies for decades, as is obvious now to the moderately informed. This will necessitate another set of lies (I definitely don't expect surrender).

How do you spin the fact that you have lied for years, that your lies are published, and that you have been exposed at the highest levels?

Do you "go away" and resurface under another name? Do you get "new management"? Do you claim that you yourself were duped by bogus scholarship? Do you declare your innocence and the justice of your cause all the way to the (political) gallows?

How will they spin it? This should be very interesting.