Do you favor federal gun control laws?

[dsc]

Poll question: Do you favor federal gun control laws?

Due to the vast number of times that Dean has gotted called a conservative on the gun issue I want to get some idea of how many DUers favor gun control at the federal level. Of the options, option 4 will be Dean's position. Those before that will be more against than he is those after more in favor.

[Capn Sunshine]

1. Dean can say whatever he wants about guns

His answer is to let the states enforce it based on usage custom and what is favored in the area.

It's like driving laws to me: you can't buy a car without a serial number registered to you , and you can't drive the car without passing a rudimentary test.

In some states, you need mufflers and a crankcase vlave to conform to the pollution standards of those states. You don't see right wingers up in arms to drive unlicensed dune buggies that run on nitromethane on the streets. Thank god they didn't HAVE cars when the constitution was written.
:nuke:

[dsc]

2. I voted for option 7

which should give you some idea where I am on the spectrum of gun control. But given the liberal nature of this forum I think it is absurd to claim a person isn't a liberal for holding a position that currently 58% of DUers either hold themselves or favor less gun control than he. I admit the night is young.

[jody]

3. Your poll is ambiguous because very few people know what

current federal law is.

"Current law plus closing the backround check." Most people don't know what you are talking about with "closing the backround check".

"Choice 4 plus registration of guns." Do you mean all or handguns or shotguns or rifles?

"Choice 4 plus licensing of gun owners." Do you mean all or handgun owners or shotgun owners or rifle owners?

"Choice 5 or 6 plus banning of some guns." What types handguns or shotguns or rifles?

Even given your questions, it remains for SCOTUS to determine whether it is a federal or states right issue. Moreover, SCOTUS has never ruled that congress has authority to require registration of all guns or licensing of all owners or banning of such things as handguns, shotguns, and rifles as generic classes.

[dsc]

4. Reply

I was trying to have an equal number of answers before Dean's position and after his position (so I wouldn't be accused of splitting the pro gun control vote). Thus I had to be ambiguous to capture all the positions on the gun control side. As to the backround check that I blew that I should have put gun show in that option. As to not knowing what federal law is I am not sure why it would be my fault if they don't. I figured any statement of it would be accused of being biased in one way or another.

on edit subject line.

[jody]

9. Current federal law already prohibits most if not all of those who

should not possess guns from possessing them. You say "As to not knowing what federal law is I am not sure why it would be my fault if they don't." I didn't mean it would be your fault, but a respondent's ignorance of federal law would currently influence any conclusions you draw.

For example, assume many of the respondents believed that people who use MJ should be allowed to possess guns and said they support current law. Many of them might be surprised that possession of guns by a user of MJ is a federal crime. Did you know that?

On my other questions, it makes a lot of difference whether you are talking about handguns, shotguns, or rifles. Of all firearm-related crime, about 86% involves handguns.

[dsc]

11. actually I did

In point of fact I think it may well be illegal for me to own a gun (I went to rehab for alcohol). I don't know the precise wording of that question on the backround check so am not totally sure. Again I figured any explanation would be frought with danger of accusations of bias. My point here was to get people opinions as they stand and compare them to Dean's. I don't want to get into merits here I merely want to illustrate, largley to one poster, that opposing gun control doesn't necessarily make one a right winger. BTW I didn't learn that until reading posts here. I still do favor a lot of gun control but no longer think that all liberals do.

[jody]

14. Research using questionaires is very difficult to conduct because

of problems of understanding. Polls about gun opinions ask some of the most stupid questions because the author didn't understand the ignorance present in the target population. Suggest you scan the 1999 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research Findings for a sample of what I mean.

[jody]

15. If it is liberal to support

- freedom of speech
- freedom of assembly
- freedom of religion
- freedom of the press

it is also liberal to support an individual's inalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and state as acknowledged in state constitutions.

Starting before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

[Moosenose]

19. Federally, alcoholism...

is only a disqualifying factor if you were involuntarily committed to a mental hospital because of it. If you checked yourself in voluntarily to rehab, it's not a federal offense to own a gun. Your state laws may be different.

[dsc]

23. that is why I was unsure

as I didn't know the precise wording. Without forced I would be banned due to it technically being a mental facility.

[Moosenose]

35. the question is...

did the court order you committed against your will? If it did, you're legally disabled. If it didn't, and you don't meet any other disabling criteria, you can own one.

[dsc]

36. I wasn't had no court involvement

I do have to say that I probably shouldn't be permitted to own a gun for at least another year and 3/4. I think 5 years sobriety should be the rule.

[NNN0LHI]

5. I need your definition of a "gun" for this poll

If you are talking about one like this here I may have one answer:

If you are talking about a shotgun used for hunting, the answer would be different.

Don

[dsc]

6. Isn't the above

banned for civilians? If so that would be covered in 2 through 7. Though I think it is safe to take a 1 as still banning that. Again I am trying to have equal numbers of options on either side of Dean.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Yes it is banned. Because of Federal gun laws. See the confusion? n/t

[dsc]

8. Not really

then your answer could be 2 if you want that to remain banned and nothing else done. Wouldn't that be less gun control than we now have?

[Moosenose]

18. No, it's not.

It's regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by GCA '68. It's not easy to own, but it's certainly "doable". Of course, this is supposing that you live in a "class 3 state", where ownership of "class 3" weapons is legal.

I own many "class 3" weapons, but nothing THAT big. I have no place to store it.

[jody]

10. Smaller howitzers etc. can be legally possessed by citizens under

current law. The railway gun shown may be banned, but I would not be surprised if it was technically legal to possess one. Good question, I'll look it up.

See the following DU Thread

[dsc]

13. It should be noted

that when I answered Don I thought that was a tank. I took a quick look. Given what it is my answer would have been less flippant.

[moondust]

12. Both are protected according to the NRA.

The Second Amendment places no limits on the kinds or sizes of "arms", a fact which I personally think is a dead giveaway that the framers of the Constitution were referring to a national militia (army) and NOT to private ownership.

[jody]

16. You need to study state constitutions also because

starting before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, states began to clearly recognize individual rights.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

NINTH AMENDMENT: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

[moondust]

24. Well, that's one anyway.,

The PA state law, apparently. Did the others precede the Bill of Rights or are they examples of states that "today" have such laws? Anything passed after the Bill of Rights would only be constitutional because of the ambiguity of the Second Amendment.

This thread was about federal gun control.

[jody]

25. I understand, but it remains to be seen what limits are placed

on the federal government. If the people retained their inalienable RKBA for defense of self, then the federal government has a limited role.

The Penn constitution is significant because Penn ratified the BOR and a few months later made a simple change to its statement about RKBA. That change was contemporaneous with the ratification of the BOR so Penn obviously knew what the 2nd Amendment meant, i.e. to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state.

[moondust]

28. "Defense of state" is assumed.

If they had meant for it to apply to individuals as well they could have very, very easily have used a phrase such as "defense of self and state".

[jody]

31. I won't ask you for facts to support your assertion because, they

don't exist.

It is equally plausible, I would argue most plausible, that they knew the state was not obligated to protect an individual, therefore it was up to each citizen to protect themself and property. The arms used to defend self and state are the same personal arms. Most likely, the authors of the Penn and Vermont constitutions followed by 26 other states never thought anyone would be stupid enough to try to take an individual's arms away or, heaven forbid, that citizens would be stupid enough to let a government take those arms away. To guarantee that, 28 states in various ways acknowledged RKBA as an inalienable right.

Because of that classification which prohibits the federal government from treading on inalienable rights, the budrden of proof is upon anyone to show that Penn, VT and 26 other states "did not mean" RKBA was an inalienable right when their constitution said it was.

I await your proof.

[Moosenose]

21. the problem with the "collective rights" argument....

is that the word people is used. The Supreme Court has NEVER, EVER held that ANY right enumerated with the word "people" in it is a collective right, they've ALWAYS ruled it was an individual right. Of course, they've been massively ducking this with the Second Amendment since shortly after the Civil War.

If the word "people" can denote a collective right (also called a State's Right) then EVERY time the word "People" is used in the Bill of Rights, it doesn't apply to individuals, but only to the States. That gives absurd results....in that only government agents would be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, only government agents would have a right against self-incrimination, et cetera.

[moondust]

26. If that were true

then I doubt the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would have ruled as they did in December, knowing for certain that it would be overturned by SCOTUS.

9th Circuit Ruling

[jody]

29. I'll call your 9th circuit with a 5th circuit decision

Emerson

[Moosenose]

33. Ahhh....

but the 9th knows that SCOTUS doesn't want to tackle the issue, footnotes by Thomas to the contrary. You also conveniently omitted the 5th Circuit's Emerson decision, along with the SCATHING dissent by Kosynski on that 9th circuit decision you mentioned, including the misreading of Miller that's the basis for the entire argument.

In case you didn't realize it, the 9th has a "hate-hate" relationship with SCOTUS, which is why it's the most overturned circuit out there. I understand that the plaintiffs are currently trying to raise funds to try for cert. It should be interesting.

[Moosenose]

17. that gun you have pictured...

is legal to own in many states. You have to comply with the Federal law regarding it (it's a Destructive Device) and State law, but it would be legal in most places.

Of course, it's not the kind of thing that somebody would use to rob a seven-eleven, is it....

[jody]

20. I assume it's not elgible for a CCW permit? eom

:hi:

[Moosenose]

34. Nope....

it's kind of hard to "conceal"...much less "carry"

[EDT]

22. I do find it ironic when people claim to love liberty but want to ban guns

When I bring this up to anti-gunners, they bring up statistics on how many
people are killed every year, at which point I suggest if they really
cared about saving lives, they'd be fighting to ban alcohol, which kills many
times the number of people every year.

Any death by un-natural causes is un-desirable, and I feel bad when I hear
about workplace shootings such as the one yesterday, but it's also a safe
bet more people died from drunk drivers, failed livers, and boating accidents,
yesterday, while a few people actually saved themselves from rape, robbery,
or murder with a legally purchased firearm.

[jody]

27. Welcome to DU. Drop by the J/PS forum and participate

:hi:

[EDT]

30. Thanks- I only post here occassionally, but have lurked for a while.

Usually only speak up when it's a hot button topic to me like abortion, gun control, or gay rights.

[jody]

32. I understand, and heaven help us if we Democrats let the Repugs

divide us again on those three issues.

[dsc]

37. It has been around 50/50 all night

It is currently 30 people with Dean's position or less and 34 with more than Dean's position. In fairness he seems to be around the midpoint of DU on this. This is close to what I expected. Again this isn't meant to argue the virtue of his position (I actually am a responder to option 7) but to argue that his position isn't rightist. Unless one is willing to assert that about half of DU is rightist; that honestly is not able to be argued. I know this poll isn't perfect, and the methadology is hard to evaluate given that I have no clue who did and who didn't respond. But since all responders are members in good standing it is safe to say that it wasn't responded to by a whole bunch of rightist thugs.

[jody]

38. Vermonters know it's liberal to recognize RKBA, it's in their constitution

QUOTE
CHAPTER I
A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE, INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT

I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights; amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty-acquiring, possessing and protecting property-and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
. . . . . . . . .
XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of themselves and the State: and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.
UNQUOTE

Constitution of Vermont - July 8, 1777

Many people forget that Dean took an oath of office as governor to defend the Vermont Constitution including the sections I quoted above.

[jpgray]

39. I am heavily in favor of gun control

But I can live with a watered down proposal like Dean's, because he is a good candidate. And as this poll shows, them crazies like their guns!

Just kidding--really. ;-)

[Moosenose]

40. Just remember...a lot of "them crazies"...

are your fellow Democrats.

[jpgray]

41. Just a little joke

No harm done, I hope. :)