See post #80 in your thread.
Civil discourse on gun control
- Thread starter Tsing Tao
- Start date
citation please.
Be careful about throwing those words around too loosely. There has been no affirmation of Federal law over state and local laws in regard to gun control unless it involves an area where the national government has direct powers under the constitution- such as taking guns across state lines, and a few others. My right to possess a firearm is not derived from federal law AT ALL. The feds may be able to make some rules around the edges but you used the word SUPREMECY which has a more powerful meaning under American constitutional law.
Don't mean to get too persnickety, but you do have a real zeal for trying to make the case that there are no differences or barriers that would keep us from just going full-lefty-Canadian at will. That could not be further from the truth. When it comes to gun control, federal law IS the supreme law of the land in Canada. And in the United States, it most definitely IS NOT. The constitution is. See if you can spot the difference.
The federal government does have the power of the purse though which they have regularly used to force state and local governments to comply with their rules. One good example, if you don't raise your drinking age to 21 then we are going to cut off all highway funds. Worked pretty well, eh?
Likewise if the federal government passes gun legislation and state/local governments fail to comply then the federal government can cut off a number of different funding channels - police money, etc.
Likewise I believe that the federal government should cut of justice/police funding for all localities that refuse to cooperate with actions to remove illegal immigrants. No more sanctuary cities.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
You will find this on page 8 , 2nd paragraph, of the Heller Opinion.
The part of the opinion that is most relevant to the current discussion, however, is section III that begins on page 54. This is the part you should be concentrating on in regard to whether ownership and use of certain types of guns may be lawfully restricted or prohibited under the Second Amendment. This is a part that often seems to escape the NRA member. Perhaps its because it comes late in an extraordinarily long opinion and NRA members are slow readers and tire before they get to section III.
What I would especially like to call your attention to is Justice Stevens dissenting opinion. It is equally erudite and presents a powerful and compelling counter argument; thus the necessity of a long and detailed opinion to counter the Stevens argument, and ultimately to prevail. In cases like this it would not be unheard of for some future court to overturn Heller, but I see no chance of that happening barring a change to majority progressive on the Court. Nor is over-turning necessary to the sane and effective regulation of firearms, as Section III of the opinion makes clear. Under the current law, which Heller is a part of, The second Amendment is not an unlimited right!
I found Scalia's arguments in favor of the right to own and bear firearms being inalienable, and his conclusion that the Second Amendment codifies this, fairly compelling; particularly so,when i'm in a mood that inclines me to subscribe to his selectively applied "originalism."
Last edited:
Post 80 in the thread does not answer the questions posed.
Here is post 80, quoted:
Questions posed after that were:
Where would the money come from in these buyback programs?
Do you believe that criminals would register weapons (to bring them into compliance as you suggest based on Canadian law)?
How would you propose to confiscate weapons not brought into compliance?
You have completely ignored these questions, and my guess is this is because you have no answers. When you feel like having a fair debate, let me know. More dodging of questions is not needed.
First of all I'm not an NRA member.
Secondly, two of my quotes were from Section IV after that:
1) "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right"
2) "It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed."
Had you read all of Heller you would have known that. Or you did and you ignored it. So you're either uninformed or being disingenuous or both.
As Mr. Tsing said, when you feel like having a fair debate, let me know.
I don't know, there are obvious choices. Do you have any suggestions? In Canada it's done through licensing fees, but there is a shortfall that is made up by the taxpayer.*
By definition, the answer has to be "No". However I do believe that over a period of years, say twenty or so, virtually all illegal weapons would be discovered and taken out of circulation. But naturally there will always be a small number. Probably within a relatively few number of years the majority of illegally held firearms would be located. Of course the argument that there is no point in regulating firearms because the regulations will only affect honest people is illogical. Nevertheless we will continue to hear it.
This will happen spontaneously over time, as those with non-complying guns try to use them, acquire parts or ammunition for them, as their neighbors report them, and are arrested, or as they die and leave them to heirs that are compliant. And some will be stolen and then recovered. We don't see many machine guns on the street these days, but we know there are a few out there. The idea is to decrease the number of non-compliant guns used in committing crimes. And banning machine guns did this in the interim before they were replaced with legal semiautomatic assault rifles with bump stocks. There is an entire support system behind guns -- it is the manufacturer, the gun maker, the ammunition supplier, the dealer. Pinch of any of these elements and you make it much less inconvenient to get your hands on particular gun types. As those who would acquire these guns, despite restrictions, are forced into clandestine activities to acquire them, the probability of their being caught can be expected to increase.
Your thoughts?
_____________________
*An MMT (Modern Money Theory) economist might argue that it can be done at no real cost, and even a net savings. I won't bother with the argument here but you can google MMT economics, or go to YouTube to find out what this very fascinating, school of economics is all about. Randall Wray, the Univ. of Missouri Economist, a Hyman Minsky protege, is an example of an MMT economist. I'm mentioning this to you as I know you are into corporate finance. I think you would find this stuff interesting reading. It is not non-sense by any means.