Public Safety Demands Reasonable Gun-Control Laws
- Print print this page
- Discuss 72 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
Abraham Lincoln loved the Constitution and gave his life for its preservation. When discussing it, he frequently pointed to the historic relevance of the Declaration of Independence in understanding the full meaning of the later-enacted Constitution and Bill of Rights.
He quoted Thomas Jefferson's immortal phrase "that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and reminded listeners that the Declaration, which preceded the Constitution by 15 years, was the philosophic lodestar of our new nation.
During the seven Lincoln-Douglas debates, he urged listeners to "return to the Declaration - that foundation whose waters spring close to the Revolution."
But ever since the once-moderate National Rifle Association was hijacked by a right wing cabal, it's made a mockery of Jefferson's soaring language and Lincoln's clear understanding of it.
Thanks in no small part to the NRA, citizens' rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are destroyed every day as more and more of the guns it promotes are used to murder fellow citizens.
The NRA grossly misinterprets the Second Amendment, claiming that Americans have virtually "unlimited" gun rights. They do not. They have only limited personal gun rights, which state, local and the federal governments have repeatedly qualified, and which limitations the Supreme Court has found constitutional.
More paramount than the parochial rights of gun owners are the broad fundamental rights of all Americans established by the Declaration: the rights to life, and with it liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Since the killing of my grandniece, Grace McDonnell, in Newtown, Conn., I've pondered the vexing issue of how can we protect citizens, particularly our vulnerable young, from needless gun carnage.
Citizens of other civilized nations must consider Americans mad. Imagine, in one recent year 5,285 children were killed by gunshots here, compared with 57 in Germany and absolutely none in Japan. A recent Harvard study reports firearm homicides rates are 42 times higher than other countries among 15- to 24-year-olds.
It's an American phenomenon; in neighboring Mexico, gun control is strict, as it is in Canada, and gun deaths are not rampant south or north of us.
As a former elected public safety official, I learned early on that law officers respect guns and want as few as possible in circulation. Every day, policemen and sheriffs' deputies risk being killed by a gun in the wrong hands. In Moore County it has happened repeatedly.
In the current gun control debate, organized police organizations strongly reject NRA arguments against gun controls. They are demanding mandatory background checks on all gun buyers and see no rational reason for weapons of mass destruction to be in nonmilitary hands.
What is critically needed is for more citizen organizations to demand sensible gun control legislation.
For example, why are Boy and Girl Scout organizations silent on this vital issue? (Grace McDonnell, a brand new Daisy, was just about to become a Brownie - as were several of her slain classmates in Sandy Hook School.) Don't Scouting organizations have an obligation to publicly condemn gun threats to their young charges?
By the same token, shouldn't parent-teacher organizations and teacher unions make their political weight felt in Washington and in 50 state capitals? Surely those most familiar with caring for those wounded and dying from gunshots, the doctors, nurses and hospital professionals, should also be heard from. The total memberships of those responsible organizations dwarf those of the NRA.
Most challenging is the mental health component of the problem. My son, a neurologist, tells me that New Jersey law requires him to report epileptics whose seizures make driving a car too great a public risk, yet psychiatrists with patients deemed potential threats to society have merely an "optional obligation" to report them.
With 20 times the gun murder rate of other nations, it's obviously time for meaningful legislation. Cosmetic laws with no real teeth in them won't suffice, nor will failure to strictly enforce current gun laws. Sens. Burr and Hagan and Rep. Ellmers appear to be NRA-intimidated and will remain so unless they hear from you, loud and clear.
Paul R. Dunn lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at paulandbj @nc.rr.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
DingoMike 3 months, 1 week ago
Mr. Dunn, I've read for opinion piece and don't think you understand some things about the gun issue. While the number of gun related deaths in this country may be high to someother countries, I want to know how many kids died in traffic accidents? I feel that you've sucumbed to the knee jerk action of those people that need to do SOMETHING after some bad thing happened. Our country has a double edged sword that is the Second Amendment. We americans have a right to own firearms,however, with that right comes responsibility. All gun owners need to safely store and secure their arms. I wonder what outcome the Sandy Hook and Columbine school shootings would have been had all of the kids parents secured the weapons used properly. I know a few policemen both active and retired and to a man they all said that they feared going to a domestic call more then a shots fired call. I am against gun registration on a personal level because I don't feel that any goverment agency needs to know how many or what kind of firearms I have in my possesion. Universal back ground checks are just another method to have the goverment know who has firearms. The second Amendment was written to protect the people of this nation from a tyrannical goverment. Do I feel that we live in tyranny, no I do not. However, I don't want to give the goverment a chance, they already tax me to much now.
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
Dingo,
If the Armed Forces of the United States, including most or all of the members of the State National Guards, remain loyal to the "tyrannical government," you so fear (and I assume you will, along with your like-minded cohorts, determine when it has become "tyrannical") do you think you and your armed fellows will be able to defeat them?
The Framer's not only did not anticipate the M-1 tank, the Apache helicopter, machine guns, cruise missiles, intelligence gathering drones and drones that carry missile; they did not envision the Country fielding a significant standing army. The "militia's" were the backbone of any need to significantly and quickly enlarge the small army that they anticipated would be the Country's norm. That's why the "militia" was mentioned in the 2nd amendment, and I don't give a damn what Antonin Scalia, that lying intellectually dishonest, s.o.b .wrote in Heller. Go read all of the amicas briefs in that case, and by all I mean all, those who supported Heller and those that supported the position of the District of Columbia. Further, the "arms," in terms of the personal weapons of each infantry man in the U.S. Army of 1789, when the Constitution went into effect and the United States of America officially became a single nation-state, were the same muskets and rifles that private citizens already owned, including those who were in the militia. Private citizens no more owned cannon then than private citizens do today.
This mantra, this insanity, that you guys believe you could defeat the U.S. military due to the tens of millions of you who own "arms," and thus you are currently, and will in the future, deter military action against you by the United States Armed forces if they remain loyal to the central government is utter nonsense. I know, I know, your predicate is that the armed forces will also see the government as tyrannical, and will also rise up against it, just like you "citizen patriots." The fact that you believe this scenario, makes you, in my estimation, so mentally divorced from reality that if I were the examiner I would find you far too mentally unbalanced to own a weapon in the first place!
JD 3 months, 1 week ago
I agree with this because my perception is what's an arsenal going to do against Waco tactics and drones? You can arm yourself against the government, but if you think you stand a chance against anything they want you to do, joke's on you.
I can defend my home against an intruder, but if it's the local badge gang or some federal agent either way they are getting what they came for or forfeit your life.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
We don't need no stinkin' "citizen patriots". We gots us these guys!!!!
by Randy
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
I'm of the opinion that a majority of gun owners in this country are reasonable and intelligent people who see that we have a very serious problem with gun related deaths. I believe they are receptive to reasonable measures designed to help correct this deadly problem. I'm also of the belief that it is a very vocal minority of hard line gun owners, led by the NRA, who are standing in the way of the progress that needs to be made. This minority is hiding behind their interpretation of what the 2nd amendment wording means. Because they use "the constitution" and "rights" in their vocal opposition to any type of reform, they are, in effect, bullying politicians and citizens. It's time to let the politicians and our fellow citizens know that there is a overwhelming support group in this country that will stand strong with them when they fight back against the bullies. Gun registration is not unreasonable. Background checks are not unreasonable. Banning certain classes of firearms is not unreasonable. All these things are already being done. This is not breaking new ground. All we are asking is that the loopholes be closed and the rules be enforced and that we give more attention to the mentally unbalanced who seek firearm access.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
I'm of the opinion that the left is trying to bully law abiding citizens into believing that somehow their ownership of weapons makes them a criminal threat to the wellbeing of the US of A.
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
I'm of the opinion that the opinions of an admitted anarchist ain't worth s__t.
As to the Oath Takers. I've think I covered that, they're as looney-tunes as Dingo.
Sometimes, and under certain circumstances, social-darwinism will win out in the end.
That's all folks.
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
The NRA promotes treason:
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/13/nra-caught-handing-out-newsletter-calling-for-treason-and-violent-revolution/
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
Well Jim, under that theory.... atheist shouldn't be able to talk about religion, whites should not defend blacks, men should not talk about womens rights, and liberals should not try to persuade republicans. Sounds good to me. Everyone close your trap and live and let live.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
Wow Dusty. That article states that the Oath Keepers are "domestic terrorist". An upstanding group of American military/leo that promise to keep their oath to protect and uphold the constitution of the US of A, are now labled as "domestic terrorist". I've seen and heard it all now.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
For the record this is the Oath that deems The Oath Keepers "domestic terrorist" by those on the left....
We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants or to subject them to military tribunal.
We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a state of emergency on a state.
We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to keep the peace or to maintain control.
We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
clarabelle 3 months, 1 week ago
Was Matt Dillon a Sheriff or Marshall? I think Festus was a Deputy!
clarabelle 3 months, 1 week ago
"We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext."
Damn, there go my plans for chieffie, fuggy, pack, and a few others............. chit!
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
Promoting secession= promoting treason.
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
Remember when a simple thing like opposing the Iraq War was called treason? Now the wingnuts don't blink at promoting actual war on the U.S. if their candidate doesn't win. Amazing.
OldPilot 3 months, 1 week ago
Trying to reson with the loonytunes like "packwilleat" and "dingomike" is much like trying to teach a pig to whistle. It doesn't work. Why? Because a pig isn't sufficiently bright to understand what is being offered. All such attempts accomplish is to annoy the pig. Now, all things considered, this is hardly a big deal. The problem, such as it is, in that pigs, when annoyed, squeal and raise hell as if they were being killed. Just another example of the far right/GOP/teabag ignorance caucus/agenda at work, people who for whatever reason reject critical thinking & refuse to live in a world based on reality.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
Dusty- I hardly consider that a promotion.
Oldpilot- the pig whisperer.
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
Sad but true.
nothingspecial 3 months, 1 week ago
Does anyone else notice how blind the idiot liberal press is with their endless focus on gun control and nary a coherent mention about the real roots of the problem with American gun violence? As I've said before, liberal's greatest fault is they are unable to strategically tackle issues.
Great column here tries to bring them around: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/021213-644195-cultural-decay-not-guns-is-the-real-problem.htm
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
Your analogies all fall short "pack" because you don't "believe" in government, consequently your opinons on government are, by definition, irrelevant.
There's just a wee problem with you "oath takers." You're determining for yourselves, and by yourselves, what is and what is not a legal order. The military has established, and police have established, what are and what are not legal orders. They are all written down, already. All enlisted personnel and especially all officers know what are and what are not legal orders ahead of time. The "we will not.." orders you delineated are not "legal" simply because you state they are not. The Oath Takers have no legal standing to do so just on their say so.
Let's take #3. When an American citizen actively goes to war against The United States of America, or a component of Federal, State, or Local Government, he or she IS an enemy combatant, an may be killed if it is judged to be too risky to try to capture him or her. Forget the American jihadists...just ask Christopher Dorner; oops, too late. If you and your fellow Oath Takers wish to file "wrongful death" lawsuits against the various civil and police authorities that killed him, be my guest. And if you had been a policeman on the ground, and one of superiors ordered you to participate in his capture and you refused, you just kissed your career away, but the police will function just fine without you.
Let's take #5. Are you referring to one of the fifty states in the United States, or a foreign state. If the latter, you are stating you will not obey an order to make war against another foreign state under any circumstances, since by definition, a state in this context, is asserting it's sovereignty.
If you mean one of the fifty states in the United States, you are asserting a rather old-fashioned and quaint attitude towards state sovereignty as expressed by the members of the Confederate States of America. How'd that work out for them? If an existing state in the United States once again tries to secceed and rises up in resurrection against the central government, and you and your fellows refuse to try to stop it from doing so, if your ordered by the central government to do so, and you're a member of a chain of command that is obligated to follow such an order, you will be arrested, and possibly (hopefully) shot for refusing a lawful order in time of warfare, or maybe you'll just spend a long, long, long time in a military prison. Either one is fine with me.
But hey, if it makes you feel real manly and it really gets your di-k hard to threaten to do so, be my guest. Like I wrote earlier, social-darwinism at work.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
You guys get so stirred up in emotional tizzies it's comical. These are not orders to agress against the government, but orders to not agress against lawful and peaceful citizens. Man you guys are unbelievably dense.
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
Nonsense. You're unbelievably stupid is you believe that these are just orders not to agress against lawful and peaceful citizens. First off, any state that "nullifies" a Federal Law is not acting as a sovereign entity, it is in insurrection, even if that insurrection has yet to become violent. Remember the "federalization" of the Arkansas National Guard by President Eisenhower in order to desegregate Little Rock High School? Arkansas Government officials decided to "nullify" a Federal Court Order to integrate the school. Under your scenario, you'd refuse to "subjugate" local authority which was refusing to implement the court order. If you were part of the Guard and refused lawful orders to protect the black students, you could be arrested, court martialed and jailed.
We're dense? Well, speaking for myself, I still believe that you and your like-minded fellows will lose if you stand-up against the U.S. armed forces. So maybe I'm too dense to figure out how you'll win. So go prove me wrong. Since you hate government so much, and apparently ours most of all, go overseas, declare war against the United States, take up arms against the United States, and be prepared to be vaporized by the military of the United States tough guy.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
But according to y'alls beliefs the constitution os a living, breathing document that is open to change and amending with the times, needs, and wants of the governed. If a lawful action was taken to amend the constitution to allow the secession of any state from the union, how would that be treasonous our unlawful? For the people by the people.
Yukonjohn 3 months, 1 week ago
We may be a little dense, but our legislature is looking to get into the national gun picture. And Nullification seems perfect to me. I believe that the govt. starts with the people, and goes up to the national, not the other way around!!
http://www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/article_4b01264e-73ab-11e2-bc7c-001a4bcf6878.html
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
I know that the folks on the right like to use the term "moving the goalposts". Would packwilleat's last comment be a good example of it?
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
Yukonjohn, any chance you could organize a movement up there in Alaska to secede from the USA? I know you already believe you're not really a part of this country already, so it should be something you could get behind. Of course, you'll have to decide if you want to join Canada, return to Russian rule or become your own country. I'm thinking becoming your own country would be best since Canada has tougher gun laws than we do here and you would probably think Putin is just as bad as Obama. If you became your own country, maybe you could convince Ron Paul to be your supreme leader and Rand Paul could be his assistant. Once you did that, all the folks on here who don't want anyone to tell them what to do can move into your new nation. I started to say they could apply for citizenship, but that might seem to them like it would be a government plot to to keep track of them. One of the best side benefits of starting your own country is that no Arab terrorists would want to come up there and attack you. Really, this is a good idea. Give it some thought.
JimRussell44 3 months, 1 week ago
Packwilleat, are the Oath Keepers a division of Grover Norquist Inc.?
Yukonjohn 3 months, 1 week ago
Trust me, we have given it alot of thought!! By the way, l served the United States honorably for ten years in the Air Force. I love the United States, just not what it has become. It might not be too hard to get Ron Paul up here, he won the Rep. primary, but I think Rand will be busy being the next President of the USofA
Themis 3 months, 1 week ago
Yukon-Thanks for your service to America in the Air Force! We spend a lot of time talking about what is wrong with the US.....what do you think is right with the US?
dentman65 3 months, 1 week ago
Does anyone know why The Pilot Newspaper lets some blogs run forever and then slams the door on others after just a few comments? They close some after only 20 comments. Whats up with that?
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
Here is the deal I'm not advocating secession here or anything for that matter. But if the people wish to amend the constitution, for any reason, that is a right of the people to do so. I don't know if anyone remembers when Yukon, Thatcher and I said to the guys on the left "if you want to change the 2nd amendment, go for it". Because we understand the rights granted to the people should not be infringed because we might not agree with it or the outcome.
clarabelle 3 months, 1 week ago
" wdd101st - Was Matt Dillon a Sheriff or Marshall? I think Festus was a Deputy!" He was a Marshall."
Thanks much wd40........... and you're still a looney toon!
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
A very longwinded one too.
I'd love to know which Amendment allows states to "have power over the Federal Government." My guess is that he'll say the 10th. Which follows the truly bizzare interpretation of the Amendment common in the far, far right, of which wdd is a certain member.
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
Hey wdd, if Democrats are the real racists, maybe you can explain why African Americans and Latinos voted for them in such overwhelming numbers.
(This should be entertaining)
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
jimt: guess these defenders of the Constitution never heard of the Supremacy Clause.
Or Federalist #44.
Typical.
teufelhunden 3 months, 1 week ago
When we signed the Declaration of Independence we were committing treason.
We were standing up to tyranny.
One of our major problems is that we do not enofrce laws!!!!! We are too easy on violent criminals and in order to make everyone "feel good" and to not "upset" any little delicate a-holes we, ourselves, have corrupted our "justice" system sooo much it's hardly taken seriously. Technicalities and interpretation can get some one a more lenient sentence. Our prisons are revolving doors. Other countries have laws that are enforced and enforced swiftly!!! Look at Singapore!!! They don't play.
Guns are out there-too many to keep track of-and the government knows this. Our own government has been involved in the corruption and now they are vowing to magically fix it?? Yeah right. All of this warm and fuzzy stuff is just to appeal and appease. Nothing will get rid of the black market. Too much money, greed and corruption. LIP SERVICE, people. How gullible can you be? The only way to stop violent crime is to stop violent criminals. Look at those laws and ENFORCE THEM.
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
They seem to be adopting the same view of "state's rights," that the states that would form the Confederate States of America held, in particular, the notion of a State's right to "nullify" Federal Laws that they decide are unconstitutional. We've already seen some state legislator's threaten to introduce legislation that would make it illegal for local government's to implement any Federal gun legislation they don't like. This will be "interesting," in the same sense of an old Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times." Civil War 2.0? My money is on the Feds, again.
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
wdd, "England has very strict gun laws. They have a violate crime rate higher then Americas.
Australia recently took all the guns away from it's citizens. Their crime rates have sky rocketted. The criminals forgot to turn in their guns.
In Canada their crime rates also went up when they were forced to turn in their guns. Like I said earlier, the cities with the strictest gun laws also have the highest crime rates."
Prove it, with sources this time.
teufelhunden 3 months, 1 week ago
This is how nothing really gets done. Just talk, talk and more talk. ACTION-criminals need to know that the penalties are severe and will be carried out swiftly. There's so much crime in prisons-IN PRISONS. That is what we need to look at and streamline and vote on. NOW. Look at the corruption at every level and trim waste. Make punishment real punishment. When our jails are nicer than our schools and when our prisoners have more available to them than the average citizen THERE IS SOMETHING RIDICULOUSLY WRONG ABOUT THAT.
teufelhunden 3 months, 1 week ago
Look at Chicago and Detroit....real beauts
teufelhunden 3 months, 1 week ago
There are racists everywhere DR - white, black, hispanic, asian, republican, democrat, and unaffliated. Surely you're aware of that. Moot point because one cannot prove any one is more or less than the other. Moving on from that very tired argument now...
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
wdd: "Ahhhh jimmyt, do you think that the framers of the constitution fore saw cars, trains, planes, rocket ships? Did you know that in America up until about 1930, anybody could own a cannon, a machine gun. Guess you also don't know that today there are people that own and restore tanks and war planes."
The fact that the framers did not anticipate cars, trains, planes, and rocket ships is not germane to the discussion. They are not covered by the 2nd amendment, last time I checked. Nor are they designed for the specific and sole purpose of killing people.
The fact that until 1930 people could own machine guns proves the point of those of us who favor bans on semi-automatic weapons. They could own machine guns. Now they can't. But the 2nd Amendment is inviolate according to you guys. What happened? The states began banning machine gun sales and ownership, and the Supreme Court upheld those bans and extended them to all 48 states (now 50, much to Yukon's chagrin I'm sure). So, in theory, even under the Heller decision, individual states and/or the Federal Government could also ban semi-automatic sales (not so sure about possession, they ban grandfather clause them). It will be challenged in Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court, and hopefully Scalia will be gone by then.
Yes I know people restore fighter planes and tanks. Are they allowed to "arm" them? Are people allowed to drive their tanks on public roads? So once again your point is not germane.
teufelhunden 3 months, 1 week ago
"With 20 times the gun murder rate of other nations, it's obviously time for meaningful legislation."-Paul Dunn
We obviously have gun laws that have never improved that statistic. Many out there not even able to be tracked or accounted for, so obviously that approach doesn't work so obviously we need have some meaningful-MEANINGFUL-legislation about CRIME. Make the punishment fit the crime-no backsies no erasies.
Toda 3 months, 1 week ago
Wow - so many Constitutional Scholars. I'll just keep my guns and wait for some officer of the law come to try and take them away.
And Deputy Ricky Rhyne ... a friend
Any loss of an officers' life is a tragic event in a community and state, One has to wonder what other oversights Mr. Dunn has written in his letter~ Repeatedly?
Link to Town of Southern Pines Memorials
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
I agree with teuf, for once. If making a straw purchase carried a mandatory minimum of 20 years for the first offense, if displaying a gun in the commission of a crime carried a mandatory minimum of 30 years, is discharging a gun in the commission of a crime carried a mandatory minimum of 40 years, and if shooting a person carried a mandatory minimum of 50 years, and if killing a person carried an automatic death penalty, to be carried out within two years of conviction, gun violence MIGHT be reduced. Of course, for the first few years it may be necessary to clear-out prisons currently holding non-violent criminals, i.e. those in for simple drug possession.
But I wonder teuf, are you o.k. with "fingerprinting" all guns by requiring that they be fired by a policing authority and the spent bullet's unique signature be examined and entered into a Federal Data Base so that if the weapon is ever used in a crime it's "legal" owner is held accountable in some fashion?
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
Jimt- "fingerprinting" I believe you have been watching too much CSI. What happens to a projectile when it's a) frangible b) saboted c) paper patched d) hyper sonic?? But that is not to even mention modifying the barrel(lapping) or using a smooth bore.
jimt 3 months, 1 week ago
The practice may not be perfect, what is? But it is a useful tool for matching bullets to specific guns, is it not?
teufelhunden 3 months, 1 week ago
That's a great question jimt. Wouldn't we have the burden to prove the gun was stolen?
DingoMike 3 months, 1 week ago
Dear Jimt, did you even read my comments or did you just forget to think. Tell me where in my comments I EVER said that I wanted to defeat a tryannical goverment. Good God man calm down and read what I wrote. When our single country was finally allowed to become a nation the common firearm was a musket. Any citizen could buy one for hunting or answering the call of the state militia. When the heck did you get the impression that I wanted or was even waiting for a goverment raid to collect my weapon??? DAMN SON, get real for one minute. I do not feel that my federal goverment will come for my gun,nor do I want them to have the law written that allows that ability to be given.
packwilleat 3 months, 1 week ago
Jim- I couldn't even pretend to know what the success rate is to matching a recovered bullet to it's parrent barrel? I have no idea. But my study of terminal ballistics would have me believe it is slim to none. But, I believe you may be more interested in this technology called " smart gun" it works by using the owners fingerprint as a safety. Have a look......
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2000/02/04/martgun000204.html
dustyrhoades 3 months, 1 week ago
I'd ask the alleged Constitutional Scholars here who believe that the states can override the federal government how they reconcile this position with Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution and Federalist #44.
packwilleat 3 months ago
Dusty- shouldn't Colorado be ground zero for our next civil war for overriding federal law by legalizing weed?
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
No answer to the question, pack?
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
And they didn't "override federal law." They changed state law.
packwilleat 3 months ago
And I am just using this as an example, but marijuana is a Federally prohibited schedule 1 substance for either sale or use. Changing ones state law does not allow them to bypass, supersede, or amend federal law. So what is the point of arguing "constitutionality" of anything if the constitution is not the foundation of the law of the land?
Yukonjohn 3 months ago
DR, but did not Colorado and Washington both vote state law that was in direct opposition to federal law It seems to me that they did override federal law by certifying the vote of the people. What about the 10th Amendment. While l am not a Constitutional Scholar, never have professed to being one, but in my learning and reading, l believe govt starts with the individual and goes up, not starts with the federal govt and comes down.
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
The fact that states and the Federal government have separate drug laws does not mean that the Constitution is not the law of the land, as set out in the Supremacy Clause. Someone selling weed in Colorado could still be prosecuted under the federal Controlled Substances Act (an egregiously stupid law, BTW). They just aren't running afoul of Colorado state law any more.
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
DR, but did not Colorado and Washington both vote state law that was in direct opposition to federal law
No. That would have only been true if those states had attempted to assert "And the federal Controlled Substances Act doesn't apply here either:" Again, what they did was change their own laws, not the laws of the United States.
packwilleat 3 months ago
While I agree that the CSA is "high-ly" stupid. But what do we have when the federal government fails to enforce the law of the land?
Yukonjohn 3 months ago
I agree DR. I do acknowledge the Supremacy clause, and somewhat understand it. I do see it sometimes being in direct conflict with the 10th Amendment. Do you? Please explain how these two things are not in conflict, or could be in conflict. See, sometimes we can agree on things Dusty, and maybe that is a start.
DingoMike 3 months ago
JIMT, have you ever been to a sleepy town on the 2nd,3rd,or 4th of July called Gettysburgh? Well I highly recommend it so you can see American citizens owning and shooting cannon. I don't see tanks there or airplanes. To bad the War Against Yankee Agression didn't have aircraft, just ballons.
packwilleat 3 months ago
Well here you have it, a gun confiscation bill being pushed by Democrats in Missouri........
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/missouri-democrats-intruduce-legislation-to-confiscate-firearms-gives-gunowners-90-days-to-turn-in-guns/
GOOD LUCK!!
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
Yukon, a basic rule of constitutional interpretation is that the document was meant to be consistent within itself, and that an interpretation of one part that brings that part into conflict with another is more likely to be incorrect. Applied to this topic, people who say the Tenth Amendment overrides the Supremacy Clause, or conflicts with it, are reading it wrong.
Far too many people think "unconstitutional" just means "any law I don't like" and try to stretch the Tenth Amendment to cover that.
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
BTW, the Supreme Court almost never strikes anything down on Tenth Amendment grounds. They have ruled that under the Tenth, the states may not be compelled to enforce a federal regulation. This does NOT mean the Feds can't, however. So in the example above, since Washington and Colorado have legalized marijuana, the DEA can't make the state cops arrest people for it, but that doesn't mean they can't.
Whether they choose to or not is up to the Federal government, since the law does recognize the right of any government to allocate its not-unlimited resources. In other words, if the feds decide their DEA agents would be better allocated chasing heroin dealers in California than weed dispensaries in Colorado, it's their call. Which addresses pack's point about "failing to enforce the law of the land."
The Court has also said, however, that the Commerce Clause does allow some pre-emption of state law by Federal law, because the power to regulate commerce is one of the powers "delegated to the United States by the Constitution", and thus, if something falls under Commerce Clause power, it doesn't violate the Tenth Amendment.
jimt 3 months ago
pack, believe me, I know a LOT about "smart" guns. I educated myself about them after the murder of Eve Carson. I also know the NRA is dead set against them even though the NRA is four-square behind the use of biometric gun safes. Why the difference, the NRA collects millions of dollars from biometric gun safe manufacturers who advertise in their publications and even has a licensing deal with one biometric gun safe manufacturer. Logically if they oppose biometric handguns because of the possibilty that the gun might produce a false negative when the gun owners life is on the line they should also oppose biometric gun safes for the same reason. They don't. If there is any motive to this seeming contradiction in positions please enlighten me.
For years and years police have matched the striations made by individual guns, much like a fingerprint, when they have a bullet and a gun they suspect was used in a crime. Are you now telling us that that is just hockum?
The_AnonymusProfit 3 months ago
Yet again we revisit, what we have revisited, in order to revisit that which we are now revisiting.
First lets just get something straight because I know no one is listening, everyone has already made up there mind, and this is mostly an exercise in masochism.
In the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that American citizens have an inalienable right to own firearms. This is the law of the land period.
Ok so lets do a comparison,
What we are hearing right now is that we need to BAN "Assault Rifles". Ok lets define an "Assault Rifle"
Going to my wiki real quick we get
An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. It should be distinguished from the U.S. legal term assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard service rifles in most modern armies.
Notice the part that says "Distinguished from the US legal term assault weapon", what ever could this mean?
Assault weapon refers to different types of firearms and weapons, and is a term that has differing meanings, usages and purposes. In discussions about gun laws and gun politics in the United States, an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing certain ergonomic or construction features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without requiring the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip. An assault weapon has a detachable magazine, in conjunction with one, two, or more other features such as a pistol grip, a folding or collapsing stock, a flash suppressor, or a bayonet lug.[1] Most assault weapons are rifles, but pistols or shotguns may also fall under the definition(s) or be specified by name.
So first we must get our terminology straight as "Assault Rifles" ARE illegal to own.
Now lets go farther, the AR-15 bushmaster .223 is the rifle that has come under so much scrutiny as of late.
This is a semi automatic rifle that fires 1 bullet every time the trigger is pulled. It is evil and must go, but wait....using that logic we must also ban the following list of guns including and not limited to the .22 caliber semi auto rifle that is the mainstay of introduction into the world of rifles. The .22 is good for learning to aim, shooting small animals such as rabbits, squirells, raccoon's etc etc, yet in its most basic function, the AR15 and remingtons semi automatic 22 are the same gun, the AR15 just looks more deadly (I assure you a 22 round can kill you)
Again I understand this is more of a Freudian exercise since neither side understands much of anything about the argument. I just needed to waist a few minutes before dinner.,
packwilleat 3 months ago
Jim- ballistic forensics is nearly impossible to put said projectile to said weapon these days. It's more or less holywood hype. In years past the projectile usually consisted of what we call a full metal jacket. Which is neither full or metal as one may think. It is a copper shell formed around a lead core with an exposed base. When these projectiles are fired and recovered there is little to any deformation, unless it stops by a concrete/metal wall. So in the days of fmj projectiles it was somewhat "doable" to match projectile with weapon. But still that is limited to basically knowing what caliber and possibly what manufacturer. Not quite (a) came from (b). So, if lets say a 9mm projectile was recovered from a crime scene, you could match rifling to known manufacturers by land/ grove dimensions, land radius, and twist rate/direction. But basically all that work will tell you said projectile came out of a glock. Ok. Now we're looking for a 9mm glock out of 50,000,000. Now that is an ideal situation. Modern projectiles are hollow points or ballistic tips. When these projectiles come into contact with an object the deform to the point that all you might ne able to recover is what caliber it is. So you might say ban hollow points and ballistic tips? Sad truth is with a couple 100 rounds through any weapon and the original distinctive traits that fingerprinted a projectile are now smoothed out or totally absent. That was my shorthand version. But i do advocate the smart gun idea if the kinks can be worked out of it. I could use the re-assureance that if i stumble home late from a bar, my wife can not use my gun against me. Hehe!
jimt 3 months ago
"JIMT, have you ever been to a sleepy town on the 2nd,3rd,or 4th of July called Gettysburgh? Well I highly recommend it so you can see American citizens owning and shooting cannon."
Were they loaded with cannon balls? My guess is no. So they "own" a cannon, load it with some gunpowder, light it, it goes "boom," but nothing happens but noise. Not too life threatening is it?
What do you think would happen if someone did get their hands on the appropriately sized cannon ball, loaded it into the cannon, added the gun powder and fired it? Methinks he/she goes to jail unless he/she got a permit to do so beforehand.
Pack, thanks for the info, but how do you reconcile it with ongoing attempts to require such test firings and the storage of the bullets by the police to maintain "chain of custody," so specific guns can be linked with specific bullets. A friend worked for the FBI in their forensics unit at Quantico, and she knew folks who spent their careers matching bullets to guns suspected to be the weapon used in specific crime. I'm not suggesting you're wrong, but there seems to be a disconnect somewhere isn't there?
If you'd like, I'd be happy to send you a paper I drafted on the need for and potential benefits from the development and sale of biometric handguns? But how could I get it to you if you're interested in reading it?
packwilleat 3 months ago
Jim- i would be glad to take a look at it. Send it to birdyshooter@ msn.com
packwilleat 3 months ago
Jim- I would be happy to expand more on my knowledge of internal, external, and terminal ballistics. But it happens to be my birthday today and my duty to please the queen on Valentin's day. Have a good night.
Yukonjohn 3 months ago
DR, Thanks for that answer. I see exactly where one could determine that if one part comes into conflict with an existing part, it must be incorrect. You have more time in the Constitution than l have, but l would love to read something that would describe how the founders wanted that to be the case. Not that your interpretation of it is probably correct, but is there something that you know of where they may have expressed that? And again, thanks for your answer, and explanation
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
It doesn't seem logical, Yukon, that the founders would draft a document inconsistent with itself. The principle that documents (including laws) are to be interpreted whenever possible in a way that brings the various parts into harmony with each other is set out in hundreds if not thousands of court decisions dating all the way back to pre-colonial England.
dustyrhoades 3 months ago
This sets out the commonly accepted principles of construction:
http://www.virginia1774.org/Statutory.html
Skip down to the bit about "Two Statutes Pertaining to the Same Subject"
IIRC, the principle of consistency goes back to Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, which would have been well-known to anyone who studied law at the time of the Founders. Sorry, I don't have a copy handy.