http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12312545
QuoteOKLAHOMA CITY (AP) - The Oklahoma Senate has approved a bill that would exempt firearms manufactured in the state from federal regulation.
House Bill 2994 by Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, passed Wednesday on a 37-7 vote.
The bill provides that any firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition manufactured in Oklahoma is not subject to federal laws or regulation under the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The bill was amended to encourage the state Department of Commerce to actively recruit a firearms manufacturer to Oklahoma.
I can't find anything else online about this. Is this another bill presented by our legislature that goes against federal regulation and will be shot down by the courts? I'm also confused about what federal laws and regulations this is supposed to circumvent. All?
Quote from: Nik on April 14, 2010, 04:55:14 PM
http://www.newson6.com/global/story.asp?s=12312545
I can't find anything else online about this. Is this another bill presented by our legislature that goes against federal regulation and will be shot down by the courts? I'm also confused about what federal laws and regulations this is supposed to circumvent. All?
It's a bill intended to make a show of state soviernty(sp?). It follows another similar bill in, I think, Montana or Wyoming. Personally I think that if it goes to court, it will be found that the constitution does not grant authority to regulate firearms, but I could be wrong. If I had more time I would find the link, but you can find the bill on the state legistlature website.
Yeah, I don't quite get how that would work with the exception of firearms distributed within the state. Even still I don't see how they can usurp Federal firearms regs. It states very clearly the reasoning, to attract a manufacturer, but I fail to see how it has any teeth.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2010, 05:02:41 PM
It states very clearly the reasoning, to attract a manufacturer
A manufacturer from out of state. Which gives the feds a wide open door to using the commerce clause.
If Brogdon authored this bill in the expectation it would actually do anything, he's an even bigger moron than I thought. More likely it's just window dressing designed to keep the crazy wing of the gun owning set on his side. They're convinced, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the feds are going to take their guns so something like this plays very well with them.
Quote from: nathanm on April 14, 2010, 05:31:27 PM
A manufacturer from out of state. Which gives the feds a wide open door to using the commerce clause.
If Brogdon authored this bill in the expectation it would actually do anything, he's an even bigger moron than I thought. More likely it's just window dressing designed to keep the crazy wing of the gun owning set on his side. They're convinced, despite all evidence to the contrary, that the feds are going to take their guns so something like this plays very well with them.
The "crazy wing", as you call it, is a very, very minute portion of legal gun owners in this state. He's wasting his time for a very small percentage of votes if that's the case. I've not seen recent numbers, but Fallin was out-pacing Brogdon's fund-raising by a margin of something like 4:1 back in January. He's got to rely on as much free publicity as he can get, because he's having a hard time buying it.
IMO, the fear of government taking away guns is more water cooler talk than realistic belief.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2010, 08:10:33 PM
IMO, the fear of government taking away guns is more water cooler talk than realistic belief.
There's a lot of GOA members who probably disagree with that assessment, although I'm in full agreement.
Hysteria foments action, so there has to be some fomentation.
The state has the ability to set its own rules to some degree on guns and ownership, but Brogdon knows this is just propaganda hype.
We can see from everything he has done/said in recent years what a complete tool he is. This would be another Frank Keating type regime. And for the older people here, remember how many years ago there were Polish jokes that over time changed into Arkansas jokes? Well now they are Oklahoma jokes.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 14, 2010, 08:10:33 PM
The "crazy wing", as you call it, is a very, very minute portion of legal gun owners in this state. He's wasting his time for a very small percentage of votes if that's the case. I've not seen recent numbers, but Fallin was out-pacing Brogdon's fund-raising by a margin of something like 4:1 back in January. He's got to rely on as much free publicity as he can get, because he's having a hard time buying it.
IMO, the fear of government taking away guns is more water cooler talk than realistic belief.
Considering the fact liberal states tend to be very anti-2nd amendment and have lots of anti-2nd amendment laws it is a lie to say that its all water cooler talk. Waiting periods, licenses/permits,registrations and limits are things that liberal politicians in liberal states came up with.
Quote from: jamesrage on April 15, 2010, 08:27:41 AM
Considering the fact liberal states tend to be very anti-2nd amendment and have lots of anti-2nd amendment laws it is a lie to say that its all water cooler talk. Waiting periods, licenses/permits,registrations and limits are things that liberal politicians in liberal states came up with.
Randy Brogdon, is that you?
Quote from: swake on April 15, 2010, 08:42:20 AM
Randy Brogdon, is that you?
Do actually have any evidence to counter what I said or are you just going to sling insults since you have nothing? I know I can back up what I can say and I can use liberal site such as the Brady Campaign to back it up.
Quote from: jamesrage on April 15, 2010, 08:27:41 AM
Considering the fact liberal states tend to be very anti-2nd amendment and have lots of anti-2nd amendment laws it is a lie to say that its all water cooler talk. Waiting periods, licenses/permits,registrations and limits are things that liberal politicians in liberal states came up with.
And none of those laws lead to confiscation. Are you a gun owner? I am. I'm not worried about the government knocking on my door and asking for my guns, nor are many of my fellow gun owning friends.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2010, 08:48:17 AM
And none of those laws lead to confiscation.
The only reason for registrations and permits/licenses is a preludes to confiscations and nothing more,which have happened before in this country. They do not do anything to prevent crime nor do they really do anything to solve crime except for maybe a few crimes if any seeing how criminals are not going to register their firearms,nor are criminals going to go through legal channels to buy weapons if they do not have to. Severely restricting a constitutional right is almost close to confiscation. Luckily Oklahoma is not New York or some other state that shits on the 2nd amendment,so a rapper would not get arrested for possessing a firearm.
QuoteAre you a gun owner? I am. I'm not worried about the government knocking on my door and asking for my guns, nor are many of my fellow gun owning friends.
Then you are either a liar or you are deluded.
Quote from: jamesrage on April 15, 2010, 08:54:00 AM
The only reason for registrations and permits/licenses is a preludes to confiscations and nothing more,which have happened before in this country. They do not do anything to prevent crime nor do they really do anything to solve crime except for maybe a few crimes if any seeing how criminals are not going to register their firearms,nor are criminals going to go through legal channels to buy weapons if they do not have to. Severely restricting a constitutional right is almost close to confiscation. Luckily Oklahoma is not New York or some other state that shits on the 2nd amendment,so a rapper would not get arrested for possessing a firearm.
Then you are either a liar or you are deluded.
Where's the popcorn? This should get good.
Quote from: Hoss on April 15, 2010, 09:04:11 AM
Where's the popcorn? This should get good.
Nah, I don't feel like arguing with delusinal, paranoid dipshits today.
In states with heavy regulation of firearms, I think they are missing the boat. They should really focus on programs to get criminals, or aspiring criminals, to take some initiative and register their guns.
I think that if you were to structure the legislation so that you got a criminal coupon for registering, these laws would be more effective. Something like. . .
"Register your guns, and get 6 months off your next prison sentence."
Void where prohibited. Cannot be combined with other offers or coupons.
OR
"Register your guns, and get a private room for your next prison sentence."
The state does not warrant that you will not still become someone's wife. Cannot be combined with other offers or coupons.
OR
"Register your guns and get some crack."
Void where prohibited. Cannot be combined with other offers or coupons.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2010, 09:07:54 AM
Nah, I don't feel like arguing with delusinal, paranoid dipshits today.
Does that mean we are not having lunch together?
Pardon me if this has been discussed before.
What is precisely stupid about this bill is that it does exactly nothing. The state lacks the power to determine or preempt federal jurisdiction. The entire question boils down to 2 steps:
1. Does the U.S. Constitution (usually the Commerce Clause) give the federal government jurisdiction?
2. Has Congress chosen to exercise that power?
If the answer to both questions is yes, the Supremacy Clause takes care of the rest. If the answer to either is no, then the federal government lacks power, regardless of whether the state has attempted to assert jurisdiction. Stated another way: the states already have plenary police powers and don't need to legislate to get the courts to recognize that. The federal government was delegated certain powers by the states when they ratified the constitution and amendments. The supremacy clause says that if the federal government lawfully asserts power and the state lawfully asserts power over the same subject matter, federal power supersedes state power. But if the constitution doesn't give the federal government power, it doesn't give the federal government power. State legislation is irrelevant there.
Most wide-reaching federal legislation is enacted pursuant to the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over interstate commerce. The courts have almost always found that anything that affects interstate commerce, even if it itself is not interstate, falls within the power to regulate and protect interstate commerce. Therefore the Tulsa-Sapulpa Union Railway is covered by the Federal Employer's Liability Act even though its lines are exclusively intra-state. It carries things that are in interstate commerce. Similarly, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 applies to a mom-and-pop diner in Bokoshe, Oklahoma, because it both serves food that is in commerce and serves customers who might be in commerce.
On the other hand, the Supreme Court has found some limits to Congress's reach under the Commerce Clause. It struck down federal legislation attempting to regulate the presence of firearms on school property (the State of Oklahoma also bans this) as not having a sufficient connection to interstate commerce and limited the reach of the Water Quality Act to waters that can be shown to flow into rivers that are used for interstate commerce. In neither case was state legislation required to preempt federal jurisdiction. If federal jurisdiction is there, it cannot be preempted. If federal jurisdiction is not there, it doesn't have to be preempted.
Occasionally federal legislation will leave some policy decisions to be made on a state-by-state basis. The power to enact Right-to-Work laws is found in the National Labor Relations Act. The recent health care reform legislation reserved some decisions to the states, though in the smoke surround the "death panel" arguments, etc., I have forgotten what those decisions pertained to.
If the Oklahoma legislature cared about these sorts of things they would stop spending time on pure grandstanding and get to work.
Quote from: jamesrage on April 15, 2010, 08:54:00 AM
The only reason for registrations and permits/licenses is a preludes to confiscations and nothing more,which have happened before in this country. They do not do anything to prevent crime nor do they really do anything to solve crime except for maybe a few crimes if any seeing how criminals are not going to register their firearms,nor are criminals going to go through legal channels to buy weapons if they do not have to. Severely restricting a constitutional right is almost close to confiscation. Luckily Oklahoma is not New York or some other state that shits on the 2nd amendment,so a rapper would not get arrested for possessing a firearm.
I agree completely with your second sentence. It's too bad the first one is full of batshitinsane paranoia. Nobody's coming for your guns, despite what GOA has been claiming for god only knows how long. The rest of us would just like to see the adjudicated insane and people who have proven themselves felons wielding a gun in the commission of their crimes to not have them.
Even in the most liberal of states, gun ownership is perfectly legal. Have you seen the number of literal machine guns they've got out in California?
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 12:59:41 PM
Even in the most liberal of states, gun ownership is perfectly legal. Have you seen the number of literal machine guns they've got out in California?
"Military look-alike firearms that are not listed on the DOJ roster of prohibited firearms, known as "off list lowers", are legal to own and possess, as long as state laws concerning configuration are followed. It is illegal to import, sell, give, trade, or lend a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds of ammunition, except for fixed tubular magazines for lever-action rifles and .22 caliber rifles; however, the possession of such magazines is legal. It is illegal to possess an automatic firearm or a short-barreled shotgun or rifle without permission from the Department of Justice; such permission is generally not granted.[36]"
I'm not aware of machine guns being easy to get in California. They even have a restriction on only being able to have 10 round mags in semi-automatic rifles, and I believe to ensure this, it's a fixed magazine. As I recall a gun like an AR-15 has a 49 state version and a California version which is the restricted magazine.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2010, 01:11:29 PM
I'm not aware of machine guns being easy to get in California. They even have a restriction on only being able to have 10 round mags in semi-automatic rifles, and I believe to ensure this, it's a fixed magazine. As I recall a gun like an AR-15 has a 49 state version and a California version which is the restricted magazine.
You're right, they aren't easy to get in California, yet there are plenty of people licensed to own them there. That's my point.
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 01:23:36 PM
You're right, they aren't easy to get in California, yet there are plenty of people licensed to own them there. That's my point.
What stats are you citing for this? Not necessarily doubting your word, but it sounds really counter-intuitive to me.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2010, 03:33:17 PM
What stats are you citing for this? Not necessarily doubting your word, but it sounds really counter-intuitive to me.
I have met people I know to be citizens of California who claim to legally own AR-15s and guns regulated under the NFA as destructive devices. Since approval of local law enforcement is required under federal law for certain classes of weapons, those living in the coastal cities have a harder time getting their hands on them, but out in the desert nobody gives a smile.
It is an expensive hobby, thanks to the onerous fees, but it's not as if they make it impossible to own any particular sort of gun. Hell, even fully automatic weapons can be legally owned with the proper licenses from the federal and state governments.
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 05:39:49 PM
I have met people I know to be citizens of California who claim to legally own AR-15s and guns regulated under the NFA as destructive devices. Since approval of local law enforcement is required under federal law for certain classes of weapons, those living in the coastal cities have a harder time getting their hands on them, but out in the desert nobody gives a smile.
It is an expensive hobby, thanks to the onerous fees, but it's not as if they make it impossible to own any particular sort of gun. Hell, even fully automatic weapons can be legally owned with the proper licenses from the federal and state governments.
Ah, anecdotal evidence. It's quite legal to own an AR-15 in California, you make no distinction between semi and fully-automatic. The "California model" is the one I referred to earlier with the fixed 10 round mag.
Here's some great insomnia cure material:
http://www.calguns.net/a_california_arak.htm
There is a background check (Federal) to own a machine gun. Has been since the 1930's. Plus a tax/fee ($200 last I knew for sure). Gun Control Act of 1968 ended mail order guns (thanks to Ted Kennedy - the MOST legitimate reason to dislike him.)
No firing functional tanks, bazookas or flame throwers allowed. Shame. I want a Sherman tank.
And 48 states have some form of concealed carry in the state. Wonderful!!! We need to keep pressure on the other two!!
And who ISN"T a member of the NRA?? Well, that's too many!
Lifetime Membership, preferably.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 15, 2010, 08:53:22 PM
There is a background check (Federal) to own a machine gun. Has been since the 1930's. Plus a tax/fee ($200 last I knew for sure). Gun Control Act of 1968 ended mail order guns (thanks to Ted Kennedy - the MOST legitimate reason to dislike him.)
No firing functional tanks, bazookas or flame throwers allowed. Shame. I want a Sherman tank.
And 48 states have some form of concealed carry in the state. Wonderful!!! We need to keep pressure on the other two!!
And who ISN"T a member of the NRA?? Well, that's too many!
Lifetime Membership, preferably.
Could you blame Teddy? Two brothers killed by gunfire (or was Joe Jr shot down?) IIRC, Lee Oswald's rifle was obtained via mail order.
Technically, you can still by via mail but it's got to ship to a local FFL.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 15, 2010, 09:11:09 PM
Technically, you can still by via mail but it's got to ship to a local FFL.
Doesn't everybody know an FFL? ;D
Quote from: jamesrage on April 15, 2010, 08:27:41 AM
Considering the fact liberal states tend to be very anti-2nd amendment and have lots of anti-2nd amendment laws it is a lie to say that its all water cooler talk. Waiting periods, licenses/permits,registrations and limits are things that liberal politicians in liberal states came up with.
Some of these "liberal states" have good reason to regulate guns. Most of the states you're thinking of are highly urbanized and have crime ecosystems that are far more developed and lethal than Oklahoma's. Look, regardless of where we all live, OK's a rural state, and guns here serve closer to the role that they used to serve on the frontier: hunting, and to protect the homestead when the law is too far away to provide protection. In more urbanized states it's different. Every gun -- legally owned or not -- represents much more of a danger to its community, whether its owner intends it or not.
Agreed.
This is why some things ought to be regulated on a state-by-state basis. Conditions are different in different places.
I don't blame Teddy for his feelings about it.
What I blame is his ignorance about what a possible solution might be. Remember how every state that has passed a concealed carry has had a major drop in crime? And early on in that process it was absolutely obvious that it was in direct contrast to the states that didn't have it.
I don't really have too much trouble with some of the gun laws we have in place today...just many of them. Take it one step further, I think we should require firearms training for everyone in the country. I think every household should be required to have the training, skill and equipment for self defense. AK-47's are a good choice, but an M-16 would suffice.
Disclosure item; there is NO ONE in this country that is more conservative on this topic that I. The Law of the Land is the Supreme Law for this country as far as I am concerned, and the 2nd Amendment has equal weight and force to any of them and was considered SO important that it was placed second in the list; I believe as direct support to 1st.
Anyone think there would be "drive-by's" if the whole neighborhood was ready to respond in kind??
But that requirement would be an intrusion in a person's rights and liberty in the other direction from where it is now.
Maybe there is a middle ground?
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 16, 2010, 07:24:22 AM
Remember how every state that has passed a concealed carry has had a major drop in crime?
I always thought the evidence was inconclusive?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_the_Efficacy_of_Concealed_Carry
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 10:25:18 PM
Agreed.
This is why some things ought to be regulated on a state-by-state basis. Conditions are different in different places.
OMG I can't believe my screen.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 16, 2010, 07:24:22 AM
Anyone think there would be "drive-by's" if the whole neighborhood was ready to respond in kind??
Yes, actually . . . yes I do. Mutually Assured Destruction (of which this is a variant) really only works when the Destruction is on a level larger than the personal. It's the moral problem of wiping out a city or a region or a country or the world that stops your hand. I think we can all agree that people have remarkably fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves.
Similarly, it only works if the weapon you're carrying will Assure said destruction. In other words: as soon as I'm forced to use my weapon, we will all assuredly die. With handguns (or AKs or any personal arms) there exists the real chance you can just wing someone. It doesn't have to be fatal every time. If you take that out of the equation, there's a much better chance you'll use your handgun (or AK or whatever).
Quote from: we vs us on April 15, 2010, 10:13:15 PM
Some of these "liberal states" have good reason to regulate guns. Most of the states you're thinking of are highly urbanized and have crime ecosystems that are far more developed and lethal than Oklahoma's. Look, regardless of where we all live, OK's a rural state, and guns here serve closer to the role that they used to serve on the frontier: hunting, and to protect the homestead when the law is too far away to provide protection. In more urbanized states it's different. Every gun -- legally owned or not -- represents much more of a danger to its community, whether its owner intends it or not.
The problem is, restricting the weapons doesn't change anything, it simply makes it harder for people who want them for the right reasons (hunting, self protection, collecting) to get them. Only people who tend to obey laws in the first place will obey and observe gun laws. Abuse of firearms usually occurs in tandem with other crimes.
Quote from: we vs us on April 16, 2010, 09:06:11 AM
Yes, actually . . . yes I do. Mutually Assured Destruction (of which this is a variant) really only works when the Destruction is on a level larger than the personal. It's the moral problem of wiping out a city or a region or a country or the world that stops your hand. I think we can all agree that people have remarkably fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves.
Similarly, it only works if the weapon you're carrying will Assure said destruction. In other words: as soon as I'm forced to use my weapon, we will all assuredly die. With handguns (or AKs or any personal arms) there exists the real chance you can just wing someone. It doesn't have to be fatal every time. If you take that out of the equation, there's a much better chance you'll use your handgun (or AK or whatever).
I think you are missing the point of the deterrent effects. Criminals generally are going to avoid going places which are well lit and their chances of being caught or shot are greater. It's along the same lines of why a burglar will pick the house on the block
without the ADT sign in the front yard to burglarize.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 16, 2010, 10:46:05 AM
I think you are missing the point of the deterrent effects. Criminals generally are going to avoid going places which are well lit and their chances of being caught or shot are greater. It's along the same lines of why a burglar will pick the house on the block without the ADT sign in the front yard to burglarize.
Will you be putting a "I Keep a Glock Under My Pillow, Stupid Miscreant!" sign in the front flowerbed? How will they know? Unless everyone has to carry a gun by law, there's going to be no change from the way it is now which is: some people will carry, some will not. Only, the people who carry now will be able to carry anything they want.
And re: restricting weapons . . . I think it does change things, but it surely doesn't turn violent crime off like a light. In Chicago, Daley found that there was a double-edged sword to local control. He could mandate anything he wanted, but couldn't stop the flow of guns into the city from other, less controlled places. Can't buy a shotgun in Chicago? No problem. Step across the border into Gary, IN and purchase your fill. And while you're at it, get some hollowpoints for your handgun. You can do that if you're a meek housewife on the northside or a gangbanger from the westside. Either way, you can slow but not stop the flow of weapons into the city.
This is either an argument for more national control or for less local control, but it's going to depend on where you sit, obviously.
As an aside, I was watching a doc on TV (think it was PBS, but can't remember what it was) about immigration and the drug wars. In Mexico, guns of all stripes are illegal, but the drug cartels are arming themselves with guns built and bought in America, and smuggling them across the border. While there are issues of border security baked into that question, it's also quite obvious that our freedom to buy/sell/and own guns is abetting the ridiculous murder rate in some of those Mexican border towns.
Quote from: we vs us on April 16, 2010, 11:40:31 AM
As an aside, I was watching a doc on TV (think it was PBS, but can't remember what it was) about immigration and the drug wars. In Mexico, guns of all stripes are illegal, but the drug cartels are arming themselves with guns built and bought in America, and smuggling them across the border. While there are issues of border security baked into that question, it's also quite obvious that our freedom to buy/sell/and own guns is abetting the ridiculous murder rate in some of those Mexican border towns.
This is where the old saying "if you outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns" comes from. When you make it the law of the land, only those that respect the law in the first place are going to follow that law. When the criminals want weapons, they will find them. Unless we disarm everyone in the world, which means militaries as well, there is no way to stop the criminals from getting them, they will come from somewhere.
Quote from: we vs us on April 16, 2010, 11:40:31 AM
Will you be putting a "I Keep a Glock Under My Pillow, Stupid Miscreant!" sign in the front flowerbed? How will they know? Unless everyone has to carry a gun by law, there's going to be no change from the way it is now which is: some people will carry, some will not. Only, the people who carry now will be able to carry anything they want.
And re: restricting weapons . . . I think it does change things, but it surely doesn't turn violent crime off like a light. In Chicago, Daley found that there was a double-edged sword to local control. He could mandate anything he wanted, but couldn't stop the flow of guns into the city from other, less controlled places. Can't buy a shotgun in Chicago? No problem. Step across the border into Gary, IN and purchase your fill. And while you're at it, get some hollowpoints for your handgun. You can do that if you're a meek housewife on the northside or a gangbanger from the westside. Either way, you can slow but not stop the flow of weapons into the city.
This is either an argument for more national control or for less local control, but it's going to depend on where you sit, obviously.
As an aside, I was watching a doc on TV (think it was PBS, but can't remember what it was) about immigration and the drug wars. In Mexico, guns of all stripes are illegal, but the drug cartels are arming themselves with guns built and bought in America, and smuggling them across the border. While there are issues of border security baked into that question, it's also quite obvious that our freedom to buy/sell/and own guns is abetting the ridiculous murder rate in some of those Mexican border towns.
That's an absolute false-hood about guns "of all stripes" being illegal in Mexico. Certain calibers and types are illegal with the exception of law enforcement and the military.
If contraband guns are making it into the hands of drug runners, that's Mexico's own fault for not better policing the borders. It's not the fault of our gun laws. Based on our laws, Mexican nationals aren't walking into Academy Sports in El Paso and walking out ten minutes later with a new .45.
You could stop the manufacture of all firearms tomorrow, ban the sale and ownership and yet still, any miscreant who wants a firearm will still be able to get one.
Here is an article on a trial that was dismissed on a technicallity, on how some of the weapons, specifically AK-47's got into the hands of the Mexican Drug Cartel. No they didn't walk into the local gun store, we delivered them to the Cartel. They are planning on retrying the case.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/07/20080507akbust0507.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/05/07/20080507akbust0507.html)
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/03/18/20090318guns0318-ON.html (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/03/18/20090318guns0318-ON.html)
Quote from: Conan71 on April 16, 2010, 12:07:10 PM
That's an absolute false-hood about guns "of all stripes" being illegal in Mexico. Certain calibers and types are illegal with the exception of law enforcement and the military.
You're right about the specificity of the Mexican gun regulation. I should've taken ten seconds to wikipedia it. At the same time that doesn't mean the cross-border dynamic doesn't hold true to how we know it works within municipalities in the US. Just like Gary Indiana is part of the Chicago gun supply chain, it's completely feasible that American gun sources can be part of the Mexican gun supply chain. We all know how permeable the border is for illegals and drugs on our side . . . why not for guns, too?
Quote
You could stop the manufacture of all firearms tomorrow, ban the sale and ownership and yet still, any miscreant who wants a firearm will still be able to get one.
And what's to stop you from getting one, too? Presumably, if you thought it were that important to be protected, you'd get one too, by hook or by crook.
But all of this is pedestrian, really, in that I'm not a big proponent of taking everybody's precious precious guns. Do I like guns? No. Do I think at least 50% of American demand for them is pure fetish rather than legit need? Yes. Can I do anything about it? No. So I'll discuss/argue this to a point, but my heart really isn't in it. The pro-gun folks are MUCH more fired up about it than people who believe in stricter control. There's plenty of other big fish to fry.
Quote from: nathanm on April 15, 2010, 12:59:41 PM
I agree completely with your second sentence. It's too bad the first one is full of batshitinsane paranoia.
How is it batshitinsane paranoia? It is a fact that registrations have lead to confiscation in other countries and even in the US.
http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Mortellaro/jm02.htm
Quote
Nobody's coming for your guns, despite what GOA has been claiming for god only knows how long.
Bans on certain firearms, registrations, permit/license requirements just to exercise a constitution right.
Lil Wayne is serving a one year sentence for having a loaded firearm on his tourbus,something which he has a constitutional right to.
QuoteThe rest of us would just like to see the adjudicated insane and people who have proven themselves felons wielding a gun in the commission of their crimes to not have them.
Criminals do not obey laws,which is why they are called criminals in the first place. The only thing background checks,licenses/permits,registrations, and waiting periods do is inconvenience law abiding citizens. Those things being used to fight crime makes as much sense as gun free zone sign.
QuoteEven in the most liberal of states, gun ownership is perfectly legal.
http://www.newyorkcriminalattorneyblog.com/2009/03/new_york_gun_laws_when_your_un.html
NEW YORK GUN LAWS - WHEN YOUR UNLOADED GUN IS REALLY LOADED
Tilem & Campbell is fortunate to have former Firearms Trafficking prosecutor Peter H. Tilem as its Senior Partner able to advise clients on all aspects of New York gun possession. Under New York law, the severity of a Criminal Possession of a Weapon charge dealing with a firearm can hinge on whether the firearm was loaded or not. For example, one may be charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon (CPW) in the Fourth Degree for simply possessing a firearm [See PL 265.01(1)]. Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree does not require that the firearm be loaded. Therefore, one is guilty of CPW 4th if they simply possess an unloaded firearm without proper licensing. Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 4th degree is an "A" misdemeanor that carries up to one year in jail.
However, if one possess a loaded firearm outside their home or business, the charge is CPW 2nd, a "C" felony which carries a mandatory minimum 3 ½ year to a maximum 15 years in state prison. [See PL 265.03(3); PL 70.02(3)(b)]. Therefore, if you possess an operable firearm outside your home or place of business, the difference between facing an "A" misdemeanor (CPW 4th) which carries up to one year in jail with no mandatory minimum (which means probation is possible) and the "C" felony (CPW 2nd) which carries a mandatory minimum of 3 ½ years in state prison has everything to do with whether the firearm was loaded.
Quote
Have you seen the number of literal machine guns they've got out in California?
Link?
Quote from: jamesrage on April 26, 2010, 11:28:24 PM
Criminals do not obey laws,which is why they are called criminals in the first place. The only thing background checks,licenses/permits,registrations, and waiting periods do is inconvenience law abiding citizens. Those things being used to fight crime makes as much sense as gun free zone sign.
You're half right. Criminals do often illegally acquire guns. Why is it that we should let them acquire them more cheaply through legal means?
Nathanm,
Wrong question - they don't use legal means anyway. Check the FBI info about guns used in crime; invariably (except for maybe 3 per year) they are stolen. Or bought on the international black market. There just aren't that many legal full auto AK's around to get cheaply through legal means. And they aren't cheap if legal. No gun is.
Wevsus said,
I think we can all agree that people have remarkably fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves.
Similarly, it only works if the weapon you're carrying will Assure said destruction. In other words: as soon as I'm forced to use my weapon, we will all assuredly die. With handguns (or AKs or any personal arms) there exists the real chance you can just wing someone. It doesn't have to be fatal every time. If you take that out of the equation, there's a much better chance you'll use your handgun (or AK or whatever).
Huh? I don't agree at all that people in general have fewer moral problems taking risks with their own selves. Is that what you meant to write? Doesn't make sense and goes WAY against the self-preservation the vast majority of us feel.
And in the second part, take what out of the equation? Anyone who carries a gun or keeps it around for "self defense" and hasn't figured out whether they are willing to use it is an idiot. Before you carry or have a gun around you had better decide that you are willing to use it to kill someone. If you are not willing to do that, just leave the guns alone. And if you are going to carry or possess, learn how to use it properly and practice!!
The whole idea of trying to "wing" an attacker and hold them is a horrible injustice done to society by TV and movies. Trying to "wing" someone is beyond description stupid. Shooting in the air to "scare them off" is at least as bad. You might hit an innocent with the wild shot.
And last of all, the Constitution says we have the right.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on April 27, 2010, 06:33:57 PM
And last of all, the Constitution says we have the right.
The Constitution also says we all have the right to vote, yet somehow felons aren't permitted to do so. Ironically, the states that are most vehemently protective of the second amendment are the ones least likely to allow felons to vote.
While I consider all our liberties sacrosanct, there is certainly a list in my head ranking them by how much energy I'm willing to spend defending them. To my mind, denying someone their right to vote is a far greater crime than denying someone their right to bear arms.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 07:31:20 PM
The Constitution also says we all have the right to vote, yet somehow felons aren't permitted to do so.
That is inaccurate. While not able to vote while incarcerated (at least I don't think they can), once released they still retain their right to do so.
Quote from: custosnox on April 27, 2010, 07:38:15 PM
That is inaccurate. While not able to vote while incarcerated (at least I don't think they can), once released they still retain their right to do so.
You might want to check Oklahoma law on that one. Or Florida law. Or Arkansas law, or any of the other 34 states that don't restore a felon's right to vote once they've been released. In 12 of those states, the only way to get your franchise back is to get a pardon from the Governor. A further 23 states don't allow those on parole to vote. 18 of those don't even allow those on
probation (including Oklahoma) to vote.
Only two states have sane policy on this issue and never prevent a person from voting. Oklahoma is not as bad as the 12 states that permanently bar felons (or in some cases certain felons) from ever voting again, but it's still stone-age stuff.
now is where I get to correct myself. In Oklahoma felons retain their right to vote after their incarceration. There are some states where felons can loose their ability to vote for life.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 07:48:32 PM
You might want to check Oklahoma law on that one. Or Florida law. Or Arkansas law, or any of the other 34 states that don't restore a felon's right to vote once they've been released. In 12 of those states, the only way to get your franchise back is to get a pardon from the Governor. A further 23 states don't allow those on parole to vote. 18 of those don't even allow those on probation (including Oklahoma) to vote.
Only two states have sane policy on this issue and never prevent a person from voting. Oklahoma is not as bad as the 12 states that permanently bar felons (or in some cases certain felons) from ever voting again, but it's still stone-age stuff.
Felons ability to vote in Oklahoma is only restricted by determination of judgment.
Quote
Persons convicted of a felony shall be ineligible to register for a period of time equal to the time prescribed in the judgment and sentence
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=78446&hits=511+491+429+366+180+160+98+43+
Only 10 states suspend voting for life, according to the ACLU
http://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/ex-offenders
Quote from: custosnox on April 27, 2010, 07:52:38 PM
In Oklahoma felons retain their right to vote after their incarceration.
No, in Oklahoma, felons don't regain the right to vote until after their entire sentence has run, including parole. Even felons whose sentence is only probation lose their right to vote until probation is completed.
I shouldn't have clicked on the AG opinions that cite that law. Apparently, in Oklahoma, a pardon doesn't remove the impairments to your rights as it does in some other jurisdictions.
Quote
¶2 In Kellogg v. State, 504 P.2d 440, 441-42 (Okl. Cr. 1972), the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals stated:
"As to the effect of a pardon, it is true in some jurisdictions that a pardon 'completely frees the offender from the control of the state and relieves him of all legal disabilities resulting from his conviction.' Taran v. United States, 266 F.2d 561, 566 (8th Cir.1959). State v. Meyer, 228 Minn. 286, 37 N.W.2d 3, 13. Although Oklahoma may have once followed such a view, the present position in this jurisdiction is that a conviction 'is not wiped out by a pardon, as the pardon by the executive power does not blot out the solemn act of the judicial branch of the government.'
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 08:20:10 PM
No, in Oklahoma, felons don't regain the right to vote until after their entire sentence has run, including parole. Even felons whose sentence is only probation lose their right to vote until probation is completed.
I shouldn't have clicked on the AG opinions that cite that law. Apparently, in Oklahoma, a pardon doesn't remove the impairments to your rights as it does in some other jurisdictions.
I was basing my initial comment on what my government teacher (and attorney) told us. I'm not sure if I got something out of context or if he was mistaken. After some quick research I see that there is some merit to what you posted. However what I have found on it doesn't line up with your number. But that is aside of the point. The whole point in your comment was about the removal of rights to felons. I'm not sure how I feel about this. Yes, it is a basic right of citizens, however, why should our leaders be chosen by those who choose to break the law?
Quote from: custosnox on April 27, 2010, 08:36:46 PM
why should our leaders be chosen by those who choose to break the law?
More importantly, why shouldn't they get a say? It is one of the rights we hold most fundamental to our being. From it flows our ability to control our government and keep it from running roughshod over us. One could easily invoke the slippery slope argument here.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 08:46:28 PM
More importantly, why shouldn't they get a say? It is one of the rights we hold most fundamental to our being. From it flows our ability to control our government and keep it from running roughshod over us. One could easily invoke the slippery slope argument here.
it's piling on the loss of certain rights to form more of a deterrent to crime. Deterrents only work for those who tend to obey laws in the first place. I'm willing to bet an overwhelming majority prisoners serving sentences for felonies never voted and wouldn't if they were given the right back.
Quote from: Conan71 on April 27, 2010, 09:36:06 PM
I'm willing to bet an overwhelming majority prisoners serving sentences for felonies never voted and wouldn't if they were given the right back.
Most people never vote. Should we take the franchise away from those who choose not to exercise it?
I think that voting is such a fundamental right (second only to life itself) that I think that it's not a valid use of state power to take it away from someone, under any circumstances. Our tendency of late to increase the number of crimes considered felonies, rather than misdemeanors, serves only to strengthen my opinion on the issue. Someone shouldn't lose their right to vote because they pass a hot check or speed excessively.
As someone who thinks highly of the second amendment, I would think that you would understand the value of retaining a check against government creeping into tyranny. With the thick undergrowth of laws we now have most of us, with enough investigation, could be charged with a felony for something or other we once did.
Moreover, it opens the door to states incorrectly purging voters from the rolls who have never actually committed a crime, as happened to thousands in Florida just before the 2000 election. The risk is too great and the reward too small, my friend.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 10:37:23 PM
I think that voting is such a fundamental right (second only to life itself) that I think that it's not a valid use of state power to take it away from someone, under any circumstances.
However, our justice system retains the ability to remove that which you hold most fundamental, life, under specific circumstances
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 10:37:23 PM
I think that voting is such a fundamental right (second only to life itself) that I think that it's not a valid use of state power to take it away from someone, under any circumstances. Our tendency of late to increase the number of crimes considered felonies, rather than misdemeanors, serves only to strengthen my opinion on the issue. Someone shouldn't lose their right to vote because they pass a hot check or speed excessively.
I'll agree that no one should lose the right to vote over a hot check, speeding and such. I think there are some particularly nasty crimes such as mass murder that warrant taking away the right to vote. Maybe some others deserve to be reinstated after their "debt to society" has been paid.
Quote from: Red Arrow on April 27, 2010, 11:24:27 PM
I'll agree that no one should lose the right to vote over a hot check, speeding and such. I think there are some particularly nasty crimes such as mass murder that warrant taking away the right to vote. Maybe some others deserve to be reinstated after their "debt to society" has been paid.
Beyond the violent crimes you list, I think exceptionally immoral, like cheating dozens of elderly out of their retirment funds with a scam. I really don't like the idea of people like that having a say in our government. But I do agree that those that are in for something like a bad check, or other such crimes should get their rights reinstated.
Quote from: custosnox on April 27, 2010, 11:23:03 PM
However, our justice system retains the ability to remove that which you hold most fundamental, life, under specific circumstances
I also strongly disagree with
that. Being from the South, I grew up with the idea of the death penalty as being a necessary thing. At some point the number of people on death row who had turned out to be wrongfully convicted caused me to critically evaluate my position on the death penalty for the first time. I came to realize a few things: If the death penalty was really a deterrent, we wouldn't have thousands upon thousands of people on death row in this country. Unless we can be sure that we're not executing an innocent person, carrying out a death sentence on that person is certainly immoral. Given the number of people on death row who were exonerated, that put doubt in my mind as to whether we could ever be sure.
After thinking on that for a while, I came to the conclusion that putting someone in prison renders them no longer a threat to society, and therefore killing them is not morally justified, since I believe the only just use of deadly force is to stop an imminent threat to life.
Other people can reach their own conclusions, but that's how I draw the moral calculus there.
Tying that back in to removing a felon's right to vote, I consider the purpose of prison to isolate those who have proven they are a danger to society and, if possible, rehabilitate them for release. I don't see how taking away their right to vote works to either of those ends. Worse, I think that such actions only serve to make the criminal feel even less connected to society, thus more likely to reoffend.
Neither the death penalty nor denying suffrage to felons work to the end supporters claim.
Pragmatically, what does it matter if felons get to vote? Unless the government and laws are completely out of step with society's morals, there will always be fewer felons than non-felons, so the rest of us can easily overwhelm any influence they have. If there are more felons than non-felons, we have bigger problems to worry about than felons having the right to vote.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 11:38:21 PM
I also strongly disagree with that. Being from the South, I grew up with the idea of the death penalty as being a necessary thing. At some point the number of people on death row who had turned out to be wrongfully convicted caused me to critically evaluate my position on the death penalty for the first time. I came to realize a few things: If the death penalty was really a deterrent, we wouldn't have thousands upon thousands of people on death row in this country. Unless we can be sure that we're not executing an innocent person, carrying out a death sentence on that person is certainly immoral. Given the number of people on death row who were exonerated, that put doubt in my mind as to whether we could ever be sure.
After thinking on that for a while, I came to the conclusion that putting someone in prison renders them no longer a threat to society, and therefore killing them is not morally justified, since I believe the only just use of deadly force is to stop an imminent threat to life.
Other people can reach their own conclusions, but that's how I draw the moral calculus there.
Tying that back in to removing a felon's right to vote, I consider the purpose of prison to isolate those who have proven they are a danger to society and, if possible, rehabilitate them for release. I don't see how taking away their right to vote works to either of those ends. Worse, I think that such actions only serve to make the criminal feel even less connected to society, thus more likely to reoffend.
Neither the death penalty nor denying suffrage to felons work to the end supporters claim.
Pragmatically, what does it matter if felons get to vote? Unless the government and laws are completely out of step with society's morals, there will always be fewer felons than non-felons, so the rest of us can easily overwhelm any influence they have. If there are more felons than non-felons, we have bigger problems to worry about than felons having the right to vote.
You may disagree with it, but it is still a power that rests in the scope of the state.
Just as a counter argument on your reasons for not agreeing with the death penalty, it is intended to be more then just a punishment for a crime and to remove them from society. in theory (and at least some practice) it is also intended as a deterent by placing the absolute penalty for a crime.
Personally I'm not completely convinced that this is the correct choice. I don't think the threat of life imprisonment is going to work either. A new system is needed.
IMO the removal of voting rights is more of a "you have shown that you can not be trusted with making important decistions". This certaintly should not apply to your basic run of the mill crimes. It is debatable on the more notorous crimes.
Quote from: custosnox on April 27, 2010, 11:59:53 PM
Personally I'm not completely convinced that this is the correct choice. I don't think the threat of life imprisonment is going to work either.
As I mentioned, we each draw our own moral conclusion regarding these things. In the end, if more people think/vote/speak like me, the system will change in the way I desire. If not, it won't. That's one of the great things about this country. We can disagree without resorting to violence thanks to things like voting.
For what it's worth, many other countries seem to get along fine without the death penalty, and even manage to have a lower major crime rate despite greater urbanization.
Quote from: nathanm on April 27, 2010, 02:39:41 PM
You're half right. Criminals do often illegally acquire guns. Why is it that we should let them acquire them more cheaply through legal means?
Wouldn't criminals getting guns cheaply through legal means instead of illegal means also mean everyone else getting guns cheaply through legal means?