Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun-trafficking case in Charlotte may have exposed loopholes in gun laws (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You had me until: (3+ / 0-)
    In fact, I support a national right-to-carry law.
    Maybe you could explain how this might contribute to either gun safety or a safer society. I fail to see it but that may only be a lack of imagination.

    The story is a good find that demonstrates one of many loopholes.

    Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

    by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:38:24 AM PST

    •  It doesn't affect gun safety either way. (0+ / 0-)

      But that's not why we support it.  The current patchwork of laws infringes on our right to travel.

      •  Well, nobody really believes that. (3+ / 0-)

        Unless your gun has been surgically attached, it doesn't. No more than stowing it before boarding.

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:15:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Today, a Vermonter could cross state lines (0+ / 0-)

          into New York and become a felon for doing something he's legally entitled to do in his home state.  That interferes with our right to travel, and for no better reason than malicious contempt.

          •  The reasonable Vermonter does not go to NY armed. (3+ / 0-)

            Stubbornly refusing to follow a properly enacted law is folly. Not giving NYers the respect to choose which laws to enact is infantile. Again, as I stated up thread, your right to travel is unimpeded. Your right to travel armed is nonexistent and the act is prohibited by law in NY. Get over it. Life is never fair and is not about only ourselves.

            I know it has been many years since I lived in upstate NY, 1979, but we had Vermont citizens come to our NRA sanctioned pistol matches all the time. There was a process to allow them to possess handguns for that specific purpose then and I would be surprised if that has changed. The required concealed carry permit was locally administered, required residence in the locality where the permit was issued, was not valid in NY City, was for sporting purposes only, and was a pain in the ass to obtain. I did it to compete but out of state competitors could not get one even though they could be legally allowed to participate in our meets. That is a long stretch to allowing any goober of unknown origin or intent to travel among your citizens with weapons, concealed or otherwise.

            Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

            by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:20:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well of course. (0+ / 0-)

              Unless your an activist, the reasonable person doesn't go looking for a felony charge.  Which is why I take issue with the law in the first place.  And we won't get over it; we'll keep advocating for national reciprocity until we get it.

              •  American democracy has a long history (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DefendOurConstitution, lyvwyr101

                of activism for issues people care about. Please continue to work towards passing legislation in which you strongly believe. My disagreement with your position is irrelevant. Don't be surprised if pigs fly before you get it passed.

                Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

                by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:32:41 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  State by state. (0+ / 0-)

                  That's been the plan over the past decade.  And while I appreciate the activist tradition, even I'm wary about gun owners engaging in "civil disobedience." It serves our purpose to project a calm, reasonable image rather than one that is confrontational and alarming.  Take the Free Staters in New Hampshire or that guy in Eugene, Oregon for example.  Rather than organize a rally and project safety and security in numbers, they walk around alone or in groups of two openly carrying rifles and pistols.  I believe them when they say they're trying to normalize gun ownership and carrying rights, but that's work that needs to be done with forethought and an eye for reassuring the community.

          •  No, it doesn't. You have to know the laws (0+ / 0-)

            of the state you're traveling in, for any activities.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:27:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  No, and no: (3+ / 0-)

            There's lots of things someone is legally entitled to do in his state but aren't entitled in another.   Nobody thinks that our laws against prostitution interferes with a Nevadan's right to travel, for an easy example.  

            And as to whether there's reason other than malicious contempt, you're really saying that New Yorkers have more restrictive laws on themselves, and expect Vermonters to follow them while in New York, out of contempt for Vermonters?  That's even less believable than the right to travel argument.  It seems that the only contempt that's being shown is the contempt for New Yorkers to order their own lives without having to accomodate a special set of laws for people who are passing through.  As if Vermonters have this bubble of immunities that they can take and rub in New Yorkers' noses.  

            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

            by Inland on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:29:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It limits your right to travel while armed (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DefendOurConstitution, lyvwyr101

        not your right to travel. That's an important distinction. I agree that a more uniform system of gun regulation might be useful in some meaningful ways. However, that has to be balanced with localities having different needs as well as their right to choose who goes armed in their area of responsibility. This is an issue that goes well past the issue of one person thinking that he should be entitled to a right regardless of other's right to security and self rule.

        Another issue is that I seriously question any non-resident traveller having a compelling universal interest to carry. There is a potential business interest but for a private citizen? No way. I once would have agreed that I wanted to carry but 35 years later after traveling unarmed all over the world, every continent except Antarctica, I strongly disagree. I do not have the sense of insecurity I once did. The world, let alone the US, is not Dodge City and if you feel unsafe going somewhere then you can exercise your right to not go there. Hell's bells. Even Dodge City eventually made people check their guns before entering the town. I wonder why? Could there have been a safety issue?

        Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

        by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 12:41:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I defer to Richard Posner: (0+ / 0-)
          The Second Amendment states  in its entirety  that  “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to  the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep  and bear Arms, shall not  be infringed” (emphasis  added). The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms  within  one’s home  would  at all times have  been an awkward usage. A right to  bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
          This will likely be the law of the land in due time, at which point it will the burden of the state to show why a man from Vermont cannot cross state lines armed with a pistol and a 10 round magazine without catching a felony.
          •  Did I miss Posner's ascension to king? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Besides this arguably not saying what you think it does, it is one guy's opinion. The opinion of someone without the power to change anything, other than his mind and underwear, is neither fact nor actionable. Regarding "likely" - pure delusion. I hope your quest keeps you occupied.

            Time makes more converts than reason. Thomas Paine, Common Sense

            by VTCC73 on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:43:04 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  to all that raise the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            2nd amendment as a right to carry arms, I suggest reading up on US history, in the colonial days. Begin with why the 2nd starts with "A well regulated militia", and then move to the next phrase" Being necessary to the --- ". This was written because the US had no real decent size Army, with which to defend the country with, and had to enlist farmers, etc., many who did not own weapons, to defend the country. At the time there were "militia" from towns and states, composed of patriots and a few rich men who were paying the "soldiers" and paying for the supplies to maintain the "militia"",  that came together to form the bulk of the US "Army" at the time of the forming of the country..

            The sum of the 2nd was the founding fathers were assuring themselves that they could have an Army that drew on civilians in time of need, who owned their own firearms.

            I lived in Williamsburg, Va for a while, and had many friends who were Colonial era firearms experts, and  real world historians. That is they knew history as a practical matter, knew the backstories that created our version of history.

            I sat with friends as they rolled their own black powder cartridges and talked to me about the practicality of a flintlock musket for hunting and for warfare, and i got a few real demonstrations, like going hunting for a turkey with a musket. A flintlock does not fire when you pull the trigger - there is a delay while the flint creates the spark, which ignites the powder in the pan, which then ignites to powder in the cartridge. And black powder is slow to ignite, compared to modern powder. So the hungry colonist would pull the trigger and have to keep aiming at the turkey while the gun was in the process of firing, and maybe 2 second delay, at most. If it had of been me in those days, I would have starved.

            Then we get to a the critical point _you can't simply put another bullet int the gun and fire it. No. You have to stand the damn thing on it's stock, look down the barrel to make sure it's empty, then use a ram rod to clear it, then you are ready to reload: put your cartridge in the baller, push it in place with the ram rod, then put in the ball, then the cotton wadding to keep the ball from rolling out of the barrel. (I think I have this right). The you hold the gun parallel to the ground, begin by checking your flint to make sure it will still spark and adjust it, if needed, then clean the pan, if you haven't already, then open your powder horn, and dump some black powder into the pan. Now you are ready to shoot.  

            OK, got it in your head what you just did, and how long it took to do it? Now imagine you, who was a humble farmer just three weeks ago, now handed this long and heavy musket which you got maybe a week's training on, on the fields of Yorktown, facing a bunch of British mercenary troops  - professional well trained soldiers - who are shooting at you, and repeat the process...

            This was Colonial era warfare. This is why the fledgling country needed more "soldiers" - it took a lot of time to reload, so the commanders needed more people to simply keep up a decent barrage of bullets. As my friend put it, "in reality, the units had one third shooting, on third reloading and one third pissing in their pants, too scared to do anything."

            Now absorb this, take some time to really feel what it must have been like back in the day, and go back and read the 2nd amendment and suddenly it makes sense in the context of the time.

            One last thing for historians, if it weren't for the French at Yorktown, we would be British citizens now.

            "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

            by azureblue on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:49:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Don't blame Posner: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            He was trying to deal with Heller, an opinion that simply makes no sense on its face.   He also works in a building that forbids weapons.

            That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

            by Inland on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 05:08:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I don't blame him. (0+ / 0-)

              And I appreciate his work trying to clarify the bounds of Heller.  Also, I'm not debating laws forbidding carrying weapons on federal property.  Or laws permitting carry on state property.  Or zoning laws forbidding an extension to my garage.

    •  If you can legally carry a gun in your state (2+ / 0-)

      there should be no reason why you shouldn't be able to carry that gun in other states.

      The NRA's response to calls for responsible gun law reform: noun, verb, Second Amendment

      by Christian Dem in NC on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:59:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site