Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)



Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145135035.130244.268870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1145102238.360444.90420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Scout wrote:
"Homespun Inc." <homespuninc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1144895766.543979.174350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You couldn't find anything about machine guns because it doesn't
exist
in the model-- except derivatively.

So you advocate a prohibition, and your model doesn't really protect
such
an
aspect of our rights?

Since many states don't want to protect the ordinary person's right
to
have machineguns, I suspect the final version of the model would
have
to have some treatment of it-- assuming some states would not move
to
protect the right. I'm all for the states making their own laws--
consistent with the spirit of the model.

IOW, it doesn't matter what our rights are, just as long as they agree
within the very narrow application of your model?

ROFL. Talk about buying a pig in a poke.

A state couldn't prohibit the
carry of a concealed handgun, for example, since regular law
enforcement officers in all states carry them and to do so would
infringe upon a person's right to effective self-defense.

When the same question is posed about machineguns I don't reach the
same conclusion. Law enforcement officers do not regularly carry
machineguns (but in state where they do, if any, that state would
not
be able to prohibit regular citizens from doing so as well). If
carrying a concealed handgun is allowed, then does the prohibiting
of
machinegun carry prevent you from effectively defending yourself?

Sorry, but gun rights is about a heck of a lot more than just self
defense
against a couple of violent criminals.

And yes, depending on the circumstances prohibiting machineguns could
prevent me from effectively defending myself.


I
don't think so.

Sorry, but your thoughts aren't really relevent. We want facts, not
conjecture.


My model leaves it up to the states.

IOW, there are no protections in your model.

But my model
would also allow for the prohibition of machinegun carry. (I
suspect
that in most states it would not affect the possession.)


And you told us your model was no more restrictive than what we have
now.
Seems like you lied to us.

I hope you have followed the discussion here.

Oh, I have been.

If the model allows the
states to make laws as they do now-- with the exception that they must
have certain protections-- concealed carry consistent with what
regular law enforcement officers carry and home ownership consistent
with what the regular state militia personnel are issued and with
special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then
clearly the model is less restrictive than what exists now.

Bullshit. Law enforcement typically carry handguns, and while I can carry
handguns concealed what it would prohibit would be the open carry of
every
other type of firearm in existence. That is SIGNIFICANTLY more
restrictive
than what I have now.

The model does not "prohibit ... the open carry of every other type of
firearm in existence." The model explicitly _protects_ the right to
keep and bear arsmt o the points I mentionand allows states to regular
as they see fit thereafter.

Which is only handguns. Whoopee. That seems to be what I just said.

I assume states that now allow open carry
as you describe will continue to do so-- and that is entirely
consistent with the model.

So your model really doesn't protect anything. If the states chose to
prohibit arms they can do so.

When I should have been more precise about saying SWAT teams "don't use
pistols" you all said I shopuld have just admitted the oops and got on.
I suggest you reread the model to understand that the prohibitions you
have attributed to it don't exist.

Ok, they don't prohibit these arms, but it does nothing to protect them
either. Hardly want I would want to see in a model of American Firearms
Policy.

Now you include some protections in there you might have a bit more
interest. Until then I think I will stick with the model we already have in
place....."shall not be infringed". A lot simplier with much fewer loopholes
that would legitimize prohibitions.



Further the regular state militia are issued NO
weapons by the state, and hence NOTHING would be protected for home
ownership. Further should the state issue weapons, ONLY those weapons
issued
would be so protected, everything else would be prohibited or require
special permit. That is SIGNIFICANTLY more restrictive than what I have
now.
Since not only can I have anything the state militia may be issued but
also
a whole bunch of things which they wouldn't be issued.

If the Viginia Army National Guard issues soldiers an M-16, then as a
citizen of Virginia, your right to keep in your home that or a similar
weapon would be protected by the model. Again, whether or not you
could openly carry such a weapon on the streets would be up to the
state. That state militias have been essentially usurped by a federal
system does not keep them from being a state militia. As I recall,
governors can still declare states of emergency and order out their
national guard units. (If I'm wrong about that, then I clearly need to
start working on the Model American Militia Policy too.)

And I don't know, but if there was a state that recognized "unorganized
militias" as well National Guard units, then some form of weaponry
would need to be expressly declared as appropriate for their possession
in case of emergency.

Why do you think the government should be able to determine what is
"appropriate"???

Free hint: In a free society it's not up to the government to tell me what
is "appropriate" to possess, only that which isn't and they must justify
that prohibition.


So don't try to bullshit me and lie by telling me your model is clearly
no
more restive than what I have now, because it's just not true. Because
it's
not true, that leads me to believe that either you don't know what is in
your model, are ignorant of the current state of the law, or are lying to
me
about your model's impact on the exercise of my rights.

I believe you have read prohibitions into the model that do not exist.
consequently, you are bullshitting yourself.

Well, if your model allows such infringments then it allows such
prohibitions to legitimately take place. As it stands now such prohibitions
are NOT legitimate.

So I think I can say that your model if accepted in place of our current law
it would have a negative impact on the nature, extent, and protection of my
rights.

Since it's your
model, I think it's safe to assume you know what's in it. So that leaves
me
with the choice that you are either ignorant or a liar.

The alternative is, of course, that you have a mistaken understanding
of what I wrote.

Then by all means show me where the state isn't allowed to prohibit
firearms. Period.

You can't do it can you?


In either case it
certainly doesn't gain my support for your model. I would have to give up
a
whole bunch of stuff just to reduce the exercise of my rights down to
what
your model would grudgingly permit. Thanks. I prefer the old way of
"shall
not be infringed", and work to end such infringement that exists rather
than
roll over and give up virtually all my right to arms except for one
highly
restricted bone you would toss me as a 'prize'.

I see it as more than a bone. Maybe if you reread it you'll see it as
more than a bone too.

No, I don't. At most it would impact only 11 states and 1 district. The rest
of us don't gain ANYTHING other than national recognition, and we are
already on track to get that WITHOUT having to give up a bunch of our rights
either.

I spent 30 minutes looking at the NRA-ILA compendium to see the impact
the model would have and then stopped-- since I had clearly surpassed
your "11 states and 1 district" description. The model would:

1. Impact all 50 states and all U.S. territories by radically altering
the federal NFA requirements now in place.

2. Eliminate state bans on weapons in CA, CT, IL, MA, NJ, NY, OH, and
D.C.-- and possibly affect bans in HI, MD, and VA (though not
necessarily).

3. Eliminate gun purchase waiting periods for any person licensed to
possess firearms.(This may not have been clearly spelled out in the
model-- so I include it only because it came up when I was making the
comparison).

4. Establish a non-discretionary RTC a concealed handgun in AL, CA,
CT, DE, HI, IL, IO, KS, MD, MA, NE, NJ, NY, RI, WI, and D.C.

So, the only thing I would gain would be National carry, but would utterly
lose any and all protections outside of concealed carry and possession of a
handgun and a long arm which I couldn't carry.

You don't lose any protections that you already have now-- since the
model only provides greater protections than exist now without taking
any away. Somehow you don't seem able to comprehend this.

The model isn't a constitutional amendment. If the U.S. Supreme court
wants to rule that the 2nd amendment provides greater protections than
those in the laws of the several states following the model, then so be
it. I don't see it happening. But other than that, you don't have the
protections you think you now have if you actually believe the modle
reduces the protections you have.

Yea, that's just a bone in consideration to all the rights which could be
taken from me because they would no longer be protected from infringement in
your model.

.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... there are no protections in your model. ... special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then ... I suggest you reread the model to understand that the prohibitions you ... Since not only can I have anything the state militia may be issued but ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: A Model, American Firearms Policy (Long)
    ... there are no protections in your model. ... special licensure for all other weapons not included therein-- then ... I suggest you reread the model to understand that the prohibitions you ... Since not only can I have anything the state militia may be issued but ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: OT.. I like it
    ... Your REAL problem is that you are ... Should the law require them to feed this corpse and change ... A cow has legal protections. ... But not illegal to kill a man's unborn child IF the woman so chooses. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: What Next for D.C.s Gun Laws
    ... What "rule of law" would that be, ... police power to regulate weapons. ... the Second Amendment right is not ... longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Amar Akhil of Yale on Heller but mostly on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
    ... Interesting that he finds all manner of support for Heller without ... Amendment as one of the "privileges or immunities" of citizens, ... They don't won't to accidentally overturn EVERY gun control law in the ... the current protections for these rights are protected and enforced at the ...
    (talk.politics.guns)