Skip to main content

The NY SAFE ACT. One of the more idiotic pieces of legislation I've seen come out of a state legislature with regards to firearms.

Why?

Over the fold.



Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
So they banned the AR15 in New York right? Well, the answer to that question is "kinda."

You see, when you ban a firearm based on certain cosmetic features, the cosmetic features will be modified so they don't count anymore.

For example: if a semi-auto rifle can accept a detachable magazine AND have one of the following, it's considered an assault weapon.

  • Folding or telescoping stock
  • Protruding pistol grip
  • Thumbhole stock
  • Second protruding pistol grip (you'd think having ONE would already disqualify you)
  • Bayonet mount (lots of drive by bayonetting going on I guess?)
  • Flash suppressor
  • Muzzle brake
  • Threaded barrel
  • Grenade launcher

Now I'm not a big fan of the following website (some right wingy nutjob stuff), but I can't find a better source out there: link

Prototypes for the newly designed AR-15 are hitting gun shops across New York, as gun shops and machinists have designed a rifle that complies with the anti-gun law.

At least one gun shop has received a letter from state police saying that the new AR-15 style rifles should be legal in the state as long as they don’t have some of the features that the law prohibits.
...
The new AR-15 design did away with the pistol grip which gives the gun an odd paintball gun look.  The stock is fixed as well, but at least New Yorkers now have a legal way to own an AR-15, a fact which is still driving some gun control activists mad.

I found a better link!

Well, I hope it's a better link. Not familiar with the Times Union.

link

Prototypes for the new rifles have been on display at gun shops from western New York to the Adirondacks in recent weeks. And now a lawyer representing one shop says he has gotten what amounts to an OK from the state, in the form of a letter from a State Police lawyer confirming that AR-15-style guns should be legal as long as they lack the characteristics prohibited by the law.
...
It retains the semi-automatic capability possessed by any standard AR-15, meaning one can simply pull the trigger for each shot rather than having to work a bolt action or lever each time.
...
The modifications aren't particularly difficult for gunsmiths, who also point out that the AR-15-style rifle, first developed for military use in the late 1950s, has a modular design that makes it easy to add or remove different features.
So, like the 1994 AWB before it, the NY SAFE Act assault weapons ban is bypassed with some minor cosmetic changes.

8:25 AM PT: I couldn't have put this better myself. From the comments section:

The point is that if cosmetic changes get by the

the ban, the ban itself is cosmetic.

While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

by GoGoGoEverton

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Stopped reading here: (14+ / 0-)
    One of the more idiotic pieces of legislation I've seen come out of a state legislature with regards to firearms.
    You don't want a conversation.  You want agreement.

    Sorry.  I'll spend my time trying to work out the law laid out in FLAP diaries, which are harder to work your way through but actually present information instead of this; what your buddy Frankrose calls, "opinion-barf".

    So charming, your merry band...

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:53:03 AM PST

  •  Should the rate of fire be capped? (7+ / 0-)

    Should there be a limit on the rounds/minute at which a weapon can be fired, to be legal (without special licenses/circumstances like the Army)? (E.g., machine-guns and the like?) If so, what should that limit be?

    •  Why would it need to be? Equity Under Law has (10+ / 0-)

      always been my personal goal.  How does this bring equity if the police, military or any LEO have superior weapons that We The People do?

      They are not a "special class" of citizen, are they?

      When and if you attempt that "reasonable" regulation you must keep this in mind:


      And this:

      Norway gunman claims he had nine-year plan to finance attacks

      His 1,500-page "manifesto" claims that as far back as 2002 he launched a nine-year plan that saw him start his own business, dabble unsuccessfully in the markets and use at least nine credit cards to fund the attack.
      And I know you don't like this question but I'm gonna ask it again anyways:

      Why is "modern" society creating these people?  What have we done wrong?  The UK has been attempting to ban knives because they never legitimately addressed their social issues that foster violence and violent behaviors.

      How do we do that?  How do we help the person that needs it?

      What are you willing to give up "to save the children"? Mandatory State mental examinations for all?  With the results publicly available and accessible by anyone?

      These "regulations" are what I call "micromanaging" of an unalienable right you disagree with.

      You can only have 5 pieces of paper and up to 2 pens, multi-colored pens are forevermore banned.  Pens with fluffy accoutrements might entice others to actually write letters to the editor, write Manifesto's that will undermine our complete authority!

      After all, society has a stake in keeping us free from disruptions!
       

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:29:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with one of your two points (5+ / 0-)

        Where we agree is that we need to find a way to address the growing population of people who feel isolated and detached from society.  The ones who feel like they have nothing worth living for and take up arms to "express themselves" at innocents.  I would love to see a comprehensive mental health reform law which not only reaches these people, but removes the stigma associated with being diagnosed with a mental illness.

        Where we disagree is that of course law enforcement and military should have superior weaponry than "We the people".  Are you suggesting that yourself -- an individual with little legal support -- are capable of enforcing the laws of this country?  Are you capable as an individual of protecting this country from foreign invasion?  The concept of having the second amendment as a defense against government tyranny flew the coop a long time ago, and the disparity between an individual gun owner (or even a militia as prescribed by the Constitution) and the US Armed Forces is extremely vast in terms of weaponry and training.  

      •  It already is (6+ / 0-)

        A Class 3 license is required to own a fully automatic weapon (or a silencer or certain other devices).

        Oddly hardly anybody's shot up a bank with a Thompson or a B.A.R. since that law has been in effect (but gun laws don't work!). Because they're so well regulated, privately owned machine guns are almost never used in crimes.

        If we can regulate 600 rounds per minute I don't see why 60 rounds per minute is beyond regulation.

        If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

        by Major Kong on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:56:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not quite. You can also Form 4 the item in (9+ / 0-)

          question, which is what I did.

          105 days until the tax stamp arrives...at the earliest.

        •  Oddly that hasn't stopped anyone from (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          robbing banks.

          When you put it that way, the regulation of selective fire does seem rather pointless.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 11:38:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  To make sure I understand your view, FrankRose (6+ / 0-)

            and also the views of others who "rec'd" comments -- does your rec mean that you agree with the comment? (Or, just that you 'recommend' it for some other reason than agreeing with it?)

            Specifically:

            1) Do you agree with KVoimakas (as rec'd by Wordsinthewind, Kasoru, Robobagpiper, gerrilea, CarlosJ, shaktidurga, River Rover, theatre goon, IndieGuy, FrankRose, ER Doc, shaktidurga, and Tom Seaview) that there should be no legal cap on weapons' rate of fire? I.e., there should be no limit on the rounds/minute at which a weapon can be fired, to be legal without special licenses for the buyer/seller/owner? (E.g., fully-automatic machine-guns and the like.)

            2) Do you agree with KVoimakas (as rec'd by CarlosJ, Wordsinthewind, DispositionMatrix, theatre goon and some others) that the National Firearm Act (as revised) should be overturned, at least as it pertains to weapons with barrels, suppressors ('silencers'), short-barrel shotguns ('sawed off'), "any other weapons" (AOWs, like pen-guns, disguised guns, etc.)? [KVoimakas' implies the overturn would be on Second Amendment grounds, fwiw.]

            3) Do you agree with Kasoru and gerrilea (as rec'd by CarlosJ, Robobagpiper, FrankRose, Wordsinthewind, blackhand, theatre goon, IndieGuy, blackhand, and some others) that all weapons that police & military have should also be available for private citizens to buy? (Without registration, licensing, etc?)

            4) Do you agree with gerrilea that there should be mandatory certification of training for every weapon anyone ones (including single-shot rifles, pistols, tanks, jets, etc.)? Who should do the certifying, who should have access to these records, and under what circumstances?

            5) Are there any barrel-based weapons that you think should not protected by the Second Amendment? What about multiple-barrel weapons? E.g. experimental 36-barrel weapons, should they be legal without mandatory registration, licensing, etc? Laser-weapons? (Future developments of these?) What about non-barrel-based weapons?

            6) Scalia said (re Heller 2008) that it still remains to be decided whether or not the Second Amendment applies to handheld rocket launchers. What do you think?

            7) What about non-handheld weapons, e.g. cannons with non-exploding cannonballs, as used during the US Revolutionary War? Should ownership of those be protected and allowed, under the Second Amendment, without special registration and licensing? What about cannons or other devices with exploding ammunition?

            For those of you who rec'd (as listed above), what are your views on these questions? Thanks!

            •  Apparently Frank agreed with this comment... (0+ / 0-)

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              Either that or he misfired and meant to HR it and shot himself in the foot instead... not exactly instilling confidence in his ability to properly operate a gun, is it?

              Baby, where I come from...

              by ThatSinger on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 02:39:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  That's an interesting recap of issues (0+ / 0-)

              I have never even considered some of them.

              I think the varying answers to each would depend on one's view of the society where one lived and one's enfranchisement with the people's government.

              I don't think USians have ever really felt safe on this continent. There is always an existential enemy in the shadows. The US never existed before the gun made that possible and it is made of of all sorts of cultures who much have the same skin color but fought each other with dreams of extinction throughout the 20th century in Europe. I don't think USians much like or trust each other.

              Guns ARE the US culture. Have always been so.

              And it IS dangerous to live in the US. US kids under 18 die at a far greater rate -- from all sorts of causes -- than any other developed nation.

            •  Lets simplify your question. (3+ / 0-)

              1) "Support removing full-auto from current restrictions?"
              Not certain. But I am willing to listen to the discussion.
              2) "Rate of fire restrictions?"
              Beyond what it is now? Absolutely not.
              3) "Should civilians have the same weapons as police?"
              I think it is more apt to ask 'Should police have special privriledges'.
              My answer is 'No'
              4) "Rocket Launchers...36 barrel guns..etc"
              This is a question of 'arms vs ordinance'. Non-explosive & able to be carried by one man. I.e. firearms.
              5) "Cannons"
              IIRC you can own a breech loading cannon without special licensing.

              Now let me ask you the same question you asked me: You recced: "Stopped reading here" does that mean you did the same?

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 03:20:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bringing the discussion back to the policies (0+ / 0-)

                (My comment on recs was only because I didn't want to put words in anyone's mouth. It was a small point, an aside, a courtesy to those who'd rec'd. I'll leave that discussion behind.)

                Getting back to the substance of the issues, thanks for your reply. To further clarify, though I do appreciate your simplification of the questions, let me ask:

                1) "Support removing full-auto from current restrictions?"
                Not certain. But I am willing to listen to the discussion.
                What are the Second Amendment arguments that justify prohibition of full-auto weapons, in your opinion?
                2) "Rate of fire restrictions?"
                Beyond what it is now? Absolutely not.
                No, I mean do you think rate of fire restrictions should be removed? If not, what rate should be the maximum?
                3) "Should civilians have the same weapons as police [and military]?"
                I think it is more apt to ask 'Should police have special privileges'.
                My answer is 'No'
                OK, thanks for that, but I'm curious about the original question. Do you agree with Kasoru and gerrilea that civilians should be allowed to own the same weapons as our military and police? If not, what passage in the Second Amendment allows this prohibition?
                4) "Rocket Launchers... 36 barrel guns... etc"
                This is a question of 'arms vs ordinance'. Non-explosive & able to be carried by one man. I.e. firearms.
                Thanks for clarifying your views about non-explosive ordinance and hand-carried arms. On what grounds do you think the Second Amendment allows the prohibition of explosive ordinance and non-carried weapons, when it says "right to keep and bear arms"? (Some background reading on the Founders' original intent, from a pro-gun site, is here: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/... They conclude it means all weapons, including traditionally 'military-only'. E.g., Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 29, Concerning the Militia: "that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. [...] Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.")
                5) "Cannons"
                IIRC you can own a breech loading cannon without special licensing.
                In Q4 you said the Second Amendment (2A) protects only hand-carried weapons. Do you think breech-loading cannons could be banned, without violating 2A? What justifies this interpretation of original intent in 2A? Or do you think 2A also applies to non-carried weapons?

                Thanks again.

                •  We can further simplify this. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon

                  I don't support infringing on any of the rights or liberties currently held by Americans.

                  You do....up to and including removing a right from the Bill of Rights.
                  How do you justify pushing to take rights away from innocent Americans?

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:26:02 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Please proceed and answer the questions, above. (0+ / 0-)

                    When you try to simplify into NRA tweets and avoid the complex details on this issue, you hide your beliefs.

                    "God is in the details" -- and so is the devil.

                    Your answers to the questions above?

                    •  I did answer. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Wordsinthewind

                      You, however have no answer beyond randomly sputtering "but...but...NRA".

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:25:26 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't see your answers. To simplify: (0+ / 0-)

                        a) What are the Second Amendment arguments that justify prohibition of full-auto weapons, in your opinion?

                        b) Do you think rate of fire restrictions should be removed? If not, what rate should be the maximum?

                        c) Do you agree with Kasoru and gerrilea that civilians should be allowed to own all the same weapons as our military and police? If not, what passage in the Second Amendment allows this prohibition?

                        d) On what grounds do you think the Second Amendment allows the prohibition of explosive ordinance and non-carried weapons, when it says "right to keep and bear arms"? (E.g., Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 29, Concerning the Militia: "that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms". He is clearly not limiting the definition of "arms" to only guns.)

                        e) You said the Second Amendment (2A) protects only hand-carried weapons. What justifies this interpretation of original intent in 2A? (James Madison, who wrote the Second Amendment, also wrote in Federalist Paper 46 of the "last successful resistance of this country against the British arms." His use of "arms" here refers generally to the British invasion and all its weaponry, including cavalry, artillery, and naval power. )

                        Thanks!

                        •  I did answer. (0+ / 0-)

                          Right here.

                          Now allow me to ask you a question:
                          Why do you want to infringe on the freedoms & liberties of innocent people?

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:51:50 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  ?? The record is clear. (0+ / 0-)

                            Nowhere in that link do you answer what Second Amendment arguments if any would justify a prohibition on fully-automatic weapons (which most RKBA members oppose), or on explosive ordinance, non-carried weapons, etc. You do not address how the very Founders who wrote 2A broadly used the term "arms," and what their intent was for 2A.

                            You do not answer in that link whether or not you think rate of fire restrictions should be removed entirely (although you rec those who think they should), and if not then what the maximum rate should be.

                            Nor do you say whether or not you agree with fellow RKBA members Kasoru and gerrilea that civilians should be allowed to own all the same weapons as our military and police.

                            I've asked you politely, without rancor, ad hominem attacks, or loaded questions. "A loaded question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt)." Your parting shot is a classic example of the latter -- along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" It is an informal logical fallacy and a weak rhetorical device.

                          •  You asked me those questions earlier & I answered (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            theatre goon

                            them.

                            Your approval on my answers is utterly irrelevant to me.

                            There are things that you support that would likely pass Constitutional muster now (AWB, registration, etc) & as you have made perfectly clear; you want to remove the entirety of the 2nd Amendment, thus making any interpretation of it irrelevant.

                            My opinion is "don't take rights away from people that have done nothing wrong".
                            Yours is "take away everybody's rights because......."

                            That is what is pertinent now.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Fri Feb 14, 2014 at 10:50:44 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

      •  Should all weapons that police & military have (4+ / 0-)

        also be available for private citizens to buy? (Without registration, licensing, etc?)

        Why would it need to be? Equity Under Law has always been my personal goal. How does this bring equity if the police, military or any LEO have superior weapons that [than] We The People do? They are not a "special class" of citizen, are they?
        •  Yes (8+ / 0-)

          LEO and the military are answerable to the population. they are not our betters. Politicians do not deserve better protection then anyone else.

          Currently the majority are treated like serfs. Bloomberg gets armed bodyguards. Rosie O'Donnell gets a CCW, but others can't. What makes the 1% so special? Thought we were against that.

          •  Making sure I understand, since I askd 2 questions (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Glen The Plumber, coquiero, Kasoru

            I'll condense it into one question:

            Do you think that all weapons that the police & military have should also be available for private citizens without mandatory registration, licensing, training, etc?

            •  If the same level of training (6+ / 0-)

              as Marines who pound bolts with .50 BMG rounds or Police Chiefs who shoot themsleves in the leg - twice - is what your after, I'd want better.  

              Firearms safety training offered at the same time as Driver's Ed in High School and sponsored by the National Shooting Sports Federation (the actual trade group for firearms manufacturers and gun ranges) could help foot the bill, much like the automotive industry does for Driver's Education classes.  No cost to the school districts, aside from the faculty member who would run the class (same as Driver's Ed) who could be a PE teacher between gym classes and whatever sport they are involved with at the school.  

              Of course, we have California state colleges kicking gun safety instructors off campus after several decades of running programs, so this might be an uphill battle.  Personally, I think it is a good idea as it would impress upon kids just how important the four rules of safe firearms handling are.

              Bowers v. DeVito "...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered."
              Director of Merchandising - the Liberal Gun Club
              Owner, Olsen Training Group

              by ErikO on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 01:17:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Police - yes. Military - no. (7+ / 0-)

              Police ARE CIVILIANS.

              All civilians should have the same access to small arms.

              Military should have access to ordnance. Grenades, rocket launchers, rocket propelled grenades, stinger missiles, nuclear warheads are ordnance type things.

              •  What part of 2A permits prohibition of ordinance, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber

                in your opinion?

                There's good evidence that the Founders did not limit the definition of "arms" in this way. Some quotes and discussion of this, here, on a pro-gun site: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/... As just one salient example:

                Madison, the eventual author of the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist 46 of the "last successful resistance of this country against the British arms." Here the term "arms" refers generally to the British invasion and all its weaponry, including cavalry, artillery, and naval power.
            •  Sharon (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              Thank you for your respectful discussion. Such a rare occurrence from your side and greatly appreciated.

              As to you questions- All but explosive ordnance should be available w/o certification. And there are explosive permits and regulations already available to be had if one wished.

              If Bill Gates wanted to have a functioning say.. Destroyer? Why not? The cost of equipping and staffing.. His money. And if he used it wrong- it would get taken care of fast.

              We as a society need to stop assuming that citizens are criminals that have just not been arrested yet.

        •  With proper training, why not? I really don't (5+ / 0-)

          know how to drive a Sherman Tank...

          :)

          Hey, I'd love to learn how to fly an F-16 too!

          Okay, maybe not something so fast but at least a prop-plane! Or a Cessna...those are really nice.

          One of our greatest strengths as a nation was that we had no centralized system of government and that all could keep and bear arms.  If a modern war were to start today...we'd be screwed.  The centralized power grid could be taken down with a few snipers.  The majority aren't trained to arms and if they took out our political leadership, we'd have millions of "militia types" attempting to seize control.

          With Niagara Falls Airbase just a couple miles from me, if we were attacked, very few would know how to use the equipment stored there.

          I think we all should be trained on the equipment and have full access to it in a time of necessity.  A certificate of training would be the only requirement.

          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

          by gerrilea on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:49:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Just to make sure I understand your view (4+ / 0-)

            I asked:

            Should all weapons that police & military have also be available for private citizens to buy? (Without registration, licensing, etc?)
            You replied (in part):
            With proper training, why not? [...] I think we all should be trained on the equipment and have full access to it in a time of necessity. A certificate of training would be the only requirement.
            Just to make sure I'm not distorting your view, or taking it out of context, are you saying that a certificate of training should be the only requirement for private citizens to own any of the weapons that police and military have?

            If so, do you think a national registry should be kept of these certifications? (E.g., perhaps along the lines of the registry for commercial driver's licenses to drive a semi-trailer?) Who should issue the certification (and maintain the database, if any)?

            Where would you draw the line, as to what weapons a certification is required for -- e.g., would you require this training certification to own fully-automatic machine guns? Or only for bigger things like the tanks and F-16s you mentioned? Or (conversely) do you think such certification should be required to own any gun?

            •  I'd say certification for any "arms".... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto, DavidMS

              As for a "national registration", for what purpose?  Make it part of graduating High School.  

              The Federal Government has already been granted said authority in the constitution to do exactly this:

              Article I, Section 8

              To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

              To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

              To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

              The big unknown question for me would be are they allowed to mandate training for "arms" not used by the militia????

              I think that would then fall to the States.

              I don't see that authority being explicitly granted, so we'd have a legal conundrum. But then again, I don't know all 50 state Constitutions either.

              I really haven't been able to fathom this "legal theory" that "arms" outside of the militia were implicitly being allowed as "regulatiable".  It does only say "militia" not doctors, lawyers, teachers, kids, women, etc.

              But I'd have no argument against "public safety concerns" that taught each American how to safely use and store any "arms".  That's good common sense.  If those "regulations" are meant, however, to deny said right or "restrict" it to only a sub-section of the citizenry, then we have a problem of Equity Under Law and the abrogation of inherent rights, not the expansion of them.

              California's games come to mind, they're denying that right because people haven't paid their taxes on time or haven't paid toll violations properly.

              Nope, can't do that.  They keep expanding the "prohibited users" to more and more people.
               

              Earlier this year, the state legislature expanded the list of what they call “prohibited persons” – people who have legally registered a firearm but, for various reasons, are no longer allowed their Second Amendment rights. These reasons were expanded to include people who are behind on state taxes, did not pay toll fees in a “timely” manner and a wide range of other minor misdemeanors or reported mental health concerns.
              This IS exactly what the First Debates in Congress were all about.
              From Pg 778

                  "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms".

                  This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 11:13:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So you favor mandatory training and certification (3+ / 0-)

                for all gun owners (even pistols, single-shot rifles, etc.), is that correct?

                There would have to be an official record kept of this certification somewhere, yes? (Otherwise it would be an unenforceable requirement, if no-one could check to make sure the 'certification' wasn't forged or improperly granted.) This record would be in effect a registry of people trained in each weapon for which they are certified, which would be a pretty close match for a registry of weapon-owners. This has long and stridently been opposed by many pro-gun groups on Second Amendment grounds. Do you support such a registry? Who should control and have access to it, in your opinion?

                The Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, National Rifle Association, and many other groups who support gun rights are opposed to mandatory training, fwiw.

                •  I think you might've misread gerri's comment. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Wordsinthewind, gerrilea

                  I could be wrong, but I read that comment as everyone who graduates high school would have this mandatory training and certification. Your high school diploma would be your certification.

                  •  Not really (3+ / 0-)

                    The military and police screen out many people with a high school diploma, and accept some who don't have a high school diploma.

                    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                    by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:00:48 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I read that she supports mandatory training and (5+ / 0-)

                    certification for any weapon (including single-shot rifles), and that she thinks any weapon the police and army use should also be available for private citizens provided they are trained and certified. I don't think she's suggesting that all high-school students should be trained in every weapon used by the police and military. So my questions to her, as above, remain. Btw, she's doing pretty well at speaking for herself. :-)

                    Gerrilea, did I read you correctly?

                    •  Yes she can. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Kasoru, theatre goon, gerrilea

                      Just my interpretation.

                    •  The only exceptions would be ordance, as (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KVoimakas, Kasoru

                      Jay upthread pointed out.  No one should have training on nuclear weapons, they should be banned everywhere.

                      Every HS student should be trained an a variety of "arms", the ones used the most by LEO and Military.  The "high tech stuff", it depends what it is I guess.  But even then I'd have to say yes.  It is our property, correct?  We should know how to use it.

                      But at this point in this conversation, these are extreme theoretical questions that will never happen.

                      My minimum would be all small arms and if a student wishes to further their exposure to more powerful weapons, join the military.

                      Does this help any?  And there is no need for "registration", the fact you have a HS Diploma would be proof enough you passed the courses offered/mandated.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:27:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  to clarify (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Glen The Plumber

                        1) On what Second Amendment grounds do you make an exception for ordinance? As I commented to Jay upthread, there's good evidence that the Founders did not limit the definition of "arms" in this way. Madison, who went on to write the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist Paper 46 of the "last successful resistance of this country against the British arms." His use of "arms" here refers generally to the British invasion and all its weaponry, including cavalry, artillery, and naval power.

                        2) It's not clear to me if your position has changed, so to make sure I got it:
                        (a) you think every US high school student should have mandatory training on the use of all arms commonly used by LEO and military (including fully-automatic weapons?), and every high-school graduate should be allowed to buy/own/sell all these arms. You think a high-school diploma which incorporates this training is both necessary and sufficient proof, in order to buy/own/sell all these arms, without further registration, licensing, etc. Is this correct? Should those people who never got this high school training only be allowed to buy/own/sell arms if they undergo separate training, with proof of their certification held in some registry(s)? On what Second Amendment grounds should this proof of training be required?
                        (b) regarding "high-tech arms", you think people should be allowed to buy/own/sell these arms but only if they join the military first. Is this correct? If so, then per Q1 above, on what Second Amendment grounds are these high-tech arms restricted more than low-tech arms?
                        3) We all agree that nuclear weapons should be excluded from ownership by private citizens. Are there any other weapons you would exclude, and if so, what criteria should be used to determine them?

                        •  I'm really have a bit of a hard time following (0+ / 0-)

                          these questions.  What is the purpose?

                          I'm going to make this as clear as possible:

                          Mandatory training in "arms" would be the only constitutional avenue we have, collectively.  Hence, "the regulation" part of the 2nd A.  It doesn't mean, deny or restrict to a special appointed class of citizens...it means train or have in good working order.

                          What those "arms" are are immaterial, excepting nuclear devices.  They can, in an instant, destroy all life on this planet.  No one should have access or authority to use, build, buy, sell or trade these things.

                          This is very binary, from where I'm sitting.  All life vs. All Death.  There is no option here.  No shades of grey.

                          What Madison wrote was some really nice words, We The People decided in the First Debates In Congress, what we thought those words meant, not him!  What he wrote in the Federalist papers are, again, some nice words.  We The People STILL decided what we thought they meant in that very first Congress.  What their purpose and intents were when using those words.

                          This isn't a debatable point any longer.

                          "To keep and bear arms" is pretty clear.  Free individuals can do with their "arms" as they so chose.  If they want to sell or trade them, that's their business.

                          If a person does not complete HS and is willing to take private training lessons, they should be paid for by We The People.  At what age they'd be eligible for said, is up for discussion.  They could be give a little green card that needs to be issued only once, replaced (at cost) if lost or stolen.  Our agents have no need to verify anyone's rights unless they are suspected of a crime, have sworn under oath to a judge and a judge has issued an order.

                          Possession of an instrument one has a protected right to "keep" is not a crime.

                          Semi-auto vs. auto...immaterial.

                          Concealed vs. Open...immaterial.

                          We can "keep arms" any way we chose.  Under my raincoat when it's raining or in a saddle bag when I'm riding a horse or any other variation.

                          When it comes to "high tech arms", could I legitimately drive an aircraft carrier or a Typhoon Class Sub WITHOUT training?  Probably not.

                          Since "licensing" has become a source of revenue and not for any other purpose, I'm against it.  Adrian Schoolcraft has revealed for us the actual truth.  Tickets aren't issued to curb a specific behavior but a method utilized by local municipalities to shake down their citizens, nothing else.

                          Registration will lead to confiscation, period.  It's already happening in California AND New York (where I live).

                          Let's make a deal, if you want these things, licensing and registration, then I'll agree if only it is also written that it has to be done only once a lifetime and that anything legally registered can NEVER be confiscated, voluntarily or compulsorily surrendered nor can those items be made illegal at some future date.

                          The only legitimate reason those lists can be accessed is to verify the information is correct.  They cannot be used for any other purpose.

                          -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                          by gerrilea on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 02:45:17 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for your reply, Gerrilea. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Glen The Plumber

                            I want to make sure I accurately understand your views, and that I'm not taking them out-of-context or misstatng them.

                            I think I got most of it, and I appreciate your clarity. These points were all clear to me (but please correct me if I still didn't get it right). Gerrilea, you think that:

                            * there should be mandatory training of all US high-school students on all arms commonly used by the military and police. Private training should be provided to those who don't graduate from high school, at public expense.
                            * this training should be a necessary and sufficient requirement to keep and bear any arms (except nuclear weapons).
                            * the only proof of training should be a printed card (or confirmation of high-school graduation, assuming it included the mandatory training in all legal weapons).
                            * those people without proof of training should not be allowed to own any firearm.
                            [Should their weapons be seized by the government, with criminal charges, or just a one-time fine and civil infraction? ]
                            * the arms should include all military and police weapons except for nuclear weapons.
                            [Beyond nuclear weapons, on which we all agree, this part was not clear to me, because in another comment in this same diary you said the Second Amendment should not cover explosive ordinance. Which is it? Basic military training in weapons includes e.g. grenades. http://www.army.mil/... Does the Second Amendment protect ownership of e.g. grenades, in your opinion? ]
                            * private ownership should be allowed of tanks, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, Typhoon-class submarines, etc., but only with further training requirements to ensure the owners know how to operate them.
                            [To afford expensive weapons, would you permit groups of individuals to share ownership of these weapons? ]
                            * protected arms should definitely include fully-automatic weapons. Basic US military training includes the use of machine guns such as the M240, M249, and M2 (.50 caliber machine gun, a.k.a. MA deuce); M67 grenades and M203 grenade launchers; and familiarization with anti-tank/armor weaponry and other heavy weapons. http://usarmybasic.com/... This same training should be mandatory for all high-school students.
                            * individuals should be able to buy, own, and sell all these weapons (except nuclear) without restriction. They should be able to carry them any way they wish, anywhere, concealed or open, without restriction.
                            * there should not be licensing of gun-owners, nor registration of guns.

                            Did I get that right? I'm just double-checking.

                            I'd appreciate clarification if not, and on the points where your views weren't clear to me, e.g. explosive ordinance, joint private-ownership of heavy weapons, the penalty for weapon-owners who didn't get training.

                            [Feel free to reply in a new comment, to avoid the squished margins and make it easier to read.]

                            Thanks again, much appreciated!

                          •  Let's see... (0+ / 0-)

                            My position is not inconsistent as you've seemed to imply.

                            Anyone today can own a Sherman tank, if you have the money.

                            Why would that be any different from an aircraft carrier or submarine?

                            Before the Federal Gov't decided to pay for training for the militia and giving them military supplies, the States did it themselves, NY had the largest Navy and best trained militia on the continent prior to the 1903 Dick Act.  IN fact, private citizens would bring their own cannons, their own ships, etc to be used.

                            Whatever the purpose of this "discussion is", the facts remain we did not grant the use of force or the instruments, exclusive privy to our creation.

                            If someone hasn't completed the required training, they shouldn't be prosecuted, they should be put through training, it's really simple.  The created "tool" our oppressors use today include "contempt of court" or a "contempt of a judge" and people can be put into jail indefinitely when they refuse to answer questions, etc.  I'd suppose we could create something similar, "contempt of the people" if they refuse to go through training.

                            I did place a legitimate offer on the table for "registration and licensing"...did you miss it?

                            Licensing and registration would be in perpetuity and the information contained within said database could only be accessed to verify the info.  No laws shall be passed that infringe on said right.  The Constitution is abundantly clear on that point.  No "arms" that were legal yesterday, can be made "illegal" today.  Do not tie the exercise of this right to any other form of oppression.  Say Congress doesn't want "We The People" to own Sherman Tanks, they could not then say we forgo any tax returns we may be entitled to or social benefits like food stamps.

                            I seriously don't know the items our gov't classifies as "ordnance" but I'm pretty sure the standard model has been that anything a person can carry was always acceptable, be it a grenade or grenade launcher. I do know that cannons are lawful to own as well. Again, my only exception would be nuclear, like the propaganda of "suitcase nukes" or dirty bombs.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:38:07 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks! (0+ / 0-)

                            I think I got it.

                            Just to be triple-sure, you're talking about tanks, jets, etc. with the weapons systems still enabled (excluding nuclear weapons of course), not disabled as in that WSJ article. Right?

                            And I'm pretty sure you'd see no objections to expensive weapons being jointly-owned, though you didn't say it explicitly.

                            Yep, I saw your comment above on registration and licensing, thanks. I was curious what your real preferences are (not what you'd be willing to negotiate on), hence my phrasing above.

                            Thanks again.

                          •  You see, I'm on outsider looking in here... (0+ / 0-)

                            My only "dog in this race" is the constitution. I've never owned a firearm...

                            Disabling the weapons systems seems to be counterproductive if we are to protect our nation, state or municipality.

                            Our creation has become something it was never designed to be...it has amassed too much power...it's time it were reigned in.  

                            The images of Kent State, the images of OWS, the shear brutality of our LEO today...

                            I'd make this deal with you.  Whatever "gun regulations" that are to be agreed upon are done so with the proviso that they apply to all Americans, including LEO and military.

                            If you ban an AK-47, do it across the board.  If the LEO are to be trained in "special ops", then we need accountability...such as a citizen review panel picked randomly from the citizenry with the power to indict.

                            The extremism on both sides needs to be neutered. The divisiveness of this topic has pushed people into ideological corners.

                            Our creation must follow the supreme law of the land, period.  If we believe it is lacking, then amend it.  Anything less is dangerous for all of us.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 10:59:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

              •  is this a new standard at Daily Kos..?? (4+ / 0-)

                RW gun nuts site links in the diary...and your Infowar's "news" story.

                in CA we funded law enforcement to confiscate guns only from people that cannot legally own them.

                these diaries get crazier everyday.

                We are not broke, we are being robbed. ~Shop Kos Katalogue~

                by Glen The Plumber on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:56:01 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Before you travel all the way down (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

          …this road:

          You do realize that President Obama issued an executive action about six months ago prohibiting military grade weapons from being distributed by any means in the United States?

          That's good until 2017, at least.

    •  If I have to defend myself from someone (10+ / 0-)

      who intends to harm or kill me, the last thing I want is for my rate of fire to be capped.

      (And yes, defensive uses of firearms occur more than you think.)

    •  The term is "suppressive fire" (4+ / 0-)

      The design and function of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines is to lay down suppressive fire. It is a military purpose and has no place in civilian life, not even in the hands of police.

      It's arguable that criminals like such weapons because more than 10 rounds can compensates for inability of a gun owner to train to shoot straight and to maintain focus when under threat.

      The argument the gun libertarians desperately need support for is their claim that civilians have a 2A right to lay down suppressive fire when they exercise their 2A right to keep and bear arms. I've yet to see any court decision finding that such a right exists.

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 11:42:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nor has anyone here... (5+ / 0-)

        ...made such an argument:

        The argument the gun libertarians desperately need support for is their claim that civilians have a 2A right to lay down suppressive fire when they exercise their 2A right to keep and bear arms.
        That being the case, you are arguing against statements not made.

        Seems rather a pointless argument, to me, to argue against things people aren't actually saying.  I have, however, seen such tactics used by those trying to avoid the arguments actually made by replying to something that they would have preferred someone to have made.

        Surely, however, that's not the case here.  Perhaps you were just bringing in an unrelated argument to show variety...

        "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

        by theatre goon on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:22:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'd like to hear your opinion, theatre goon, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          to help me understand your views on what RKBA bans are/aren't useless or Constitutional. E.g.:

          1) Should there be any legal cap on weapons' rate of fire? I.e., fully-automatic firearms (including shotguns), multi-barrel weapons, etc. If so, what are the Second Amendment arguments that justify this? (And what should the maximum rate of fire be?)

          2) Should the National Firearm Act (as revised) be overturned; and if so, overturned entirely or with the exception of its sections on destructive devices and explosive ordinance?

          3) In your opinion, does the Second Amendment protect the private ownership of explosive ordinance? If not, what Second Amendment arguments do you make for this exclusion of "the right to keep and bear arms"?

          4) Should mandatory training and certification be required for every weapon anyone owns? Who should do the certifying, who should have access to these records, and under what circumstances? Should weapons be seized from those people who lack proof of training?

          5) Does the definition of "arms" in the Second Amendment cover non-carried weapons, in your opinion? (i.e. breech-loading cannons, heavy machine guns, armored carriers, etc.) If not, on what Constitutional basis do you make this distinction?

          Thanks!

          •  I don't have a lot of time today... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            KVoimakas, Kasoru

            ...but I can give you a quick overview, with one caveat -- I  mean what I say and only what I say, attempts to try and make anything posted here into something it is not are simply putting words into my mouth, so to speak (not saying that you would do so, but there are those involved in the discussion who might do so, and, as stated, this is a very quick response).

            1.  I have nothing against regulating things such as automatic weapons, in and of itself.  My problem is with the current system in which it is largely a case of money being the arbiter of who can own what.  I would much prefer a system of training, in which things like automatic firearms require a much more rigorous standard of training to own -- not unlike the inevitable car/gun analogy, semi trucks require more training to operate.  Overly general, of course, but a quick overview.

            2.  See above.  Currently, apart from extensive background checks, the prices of NFA items are kept artificially high -- the rich can own them, most others can't.

            3.  No, ordnance is a different subject altogether.  Basically, explosives can be a danger by their very existence, with the possibility of "going off" if not properly stored, for instance.  This is not the case with firearms.

            4.  No, with the exceptions listed above.  Just like, say, the 1st Amendment protects the rights of free speech, the 2nd protects firearm ownership.  Running a radio station, of course, is highly regulated, and rightfully so -- which could, in my view, be analogous to, say, automatic weapons.  I do not support any sort of mandatory training or certification for the simple ownership of common firearms.

            5.  No, "arms" in this context does not, for instance cover crew-served weapons. Others have covered that distinction here, and I don't have time to go into it at the moment, but arms do not equate to ordnance.  That does not, however, mean that those should necessarily be illegal to own.  "Back in the day," privateers, privately-owned ships of war, could own cannons -- this was legal, but not necessarily Constitutionally-protected.

            Again, I realize this is just a quick overview, but you asked quite a few very broad questions.

            "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

            by theatre goon on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 07:31:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for your reply; (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon

              understood about the lack of time.

              When you have more time, perhaps in another diary, I'll be curious to hear what you think are the justifications provided in the Second Amendment for infringing on the right to keep and bear automatic arms, non-carried arms, cannons, ordinance, etc. I have not found a solid basis for these distinctions in the original intent of the Founders, including those who wrote the Second Amendment. (Same with explosive ordinance, for that matter, despite the low risk of it "going off" -- a rare event for most such devices. Ammo and black-powder can also "go off", e.g. if placed in a hot oven -- not moot, my great-grandmother did that once. ;-) No injuries, thank god.)

              Glad to hear you support the car/gun analogy, at least in some respects. I'll think more about the free-speech/radio analogy.

              I'll be curious to hear more about your opposition to mandatory training of common firearms like an AK47, but support of it for automatic weapons like a Class II Thompson submachine gun or short-barrel shotgun, how that line is drawn, and the Second Amendment basis for the distinction.

              I look forward to your more reflective replies when you have more time.

              •  A few quick points... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                ...while my lunch microwaves.  :-)  It may be disjointed, and it certainly won't reply to every point you raised.

                ...I'll be curious to hear what you think are the justifications provided in the Second Amendment for infringing on the right to keep and bear automatic arms, non-carried arms, cannons, ordinance, etc.
                Ordnance and arms are not the same, therefore, protections for arms do not necessarily extend to ordnance.  Further, all of our Civil Rights have limitations, I have never argued otherwise -- the arguments come in as to just where those limitations should end.  I tend towards more freedom for the people, others do not.

                Black powder is a very poor choice of an example of an explosive -- as you point out, it doesn't easily self-detonate.  It is also not particularly strongly regulated -- last time I bought a couple of pounds, all I had to show was a state ID.  TNT, on the other hand, is a whole other story, which can detonate if it is not stored properly, and therefore requires more training/licensing.

                I'll be curious to hear more about your opposition to mandatory training of common firearms like an AK47, but support of it for automatic weapons like a Class II Thompson submachine gun or short-barrel shotgun, how that line is drawn, and the Second Amendment basis for the distinction.
                For one thing, the civilian version of a AK47 is not an automatic weapon -- therefore, it should be quite clear that the two are not necessarily regulated the same way.  Further, perhaps I was unclear when referencing limitations on, for instance, automatic weapons.  I did not say that I support those regulations, only that I'm not against them.  In other words, it is what it is -- that is a regulation that's not going away, and it doesn't seem like it's worth the effort to fight it at this point.

                Automatic firearms require more training to use safely and effectively -- that is why I am not opposed to requiring more training to use them.  Semi-automatic firearms do not -- anyone following the basic rules of firearm safety are going to be fine (unless, of course, they are using them with criminal intent -- which is actually extremely rare for such firearms as AKs and ARs, therefore, no need to legislate specifically to that).

                Again, I realize this doesn't cover everything, but the microwave is beeping.  Eat and run.

                :-)

                "No amount of belief makes something a fact." --James Randi

                by theatre goon on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 09:51:22 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  AR-15s aren't used for 'suppressive fire' (4+ / 0-)

        or any other military purpose, as the civilian model is not and  has never been a military rifle.

        Nor do 'criminals like such weapons' as they, along with all other rifles are used in less than half the murders per year than even bare hands are.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:40:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Given that aimed fire wins the day, (0+ / 0-)

      Firing quickly and blindly makes noise, not hits.  

      I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

      by DavidMS on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:31:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes - that's the heart of the issue, rate of fire. (3+ / 0-)

      the semi-autos + high cap mags are basically machine guns.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:21:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  For example, the pistol grip below "the action" (3+ / 0-)

        - for newbs "the action" is where the bullet loaded into the chamber and is sitting when the firing pin hits it and it explodes.

        That's why it's called "bolt action" or "lever action."

        The pistol grip is not just cosmetic. It enables a shooter to control the weapon when firing in "spray" mode at the hip or in front of the shooter, or out the window of a moving vehicle.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:28:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  What's the point here? (4+ / 0-)

    So, a NY ban on this weapon is easily undermined by cosmetic changes. What is your opinion here? Do you think this is a good thing, or a bad thing? You call the law "idiotic" but is that because you object to the idea of banning these weapons, or you are troubled by how easily the ban can be neutered? I imagine your argument is implicit, but I'm not that bright.

    Is that a real poncho, or is that a Sears' poncho? - Frank Zappa

    by JoesGarage on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:09:50 AM PST

  •  Homicide has been trending downward since 1990 (11+ / 0-)

    According to the DOJ http://www.bjs.gov/...
    If we are trying to energize the tea party, sell more guns, and get Democrats unelected then feel good gun laws are a smashing success.

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:12:37 AM PST

  •  In other news - from Connecticut: (14+ / 0-)

    Thousands Flout New Gun Registrations

    Everyone knew there would be some gun owners flouting the law that legislators hurriedly passed last April, requiring residents to register all military-style rifles with state police by Dec. 31.

    But few thought the figures would be this bad.

    By the end of 2013, state police had received 47,916 applications for assault weapons certificates, Lt. Paul Vance said. An additional 2,100 that were incomplete could still come in.

    That 50,000 figure could be as little as 15 percent of the rifles classified as assault weapons owned by Connecticut residents, according to estimates by people in the industry, including the Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation. No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000.

    So in essence, since people that didn't register their guns are now criminals, specifically gun owning and utilizing criminals - the amount of gun crime in Connecticut has just skyrocketed.

    Good job with the law boys, good job all around.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:13:26 AM PST

  •  KV, did you see the pic of the modified AR-15 (9+ / 0-)

    circulating? I saw it on yahoo. It simply removed all if the handling & cosmetic features. Looks a little weird but is completely legal on NY.

    While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:22:23 AM PST

  •  Heh (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    88kathy, greengemini, LilithGardener

    It's bad enough being a single-issue poster. It's entirely another thing to be a single-issue poster in favor of devices made solely for the purpose of killing people. Not animals, not coke cans - people.

    Don't like my characterization? Deal with it. AR-15s exist to kill people. Want something to shoot at game, then get a bolt action or a shotgun. You can have all of those you want, I promise I won't try to take them away from you. And if you can't hit your target with more than five shots in a clip, then you really shouldn't be holding a gun in the first place.

    TX-17 (Bill Flores-R), TX Sen-14 (Kirk Watson-D), TX HD-50 (Celia Israel-D)

    by Le Champignon on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:25:05 AM PST

  •  "Cosmetics based bans", eh? (7+ / 0-)

    No gun for Tammy Faye Bakker?

    warning: snark probably above

    by NE2 on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:30:34 AM PST

  •  The Very Definition Of A "Feel Good" Measure (13+ / 0-)

    Politicians and activists get to pass something that they "feel good" about, but it does nothing to deter or solve the underlying problem connected to the crimes it's supposed to prevent.

    Assault Rifle vs. Hammer:

    The number of murders in the U.S. in 2011 committed with [all] rifles: 323 ... In 2011, more murders were committed by knives (1,694), hands, fists and feet (728) and blunt weapons such as clubs and hammers (496), according to FBI data.
    From a University of Pennsylvania study for the National Institute of Justice (the research, development and evaluation agency of the United States Department of Justice) on the federal assault weapons ban and gun violence between 1994 to 2003:
    "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence."
    •  Dancing around the issue. We are talking about (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

      20 children killed with a rifle and all RKBA says is that won't work, it wasn't me, my rights, my rights, my rights.

      Nothing should be done because it is statistically only 20.

      If RKBA knows so much, then what would work?

      Now they have the 2nd (safety net for sloppy) Amendment, and can't be infringed to actually treat their gun like a gun and not a video game controller.

      by 88kathy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:56:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  When your hammer can go across the field and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      hit your neighbor's kid as they play in their backyard pool we can talk, ok?

      When you cleaning your hammer accidentally kills your grandmother sleeping in the next room, then we can talk ok?

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Does rifles include muskets and shot guns? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

      Or is that just assault rifles? (Or whatever is the non-HR word is for them this week.)

      •  In any event, I agree that an assault rifle (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheFern, Glen The Plumber

        …ban will not lead to a reduction in violent incidents. Not for two decades at least.

        The focus on these guns, legislatively, is the massacre rate per incident -- something that hands and feet and hammers are not noted for. So, those "comparative stats" are profoundly silly, you must admit.

        Now the same stats responsibly presented would count the number of massacre deaths per each weapon/incident.

        If the issue was about single-shot kills, handguns would have been included. Hence the bogusosity.

        •  In DC - their original law made a measurable (4+ / 0-)

          difference within a decade.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:10:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, but it did take a decade. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

            I base the two decade figure on revised predictions because of the explosive growth of these weapons once the ban expired.

            Again, people don't really shoot these guns that much in common crimes, although they may be used as props.

            They are used generally in deliberate massacres -- at a school or mall or theater, camp grounds, sports event, other public places.

            Banning them will not cut down significantly on incidents of violent crimes -- just on the kill rate in massacres. But there have been some pretty successful kill rates with hand guns using bigass magazines. Especially in schools and confined areas, because you have to do close-up work to get the numbers up.

            •  Quite a few legal guns can be adapted to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pluto, Glen The Plumber

              accept very large capacity magazines and drums. The main problem is that they jam. A skilled shooter can go on a spree with 3 or 4, 30 round magazines or 9-12 10-round magazines.

              The former is just a lot easier to use in the adrenaline filled moments of the killing spree. Every time a magazine must be changed it's an opportunity for a bystander or the cops to intervene, or the shooter himself to fumble, drop the magazine, or for the magazine to not seat correctly, etc.

              It requires a lot of training and focus to change magazines  flawlessly under stressed conditions. Adam Lanza did what he did because he trained that way, he changed magazines before they were empty, and in so doing chose his moments to suit his own goals.

              Jared Longher didn't have the training and was tackled by an unarmed bystander when he fumbled with the next magazine.

              "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

              by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:58:48 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Magazines are easy to change under stress (0+ / 0-)

                Find some 3-gun videos or informal run and gun videos to prove the point.  

                Here is an example of shooting and changing magazines under mild stress:  https://www.youtube.com/...

                It does take extensive training to change magazines flawlessly.  It does not take extensive training to get muscle memory to be good enough.

                Pistols and UZI-like firearms are even easier to change magazines because you just need to bring your hands together to change magazines.  

                I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                by DavidMS on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:16:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Some experts agree with you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  and some experts disagree with you. It's all available in the affidavits and the case documents.

                  And not everyone has time to train the way Adam Lanza did.

                  Two massacres that were less deadly than they might have been are the one on a Long Island train and the Gabby Giffords shooting. In both of those incidents it was unarmed bystanders who intervened when the shooter fumbled the magazine.

                  Now I realize those are merely anecdotes.

                  YMMV

                  "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 08:55:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have based this on a few observations (0+ / 0-)

                    Firstly my own experience with detachable box magazines.  They are almost impossible to insert incorrectly and jam the action.  In pistols, you just bring your hands together.  In rifles its a bit more complicated as the magazine is typically forward of the trigger.  

                    Secondly, from watching youtube videos, anyone can fumble a magazine change under stress, even highly experienced competition shooters.  It does not happen often enough to be a reliable method of interrupting a spree shooter.  

                    Third, in the Gabby Giffords case, IIRC, the mentally disturbed young man was using a 33-round magazine and the magazine got hung up on his clothing allowing bystanders to overpower him.  The Long Island Train Massacre occurred in a railway coach.  There were plenty of people to overpower the shooter.  

                    I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

                    by DavidMS on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:48:28 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  Is that chery picking data? (0+ / 0-)

              IIRC, the DC murder rate seemed fairly stable until 86 when the crack epidemic hit.  Its pretty clear to me that small changes in small numbers produce big swings.  When the crack epidemic burned itself out and tetryl lead was no longer affecting as many children.  Crime rates started to plunge 20 years after Tetryl lead was banned from gasoline.  

              http://www.motherjones.com/...

              I'm a 4 Freedoms Democrat.

              by DavidMS on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:23:40 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Assault weapon has no single meaning - it's (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pluto, Glen The Plumber

          defined in the laws of several states in slightly different ways.

          The regulated features are usually those that
          a) make the weapon easier to conceal in public
          b) make the weapon easier to use without detection
          c) easier to control in rapid fire mode (spraying a gathering of voters or a classroom of children)
          d) easier to aim from the hip rather than from the shoulder.
          e) easier to evade the law by disassembly and interchanging parts.

          Quite a few of the regulated weapons can easily be converted so that they can fire in nearly full auto mode.

          "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

          by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:51:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  No, rifles and shotguns and muskets are all (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber, coquiero

        different kinds of long guns.

        Not to be confused with handguns (of which there are various kinds).

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:09:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  rifles have rifling...assault weapons are a (4+ / 0-)

        type of rifle.

        We are not broke, we are being robbed. ~Shop Kos Katalogue~

        by Glen The Plumber on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:35:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  They people who propose these don't care. (9+ / 0-)

    The politicians get their name in the paper and get to be seen as "doing something" even if it is expensive, pointless, and infringes on rights.

    The rabid anti-gun people get to be gleefull and pretend to have a victory while they just enjoy making gun-owners lives more difficult.

    The press is happy as it has news to print.

    None of these groups are motivated to care at all about longterm consequences, how meaningless the legislation is, that it won't have the effects touted but will have negative ones, or anything else.

    The danger of posting things like this is it angers the rabid anti-gun people because it intrudes into their pretend belief that they are doing good and stirs them to push for legislation there aren't 1,000 ways around.

  •  It's time to get on the same page as each other (3+ / 0-)

    I think these cosmetic bans do the same thing as mandatory minimums for drug offenses.  That is, it's a way for politicians to show that they are "tough on " but it doesn't actually affect gun sales, much less gun crime.  As we've seen time and again, the manufacturers will just find ways to make weapons which comply with the law as written.  

    However, I have asked several friends who are passionate about gun ownership and it's a difficult question to ask of them:  we all believe that there are certain individuals who should be barred from owning guns.  By what criteria can we create laws which keep guns out of the hands of these individuals without infringing on the 2nd amendment?  My main question on this is:  since gun registration is a non-starter, what methods can we possibly use to prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands?  And as a follow up to that, what can we do to take the guns out of the hands of individuals who turn out not to take their responsibility seriously?   The retired LEO in Florida who recently killed a man texting before a movie comes to mind, as do the vast number of domestic abusers who kill their partners once the partners stand up for themselves.

    My personal preference is for an Australian style series of laws in which a valid reason for owning a weapon must be given before purchasing, the gun must be registered to the state (similarly to how we operate vehicles) and of course the requisite background checks and other trainings.  This, coupled with a massive buyback as they did in Australia, would at least change the gun culture from one of "everything goes" to one of hopefully thoughtful consideration on the merits of gun ownership.  Unfortunately, this would require a lot of maturity on the gun lobby's part to admit that there is a problem, much less work towards finding solutions which are based on reality, and not just "good guy/bad guy" lip service to the idea.

    •  We do have the constitution to contend with (9+ / 0-)

      don't we?

      an Australian style series of laws in which a valid reason for owning a weapon must be given before purchasing
      The only valid reason required is that I'm an American with preexisting rights.  The Aussie's are not, aren't they still subjects of the Crown?

      Rights are not based on need.  How do you change that without changing the very intent of the constitution itself?  Or changing the very reason we came together and agreed upon said treaty?

      Our government does not grant me a thing, We The People grant it it's very existence and limit its authority.

      And, as a non-gun owner, I will not become a subject arbitrarily granted privileges.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:29:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't need an arbitrarily decided "need" (6+ / 0-)

      for any Right & I don't intend to start now.

      I have as low of an opinion of Australian's gun policies as I have for how they decide their Head of State.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:03:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Flip the question around (8+ / 0-)

      How would registration accomplish this goal either?

      I don't see where it does anything toward that end.  The only end I can see for it is much more insidious.

      Personally, I don't think it is possible to legislate your way into a safe society.  It is like computer security.  The only secure computer is one that is unplugged, has no power, and locked in a vault.  It simply isn't possible to legislate away crime and violence which are problems that require much more holistic solutions.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:35:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mostly agree (0+ / 0-)

      A ban on cosmetic features is silly.

      As for the last para --- need? no, too arbitrary.  registration?  yes.  Background check, etc?  yes  Buyback?  not on national scale, but local organizations should be able to have buyback programs

      •  Propaganda = "merely cosmetic features" (4+ / 0-)

        So far 3 courts have studied these laws and found that the reasons given for regulating them have a lot more to it than simply cosmetic features.

        Back in 1993 Colt stopped making the Assault Rifle series because it was the preferred weapon of criminal gangs. The following year management was replaced and they resumed production.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:31:12 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where did you pull the statement about Colt? nt (5+ / 0-)
        •  LG, I'd be interested in seeing the source ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, Glen The Plumber, DavidMS

          ... doc's, if you can point me in the right direction.    

          •  I'm sorry I can't remember where I read that (4+ / 0-)

            I searched briefly on Colt history and can't easily place my hands on the reference. It was somewhere in my journey researching the M16, I think.

            These are some highlights I recall off the top of my head.
            1) Sam Colt successful inventor, war profiteer
            2) Patent on first revolver
            3) Bought design for AR15 from Armalite
            4) Developed the military M16 from the Armalite design
            5) First manufacturing in NJ, (Patterson?)
            strike crippled the company late 80s
            6) lost a military contract late 80s
            7) separated the civilian and military businesses (can't recall when)
            8) early 90s bankruptcy
            9) discontinued AR line, (might have testified in Congress? 1993)
            9) 1994 new management, resume production of AR

            I'm sorry that I can't recall where I read that they stopped making civilian ARs because they thought it was the weapon of choice for criminal gangs. I could be misremembering; it stuck in my mind because that is the same time period when testimony and political action lead eventually to passage of the Brady Act. Remember that before 1994 there were no background checks.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:57:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Pretty impressive for off the top of your head. (3+ / 0-)

              This should give KV enough to go on to look further if he wants.  

              What I was hoping for was a pointer to any of the three court cases about the "cosmetic" features.  I should have been clearer in my request.  

              •  Oh, here are links for you (4+ / 0-)

                Re the M16, I know the rifle intimately. You place the charging handle on your nose and good shooting technique means the charging handle never leaves your nose once placed. The military included a lot of hurry up and wait so we passed the time with games like competing to see who could disassemble/reassemble the M16 the fastest. I could probably still do that blindfolded, but probably not in under 2 minutes any more.

                From my upcoming diary on Summary Judgment:

                Heller II - DC Circuit Ct of Appeals, Oct 4, 2011

                GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: In June 2008 the Supreme Court held the District of Columbia laws restricting the possession of firearms in one’s home violated the Second Amendment right of individuals to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570. In the wake of that decision, the District adopted the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 (FRA), D.C. Law 17-372, which amended the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, D.C. Law 1-85. The plaintiffs in the present case challenge, both facially and as applied to them, the provisions of the District’s gun laws, new and old, requiring the registration of firearms and prohibiting both the registration of “assault weapons” and the possession of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds of ammunition. The plaintiffs argue those provisions (1) are not within the District’s congressionally delegated legislative authority or, if they are, then they (2) violate the Second Amendment.

                The district court granted summary judgment for the District and the plaintiffs appealed. We hold the District had the authority under D.C. law to promulgate the challenged gun laws, and we uphold as constitutional the prohibitions of assault weapons and of large-capacity magazines and some of the registration requirements. We remand the other registration requirements to the district court for further proceedings because the record is insufficient to inform our resolution of the important constitutional issues presented.


                New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Cuomo, (Western Dist. New York, Dec. 31, 2013, hereinafter NYSRPA.)

                III. DISCUSSION

                A. Legal Standards

                The various motions pending before this Court implicate two Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rules 12(b)(1) and 56.6

                Rule 12(b)(1) applies to Defendants’ jurisdictional arguments. […]

                Both Plaintiffs and Defendants seek summary judgment. Under Rule 56, the plaintiff generally must produce evidence substantiating his claim, and the court can grant summary judgment only “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any
                material fact.” [ ]  A fact is “material” if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law.” [ ]  A “genuine” dispute exists “if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” In determining whether a genuine dispute regarding a material fact exists, the evidence and the inferences drawn from the evidence “must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” [ ]  When both parties move for summary judgment, “each party's motion must be examined on its own merits, and . . . all reasonable inferences must be drawn against the party whose motion is under consideration.” [ ]

                The function of the court is not “to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” [ ]  Nonetheless, “disputed legal questions present nothing for trial and are appropriately resolved on a motion for summary judgment.” [ ]

                ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
                [Footnote] 6 Defendants also move to dismiss at least one aspect of this case under Rule 12(b)(6). In their original memorandum, Defendants sought to dismiss the four business plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims because, as they argue, the business plaintiffs do not have Second Amendment rights. But Defendants abandoned this argument in their reply memorandum, and, regardless, resolution of this contention would not affect the outcome of this case, as explained below. Accordingly, this Court need not recount the Rule 12(b)(6) standard here.

                [ internal citations omitted ]


                Shew v Malloy (Dist. of Connecticut, Jan. 30, 2014)

                STANDARD

                A motion for summary judgment may be granted “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” [ ] Summary judgment is appropriate if, after discovery, the nonmoving party “has failed to make a sufficient showing on an  essential element of [its] case with respect to which [it] has the burden of proof.” [ ] “The burden is on the moving party ‘to demonstrate the absence of any material factual issue genuinely in dispute.’” [ ]

                A dispute concerning a material fact is genuine “if evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” [ ] The court must view all inferences and ambiguities in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. [ ] “Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence is summary judgment proper.” [ ]

                [ internal citations omitted ]


                "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

                by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:54:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Still not finding any source for this statement: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon
                Back in 1993 Colt stopped making the Assault Rifle series because it was the preferred weapon of criminal gangs.
      •  Buybacks are good for raising awareness and (4+ / 0-)

        for getting people to clean out their closet and turn in that old gun, that probably seldom every left the house.

        And buybacks are good as a kind of amnesty program.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:10:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  I think this says everything (5+ / 0-)

    that needs to be said:

    Now I'm not a big fan of the following website (some right wingy nutjob stuff), but I can't find a better source out there
    When your best source of support for your views is a right wingy nutjob website, perhaps it's time to reconsider those views.  If I start quoting Fred Phelps' website to support my views on gay rights, or James Taranto's articles to support me views on campus rape, or Glenn Beck's website to support my views on economic theory, I trust that those views would get me HR'ed into oblivion.

    And, by the way, if "cosmetic" bans are meaningless, why do RKBAers get so upset about them?  

  •  A long time ago I was a survey party chief. (14+ / 0-)

    I learned a lot of lessons about leadership sitting in a survey truck.  One was: don't make rules that won't be obeyed and can't be enforced.  Doing so just diminishes your authority and thus your ability to lead.

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:09:07 AM PST

    •  Wow, exactly what I've always believed. (9+ / 0-)

      We're at the precipice of the law becoming illegitimate and immaterial in the majority of Americans lives.  When that line is crossed, its going to be a free-for-all.  

      Examples abound too...the rich and well connected are rarely prosecuted for their crimes.  Crimes if we committed them,  we'd be in jail until hell freezes over.

      It's "capitalism" for the poor and "socialism" for the wealthy. "The law is for thee, not for me!"

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 09:35:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NY Safe Act is a bipartisan bill (6+ / 0-)

    NY's new gun law has many flaws as do most laws born of political compromise. NY state politics are no different than any other state in mixed Dem/GOP control.

    The NY Safe Act was passed by a Republican controlled state Senate, a Democratic controlled state Assembly, and signed by a Democratic legacy asshole Governor, Andrew Cuomo.

    The most under-reported fly in this ointment is the bipartisan nature of the Assault weapons bills passed in both Connecticut and New York.

    That's right. Bipartisan.

    Does anyone really think that NY voters upset about this "idiotic" bill will punish their Republican State Senate reps who voted for this bill and vote Democrat or just stay home?

    What will they do if their mad enough? Primary from the Tea Party right, perhaps?

    Does anyone fail to see where I'm going with this argument?

    "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

    by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:12:15 AM PST

    •  re: "was passed by a Republican controlled" (8+ / 0-)

      Supporting people's rights should not be a Rep / Dem, or a Left/Right issue.  It should be a non issue and it should be a given.

      In my view, it has taken some really loose flying with the highest principles upon which this country was founded to justify and support the NY Safe act.  Unfortunately, such actions are not a Rep / Dem issue.

      Just in case the the meaning of last sentence isn't clear to everyone, I am saying that Democrats. if for no other reason than good old right and wrong, should stand on principles even if the R's don't.  That includes the principles in the Constitution.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:54:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  AW laws - upheld as constitutional 3x so far (6+ / 0-)

        I understand your argument, and respectfully disagree with your interpretation of what the 2A right includes.

        The NRA/ALEC/gun libertarian activists seem to have built their whole argument on the notion that "in common use at the time" makes the whole category a protected class of arms under Heller and that means "I can have any gun I want" without any regulations whatsoever.

        Hint to the author - if you can't do better research than drive traffic to a right wing nut job website, you are skating on really thin ice.

        You need better arguments.
        Anyone willing to engage in sincere dialogue can consult documents filed in federal courts as activists challenge these types of laws. (Affidavits, expert reports, Amicus Briefs).

        So far 3 separate District Courts have considered evidence and have found that, Yes, assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are commonly owned and used for self-defense, hunting, and sport.

        Western District of New York (Dec 31, 2013 )
        "[T]his Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act — including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on large-capacity magazines — further the state’s important interest in public safety, and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights.[...] [T]he seven-round limit fails the relevant test because the purported link between the ban and the State’s interest is tenuous, strained, and unsupported in the record." ---- Federal Judge Skretny summarizing his decision
        The corresponding assault weapons law in DC has already been upheld at the Appeals Court level. Heller II - DC Circuit Ct. of Appeals (Oct 4, 2011).

        Those of us you who want to build a persuasive argument for your broader conception of 2A constitutional rights to  need to develop better arguments instead of relying on right wing nut job websites/NRA/ALEC for material to support your deeply cherished ideas.

        "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

        by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 11:14:12 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are a couple things I find troubling (6+ / 0-)

          about this line of cases.

          First, they employ intermediate scrutiny when strict scrutiny is usually the standard employed regarding laws alleged to violate a Constitutional right.  Second, these cases typically have been decided on motions (i.e., competing affidavits and briefs), not on full blown trials on the merits, so the evidentiary basis is weaker than it would be following a trial.  The evidentiary basis for the argument that, for example, AWB's are substantially related to the government's interest in reducing crime is really quite weak when one looks at the statistics showing that modern sporting rifles are used in very few crimes.  Whereas handguns are the firearms most likely to be used in crime, and handgun bans are unconstitutional under Heller and McDonald.

          It would be interesting to see how SCOTUS responds to a case involving an AWB.

          •  The issues in play (3+ / 0-)

            1) are regulating features that enhance a capacity to kill many people very quickly without reloading.

            The 10 round limits are upheld in part based on an argument that stopping to reload provides an opportunity for a) people to escape, b) people nearby to intervene, c) police to intervene. There's proof for all three parts of that argument.

            2) are limiting features that make weapons easier to conceal.

            3) there remain thousands of other options for self-defense, hunting and sport.

            Heller did not assert that everyone has a right to any weapon  to be used in any manner, whatsoever, without any regulation.

            And yes, the laws have to be details otherwise it's impossible to have jury instructions that make juries can use to decide if someone broke the law. That's a classic conundrum in many other kinds of laws. Be specific enough, but specificity means that creative people will find loopholes to circumvent the intent of the law.

            "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

            by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 12:41:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is wrong: (3+ / 0-)
            First, they employ intermediate scrutiny when strict scrutiny is usually the standard employed regarding laws alleged to violate a Constitutional right.
            I've heard this same thing from so many RKBA'ers and nothing could be further from the truth.
            Given that the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the “fundamental right” to possess arms in defense of the home, some courts have reasoned that strict scrutiny should apply to gun laws.27 These courts usually argue that fundamental rights automatically trigger strict scrutiny. Descriptively, the courts are wrong; in numerous areas of constitutional doctrine the Supreme Court has held that a right is “fundamental” but that some other, lesser standard of review applies.28 Although nearly all of the Bill of Rights has been applied to the states on the grounds that the rights involved were “fundamental,” strict scrutiny is
            only applied in cases arising under the First and Fifth Amendment in the Bill.29 Strict scrutiny is not applied in cases arising under the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, or Tenth Amendments. Even in the First and Fifth Amendments, strict scrutiny is only used selectively, with less demanding standards applied to, among other things, restrictions on commercial speech, content-neutral speech laws, sex discrimination, generally applicable laws burdening the free exercise of religion, and takings of property.
            Although strict scrutiny is often called “„strict‟ in theory and fatal in fact,”30 to date no court applying strict scrutiny under the Second Amendment has invalidated a gun control law.
            http://www.acslaw.org/...

            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

            by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:57:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is an area we're going to have to (0+ / 0-)

          agree to disagree.  I don't believe that the NY gun laws are legitimate and I don't consider the rulings that it has been subject to so far as being legitimate because they come from what I would call prejudiced, activist, judges.  It hasn't been subject to the full gauntlet yet, and I suspect that if it is, it will fall.  At best, I would consider it a State issue, but the "gun control" side has already broken this line.

          Regarding "you need better arguments", no, I do not, nor am I relying upon " right wing nut job websites/NRA/ALEC for material".  I am not a gun activist and I don't own any guns.  The 2nd is no more sacred to me than any other. I support ALL rights as spelled out in the Constitution.  I believe that they all stand, or they all fall, together and I am VERY concerned about what has been happening to them over the last few decades.

          This is why I don't support gun control any more than I support abortion, contraceptive, marijuana, or marriage control.  I don't believe one gets to pick and choose which liberties and freedoms they agree with and that it is OK to try to restrict those that they don't like.

          It is time for the Democratic party to live up to its namesake and put the power in "We The People".  Attempts to legislate morality, regardless of its form, is contrary to this endeavor.  I believe that attempting to do so costs elections.  Which it should.

          "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

          by blackhand on Thu Feb 13, 2014 at 08:41:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Thus far (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Glen The Plumber

        NYSAFE has been upheld as Constitutional.

        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

        by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:39:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  piecework legislation red-taped by lawyers (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    OTOH who doesn't want a grenade launcher for celebrating New Years Eve

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:20:15 AM PST

  •  is that a protruding pistol grip or are you just (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndieGuy, LilithGardener

    glad to see me

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013 (@eState4Column5).

    by annieli on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 10:21:11 AM PST

  •  T & R for conversation (6+ / 0-)

    And for marking the rare occasion in which I agree with you.  ;-)

  •  That's an ugly AR15 in the link (3+ / 0-)

    I've never been too fond of the AR15 style of rifle, but that rifle grip AR15 is the stupidest looking thing I've ever seen.

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 04:04:04 PM PST

  •  Yes, you've called NYSAFE idiotic (5+ / 0-)

    and you've also called it unconstitutional. There's a heck of a lot in NYSAFE beyond "cosmetics". And a Federal judge has also ruled it is Constitutional:

    Ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds: UPHELD

    Previously legal "pre-1994-ban" magazines with a capacity of 30 rounds are not exempt, and must be sold within one year to an out-of-state resident or turned in to local authorities. UPHELD

    Ammunition dealers are required to do background checks, similar to those for gun buyers. Dealers are required to report all sales, including amounts, to the state. Internet sales of ammunition are allowed, but the ammunition will have to be shipped to a licensed dealer in New York state for pickup. Ammunition background checks will begin January 15, 2014. - UPHELD

    Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state. Registry began on April 15, 2013 and must be completed before April 15, 2014. - UPHELD

    Broadens definition of "assault weapon" from two identified features to one. The sale and/or transfer of newly defined assault weapons is banned within the state, although sales out of state are permitted. Possession of the newly defined assault weapons is allowed only if they were possessed at the time that the law was passed, and must be registered with the state within one year. - UPHELD

    Requires background checks for all gun sales, including by private sellers - except for sales to members of the seller's immediate family. - UPHELD

    Guns must be "safely stored" from any household member who has been convicted of a felony or domestic violence crime, has been involuntarily committed, or is currently under an order of protection. - UPHELD

    Bans the Internet sale of assault weapons. - UPHELD

    Increases sentences for gun crimes, including upgrading the offense for taking a gun on school property from a misdemeanor to a felony. -  UPHELD

    Requires pistol permit holders or owners of registered assault weapons to have them renewed at least every five years. UPHELD

    Allows law enforcement officials to pre-emptively seize one's firearms without a warrant or court order when there is probable cause the individual is mentally unstable or intends to use the weapons to commit a crime. UPHELD

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 05:54:10 PM PST

    •  That's an informative diary right there - thanks! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero, fcvaguy, Glen The Plumber

      "The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.” — William Arthur Ward

      by LilithGardener on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 06:19:01 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fantastic. We'll see what SCOTUS says when it (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      theatre goon, DavidMS

      gets there.

      •  Of course (3+ / 0-)

        But, remember... Even Scalia believes in restrictions which you do not.

        KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

        by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:43:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  to wit... (3+ / 0-)
          like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
          Scalia

          KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

          by fcvaguy on Wed Feb 12, 2014 at 07:46:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site