Chuck Schumer, Michael Bloomberg Seek To Bolster Gun Checks

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has announced legislation that would require all gun buyers to undergo a background check and increase penalties for states that fail to comply.

Schumer made the announcement on Wednesday alongside New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, co-chair of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, who recently launched a campaign to raise national awareness regarding flaws the coalition of 550 U.S. mayors sees in the federal system of background checks for firearm purchases.

"Two of the most heinous acts of gun violence in the last four years were perpetrated by individuals, who under the law, should have absolutely no access to a gun," said Schumer in a statement. "Despite this fact, lax reporting by states and federal agencies has allowed guns to get into the hands of dangerous individuals with consequences that have been tragic and deadly. This legislation does nothing to impinge upon gun owners' rights, but it does provide greater incentive for reporting individuals who should not have access to guns to a national do-not-sell list."

Under Schumer's legislation, all gun sales, including those by private sellers, would be subject to a background check, effectively closing the so-called gun-show loophole.

The legislation would also require that states submit a higher percentage of their records on individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Financial penalties for states that fail to comply with the background check system would be increased: instead of having 3 percent of federal justice funds cut, as is currently the law, non-compliers would face a 25 percent cut in federal justice funds by 2018.

"I think these efforts are long overdue, but, given the strength of the gun lobby and the Republican House, it will be difficult to get passed," Ian Bartrum, professor of constitutional law at Drake Law School, told HuffPost in an interview Wednesday evening.

The bill, which is still in the process of being drafted, does not currently have any co-sponsors.

Comments

[Rooster Coburn]

06:25 PM on 03/01/2011

A far more serious issue is why New York does not recognize it's obligation to provide it's own citizens with the option of obtaining a "shall issue" concealed carry permit and recognize the legally issued permits of all the other states.

[niteklubber]

07:35 PM on 03/01/2011

Is that appraisal of New York City's laws the consensus among Floridian gun-mongers?

[legaleagle 45]

11:42 PM on 02/28/2011

rblackbird asked what I thought was protected by the 2nd. I replied that it protects the fundamental rights of self preservation and the right to resis oppression. Two different fundamental rights protected by the right to arms which appears in the 2nd. One is purely an individual right whichis exercised individually to protects ones life. The first law of nature, self defense. Yhe other is also an individual right but one which musr be exercised collectively, in much the same way that the individual right to peaceably assemble can be exercised collectively. It was both an individual duty and an individual right. The foregoing is an expostion of that individual right which is exercised collectively given on July 24, 1780, the Recorder of London (an office comparable to chief magistrate of the City) on the right to bear arms:

"The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defence, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace. "

Continued...

[legaleagle 45]

11:52 PM on 02/28/2011

Continued

"And that this right, which every Protestant most unquestionably possesses individually, may, and in many cases must, be exercised collectively, is likewise a point which I conceive to be most clearly established by the authority of judicial decisions and ancient acts of parliament, as well as by reason and common sense.

From the proposition, that the possession and the use of arms, to certain purposes, is lawful, it seems to follow, of necessary consequence, that it cannot be unlawful to learn to use them (for such lawful purposes) with safety and effect.

The lawful purposes, for which arms may be used, besides immediate self-defence, are, the suppression of violent and felonious breaches of the peace, the assistance of the civil magistrate in the execution of the laws, and the defence of the kingdom against foreign invaders. Whenever these occasions occur, the use of arms becomes not only the right, but the duty, of every Protestant able to bear them."

The militia right, the posse comitatus, the hue and cry all elements wound together into a right-duty which exemplified full membership in the body politic. and which gives substance beyond mere self defense to the Blackstonian right to arms. It is not an issue of this or that... one or the other. It has been and always will be both. A right-duty which can only be realized by full recognition of the individual right to arms... and that is what it is all about.

[niteklubber]

11:31 PM on 03/02/2011

Could someone spare me a tissue?

[legaleagle 45]

02:58 PM on 02/28/2011

rblackbird wrote down thread: "Originally­, the formation of a militia was seen as necessaril­y based on those in the community who had arms. No arms, no militia."

Yet the converse was not true. The duty to have arms extended beyond those members of the militia. The standard rule for colonial law was to require

"That every Freeholder and taxable Person residing in this Government (except such as are hereafter excepted) shall, on or before the First Day of March next, provide himself with the following Arms and Ammunition, viz. One well fixed Musket or Firelock, one Cartouch-Box, with Twelve Charges of Gun-Powder and Ball therein, and Three good Flints" Laws of the Government of New-Castle, Kent and Sussex Upon Delaware (1740).

Yet not all Freeholder and taxable Person were mebers of the militia. The Delaware statute limited membership to all "Male Persons, above Seventeen and under Fifty Years of Age". Id.

This was true even with the ancient Assize of Arms.

"Moreover, every free layman who possesses chattels or rents to the value of 16m. shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every free layman possessing chattels or rents to the value of 10m. shall have a hauberk, an iron cap, and a lance". The Assize of Arms of 1181.

The reason is obvious. Not all persons in the militia could afford arms. In the event of an emergency, the arms of non militia members could be employed.

More

[legaleagle 45]

03:26 PM on 02/28/2011

The traditional method of making the militia a moot point, was not to disarm the militia, but was to first disarm the people as a whole... for so long as the people have their personal arms, they have the capacity to form a militia.

King James II understood this. He did not disarm the protestants because he did not want them to defend themselves from an attack by a robber. He disarmed them because he feared they would join forces as a militia to oppose his rule.

George Mason understood this as well:

"What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies! An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." 3 ELLIOTS DEBATES 380(Virginia Ratifying Convention, SATURDAY, June 14, 1788).

More to the point, an individual right to arms unconnected to membership in a well regulated militia provides the protections against the actual abuses the framers of the 2nd Amend envisioned with respect to the militia clauses in the Constitution. A version that restricts the right to members of the militia is entirely illusory and provides no such protections.

[legaleagle 45]

09:07 AM on 02/28/2011

rblackbird wrote down thread: "The right of an individual to carry guns for self-defen­se is a personal right. The right to form a militia is a community right."

Consider, for a moment, an individual right connected to service in the militia. Most people would not initially consider a "duty" to serve in the militia to be a right, however there are other "rights" that also have a component of "duty" attached to them--- a right-duty--. Voting is a valuable individual right, but also a civic duty. The closest analog to the militia is the institution of a jury.

The primary purpose of a jury is to insert the voice of the people into the judicial institutions of our country so as to form a barrier against over zealous prosecutors and the unfair application of laws against individual defendants. A jury is composed of our peers, consisting of a cross section of the community and representing their values.

A militia is similar to a jury in that it represents the voice of the people into the military institutions of our country. A militia was seen as a barrier to the unlawful or over zealous use of military force as against the people. Just as a jury may employ "nullification" in rare instances where the strict application of law may result in an injustice, a militia may refuse to use force against their friends, their neighbors and their fellow citizens. A militia "nullification" so to speak.

More...

[legaleagle 45]

09:33 AM on 02/28/2011

Continued from above...

The milita is in contradistinction to a professional army. A professional army in the era before the Napoleonic Wars was viewed quite differently than it is today. It was more akin to a mercernary force consisting of professional soldiers who owed their allegance primarily to the person or person who paid them. Such a force was viewed with suspicion. Thus, the provision in the English Bill of Rights: "That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law". A similar provision can be found in our own Constitution: " Congress shall have the power to... To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years" Article I, Sec 8, Cl 12.

The framers believed that "a well regulated militia" was the best defense of a free state, as opposed to the reliance upon a professional army for that pupose. That is the reason for the insertion of that declaration within the 2nd Amend. If you research the provisions offered by the state ratifying conventions you will see this more clearly. The provision proffered by Virginia is an example.

More...

[legaleagle 45]

09:51 AM on 02/28/2011

Continued...

The Virginia proposal is as follows:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit."

A fair reading of the above provision clearly shows three independent clauses. I believe the militia clause and the standing army clause clearly demonstrate a "this is preferred over that" approach. Such a structure is common in the proposals for amendments proffered by the states. Militias were the preferred defense force, while standing armies were viewed with suspiscion... a necessary evil valuable in times of war, but to be constantly under survellance from our elected officials.

With that in mind, a militia was composed of "the whole body of the people". What is meant by this terminology was that the members of the militia represented a fair and full cross section of the people. A "select militia" composed of only certain classes of the people, or certain political leanings of the people was also viewed with suspiscion. Such a force was created by James II in an effort to supress his political opponents.... Notice the similarities in composition to the jury and the militia.

More...

[kingbarry]

09:35 PM on 02/27/2011

Why haven't they also called for knife checks and fire checks both of which also ki11 people

[niteklubber]

11:50 PM on 02/27/2011

What, in your appraisal, would constitute a "knife check"? How about a "fire check"?

[grossmont325]

12:10 AM on 02/28/2011

guffy--sorry to tell you--snark will shorten the life of this screen name

[grossmont325]

12:11 AM on 02/28/2011

and guffy--your demand for a bureau of precrime is impossible and unConstitutional

[ScorpioTop]

12:41 AM on 03/01/2011

The discussion is about guns, not knives.

[niteklubber]

11:38 AM on 03/01/2011

It seems more about pedantic deflection to me.

[grossmont325]

12:09 PM on 03/01/2011

except of course knives are included in the definition of arms--and I am still waiting for the 30 or 40 SCOTUS cases that contradict Heller

[legaleagle 45]

10:23 AM on 02/27/2011

rblackbird­ rote down thread: "Curious. Anyway, I still do not think the lawyers would have relied on Blackstone­"

Big mistake generally. Blackstone was highly influential during the revolutionary period and extending thereafter. In fact, he was more influential in the Colonies than in England.

During the Virginia Ratifying Convention (and I will need to paraphrase from memory), Madison remarked during the debates that "I note that everyman here has his copy of Blackstone".

[niteklubber]

11:16 AM on 02/27/2011

I think that we're all pretty much up to speed on James ll, poachers, the English Bill and Blackstone. Only one question remains, for me, at least, with regard to how all this relates to keeping guns out of the hands of future Loughners. Which one of the three shells is hiding the pea?

[legaleagle 45]

11:29 AM on 02/27/2011

That pea is hidden under the Blackstone shell and deals with what it means to be part of the "body politic". That, in turn requires an examination of the "Test Laws", the concept of civil death which accompanies a felony conviction, the civil disabilities of minors and the civil disabilities of the insane... all of which are treated in depth in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.

You can read all about it here:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp

[legaleagle 45]

06:58 PM on 02/26/2011

For rblackbird:

The historical context of the English Bill of Rights will explain the nature of the protection intended by its provisions. In 1671 Parliament passed a Game Act which provided that "persons, not having Lands and Tenements of the clear yearly value of One hundred pounds ... are ... not allowed to have or keep... any Guns." The avowed purpose of the Game Act was to prevent poaching, but the effect of the Act was to make the owning of firearms illegal for the vast majority of the population. James II used the Game Act as a ruse to systematically disarm his political opponents, while at the same time creating a select militia, manned by his supporters, in order to insure the security of his throne. This directly led to the “Glorious Revolution” and the accession of William and Mary to the throne. However, their accession was made conditional to their ratification of the English Bill.

Some things to note. The law bing employed made it unlawful to KEEP a gun. It has been suggested by many scholars that this is the origin of the keep terminology found in the 2nd. It is also important to note that the object of the disarmament campaign was the private arms of individuals which would be employed in hunting during a more peaceful era, as the supposed purpose of the Act was to curtail poaching. It did not seek to disarm the militia.

[rblackbird]

11:19 PM on 02/26/2011

I am not sure where in the string of comments this post will appear. But thanks to all who accorded me such courtesy, and to legaleagle45 for his posting of "faved."

The discussion of the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights is, I believe, not material to a discussion of the Second Amendment. I agree with your historical recitation. However, what was at stake at that time was the right of self-defense for Protestants. James II's law destroyed the ability of Protestant persons to act in self-defense. Self-defense is a basic human right, and the English Bill of Rights made that clear. This history underwrites my view that the Heller case reached the right result, but for the wrong reason.

The DC ordinance, preventing everyone from owning guns, including those law-abiding citizens who wanted to provide for their self-defense, was absurd. Its application to the plaintiff, who wanted to keep a gun in his house for protection, was preposterous.

I maintain that the right of self-defense is a matter of substantive due-process. Refusal to allow a person, particularly a highly-qualified firearms user and police officer, to take reasonable steps to defend himself is a violation of substantive due process. This concept applies to rights not enumerated in the Constitution, but which are essential to freedom. Out of this doctrine came the right of privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut which overturned restrictions on birth control and eventually, abortion.

[grossmont325]

11:48 PM on 02/26/2011

Since the people writing our BOR referenced Blackstone's--it appears you are less informed than you claim. In terms of Richard Heller, in most areas outside of DC, he would be called an armed guard, and in terms of training--as an Army vet, I am as well trained (probably better--and yes I am also trained as an armed guard)--although I am glad you agree that the Heller case came to the right conclusion

[legaleagle 45]

02:32 AM on 02/27/2011

rblackbird wrote: "The discussion of the Glorious Revolution and the English Bill of Rights is, I believe, not material to a discussion of the Second Amendment"

I believe you are wrong. First look at the wording of the 2nd Amend. The right "shall not be infringed". I think clearly that what they were talking about is a preexisting right, rather than creating a new right. This is confirmed by the notes Madison prepared in conjunction with his presentation of the Bill of Rights to the 1st Congress. 12 MADISON PAPERS 193–94 (C. Hobson & R. Rutland eds., 1979). In those notes Madison described how the the inadequacies of the English Bill of Rights were corrected by his version. His notes describe those inadequacies as being: "Mere act of parlt...arms to Protestts [only]. Id.

Secondly, are you familiar with St. George Tucker and St George Tucker's Blackstone? A contemporary of Madison, a great friend of Jefferson and the Dean of the only law school in Colonial America. His take on the 2nd Amendment. follows in my next post...

[rblackbird]

11:46 PM on 02/26/2011

The historical context of the adoption of the Second Amendment differed from the conflicts giving rise to the English Bill of Rights.

When the Second Amendment was considered, Congress did not intend to take guns from individuals. Madison et.al. never said that. Individual gun ownership was a common feature of life, for protection and hunting. While some states feared the militia clauses of the pre-BOR constitution would end individual rights to carry guns, those fears were not well-founded. Nevertheless, a few states amended their constitutions to recognize a personal right to carry firearms. That was appropriate, because the regulation of firearms was a matter of state law, not federal.

The colonies were separate political entities and had no legal relationship among themselves. Their individual legal status was granted directly by the King. After the Declaration of Independence, they maintained their separate status, and under the Articles of Confederation, acted as independent countries.

The rise of militias in the colonies rested on two concepts. First, the citizens should be able to defend themselves from invasion, Indian attack, public disorder, etc. But they were not allowed to maintain standing armies, which the citizens themselves saw as a threat to liberty. Second, the colonial militias were employed as auxiliaries to regular English troops, and they defended the northern and western borders of the colonies during the French and Indian War.

The next installment will deal with George Washington's insistence to include the militia clauses
in the core constitution.

[legaleagle 45]

09:44 AM on 02/27/2011

rblackbird wrote: "The historical context of the adoption of the Second Amendment differed from the conflicts giving rise to the English Bill of Rights."

In a way. In lieu disarming the colonists of their personal arms by use of a ruse of English Game Acts they disarmed the colonist of their personal arms openly so as to prevent resistance to British rule. You are no doubt familiar with the document which proceeded the Declaration of Independence," Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms", July 6, 1775:

"The inhabitants of Boston being confined within that town by the general their governor, and having, in order to procure their dismission, entered into a treaty with him, it was stipulated that the said inhabitants having deposited their arms with their own magistrate, should have liberty to depart, taking with them their other effects. They accordingly delivered up their arms, but in open violation of honour, in defiance of the obligation of treaties, which even savage nations esteemed sacred, the governor ordered the arms deposited as aforesaid, that they might be preserved for their owners, to be seized by a body of soldiers; detained the greatest part of the inhabitants in the town, and compelled the few who were permitted to retire, to leave their most valuable effects behind. "

You see, the Blackstonian right to arms consisted of two parts. It protected the underlying fundamental rights of resistance and self preservation. the former is the "militia right".

More...

[legaleagle 45]

10:12 AM on 02/27/2011

The primary problem with the 2nd Amend is that many people, on both sides of the argument, wrongly assume that it must protect a "militia right" or an individual right of self defense. They then present their arguments accordingly. In fact, and as revealed by the two pronged treatment by Blackstone, the 2nd protects both the militia right and the self defense right simultaneously. It is not a question of "either, this or that"... it is both simultaneously and they and the militia right and the right to use arms to enhance self defense are both connected to each other historically.

The historical context is quite old. In England, the militia system is usually traced to Alfred the Great, who, according to Blackstone, first established the militia system in response to Viking raids in the latter half of the 800's AD. Next in the historical records, is a series of laws collectively called "Assize of Arms" which required certain classes of people to keep and maintain certain arms for the defense of the realm. This obligation was never limited to actual members of militia and extended to all (with some minor exceptions reflecting religious prejudice).

Over the centuries, an expectation and understanding arose that the arms which they were required to keep for militia purposes could be employed for individual purposes, such as self defense. This expectation grew into a proto-right and when James II violated that proto right there was outrage... leading to the English BOR's.

[rblackbird]

04:28 PM on 02/26/2011

Mr. Eagle,

Your response on qualifications is crucial. But don't think you can get away with answering "yes" to the questions. I am skeptical that you will give truthful answers. Here are my reasons.

1. You deny that you read any Wikipedia article. Really? I referred to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Anyone who looks at this article and compares it to your original post of authorities will notice that you cited Blackstone as well as the article, the English Bill of Rights, and Madison's speech "introducing the Bill of Rights." I thought, "What amazing scholarship Mr. Eagle displays!" Then I came across the article.

2. You say that maybe Wikipedia quoted you. Really? The Wikipedia article has 178 footnotes. Please tell us which footnotes rely on your comments and works. Just the numbers would be fine. The article's bibliography lists several books and articles. Which ones did you write?

3. You say you could not offer analysis because of Huff Po's space limitations. You could have broken down your analysis into several posts to obviate the space restriction. I have. You didn't.

4. You make the really silly, juvenile post that I do not know "who you are dealing with." O.K. I don't know. A few times in my career, I encountered lawyers who made similar claims. They tended to be insecure, and lacked confidence in their cases. I always beat them.

[grossmont325]

04:55 PM on 02/26/2011

rblackbird--trying to argue that the 2nd amendment does not protect an individual RKBA shows a weakness in your knowledge of legal history

[ScorpioTop]

12:48 AM on 03/01/2011

Our most basic right is the right to life. Proliferation of guns endangers our most basic right.

[legaleagle 45]

05:34 PM on 02/26/2011

rblackbird wrote: "1. You deny that you read any Wikipedia article. Really?"

Really.

Anyone with a basic background in 2nd Amend jurisprudence would cite those sources, so your attempted deflection is to no avail. Now, did the wiki article mention Madison's notes to his speech as I did? How about case law interpreting the English Bill of Rights? I assume you are familiar with Wingfield v. Stratford, 96 Eng. Rep. 787 (K.B.
1752); Rex v. Gardner, 87 Eng. Rep. 1240 (K.B. 1739); Mallock v. Eastley, 87 Eng. Rep. 1370 (K.B. 1744)?

rblackbird wrote:"Please tell us which footnotes rely on your comments and works."

None of them, although I am familiar with or read most of them, and some of the prominent authors I have corresponded with and know personally.

rblackbird wrote:" I have. You didn't."

I will, As to why I did not, I was uncertain as to whether you would respond.

As to the rest of your post, may I suggest that you are being just as silly and juvenile. So lets cut to the chase...

[billsmith98]

11:53 AM on 02/26/2011

Seems to that NY does not have enough guns. We should all chip in an send a few......would solve a lot of problems, one way or the other.

[ScorpioTop]

12:52 AM on 03/01/2011

Once you take up your collection you can head to a gun show and buy whatever you want, no questions asked, no background check. Alas NY needs more guns like they need a hole in their head(but if someone wants to make a hole in their head, a gun is cruelly effective)

[rblackbird]

01:58 AM on 02/26/2011

This is a reply to legaleagle45 who challenged below my scholarship by asking if I was familiar with Madison's speech introducing the Bill of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, congressional debates, etc.:

Dear Mr. Eagle:

Quoting without independent analysis a Wikipedia article does not a legal scholar make. I will respond to you over this weekend, in detail. Be prepared to take notes.

[JimInHouston]

09:34 AM on 02/26/2011

We're all waiting with great anticipation. This oughta be fun!

[OdinsEye]

01:20 PM on 02/26/2011

Agreed. I'm going to pop some popcorn.

[legaleagle 45]

10:12 AM on 02/26/2011

rblackbird wrote "Quoting without independen­t analysis a Wikipedia article does not a legal scholar make. I will respond to you over this weekend, in detail."

I quoted no wiki article, but it is possible that Wiki has quoted me, so that may be the source of your confusion. Do not underestimate your competition as I have not underestimated you. You really have no clue who you are dealing with. As for analysis, I did not provide any... as of yet. Please be assured that the lack of analysis was not based upon my ability to do so, but merely was a result of space limitations of HuffPo and the fact that I was making a challenge. I will advise you not to rely upon Michael Bellesiles either directly or indirectly regarding militia arms as you did previously (whether you realize it or not),

"rblackbird wrote: "Be prepared to take notes.'

Ditto. LOL

[enlightened45]

12:41 PM on 02/26/2011

Interesting that you and Kleck have exactly the same data endnoted/footnoted from his "tomes" dating to the 1990's, but you assert that both used independent means for the "statistics" , and now you posit that Wikipedia is quoting you, which is remotely possible if you are so driven to submit biased information to the site.

You are correct...... we surely have no clue "what" we are dealing with....

[MikeyJaii]

12:17 AM on 02/26/2011

NYC will never have enough gun checks.

[Gun Banner Too]

04:54 PM on 02/25/2011

Polls show that all gun owners are NRA Tea Party Insurrectionists who are compensating for a short coming and support reasonable gun bans of the AK-47 assault weapon of mass destruction which have no civilian use and should be limited to the militia and of course because of semi-auto machine Glocks that have no militia value so they aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.

[Mitakuye Oyasin]

09:37 PM on 02/25/2011

"Polls show that all gun owners are NRA Tea Party Insurrecti­onists"

Why don't you come tell that to all the progressive liberals that I shoot my guns with regularly. Maybe your next door neighbors should put up the following sign in their front yard. "My next door neighbor wants to BAN all GUNS! Their house is NOT ARMED! Out of respect for their opinions I promised NOT to use MY GUNS to PROTECT THEM."

BTW my progressive liberal mother and grandmother both have guns to protect and defend their homes and their lives and the lives of the ones they love.

[enlightened45]

09:20 AM on 02/26/2011

Why do some gun "aficionados" attempt to paint themselves as progressive liberals in order to garner some hoped for credibility? Anyone?

[Sugarmaker]

02:03 PM on 02/25/2011

There they go again, trying to link mass shootings with an effective ban on private firearms sales. Both events they quote do not involve guns bought at gun shows. Increasing the completeness and accuracy of NICS is universally accepted as a good idea, but Bloomberg and Schumer can't help themselves and seem comitted to their misinformation campaign.

[niteklubber]

04:28 PM on 02/25/2011

Do you foresee, should their "misinformation campaign" gain enough traction, and a perceived "effective ban" enacted, the likelihood of violent, concerted resistance against the enforcement of such a "ban" by gun rights activists, as has been threatened by numerous of your associates on this thread?

[itschuck2c]

05:13 PM on 02/25/2011

Push gun legislation and lose the White House and the Senate.

[Just4]

05:25 PM on 02/25/2011

That's not necessary. The Right is Fundamental as protected by the Second Amendment and incorporated to state and local governments via the 14th Amendment as affirmed in the Heller and McDonald cases in the highest court and 3rd tier of government, the Supreme Court. Additional cases are addressing the infringement of the right as we speak and are falling in favor of....Freedom...

[ScorpioTop]

01:04 AM on 03/01/2011

On the other hand, one could say about their critics, "There they go again, expecting no action to be taken to prevent 30,000 Americans, including children, from being killed yearly by gun use"

[Cacey]

12:06 PM on 02/25/2011

As I understand it the Constitution regulates complete gun ownership to a Well Regulated Militia.   This is further definded and expanded by Title 10 of the US Code and further defined by Heller, a case that the Supreme Court decided allowing any and all to own near unlimited supplies of guns.
Title 10 is a law and thus to fix the situation we now face, we need only to change Title 10 or to take a separate and new case before the Court.  And while there are those who say, usually scream, the Court has decided, the Court often reverses itself as it did in 2003 when Bowers v. Hardwick reversed a fairly recently decided decision made in 1986.  No, the case is not settled and as things worsen and the quality of killing power by guns increases, the courts will react.

[littleleadmen]

12:22 PM on 02/25/2011

This is what amazes me. 1st, you claimed that the NRA was spouting lies and that the 2nd Amendment wasn't a personal right, but one relegated to militias only. I then provided you with many, many examples of quotes from the men who wrote the constitution, wherein they expressly state the opposite of your position. And yet, you still don't believe it.

Furthermore, you then slagged off on Richard Henry Lee as being a slave supporter, only supporting gun rights to "keep the slaves down", despite the fact that he did no such thing. In fact, he was the exact opposite. He was one of the 1st abolitionist oriented politicians in American life, as well as a true patriot. He introduced the measure to declare independence, for god's sake!!

You also claimed that jefferson wrote the Bill of Rights. It was Madison.

So, at every point so far, you've made factually inaccurate comments about US history, the 2nd amendment, what it actually says (considering the specific language that they wrote, and what that meant in 18th century parlance). And yet, you STILL won't admit you were incorrect, nor even CONSIDER revising your position, at least with regard to what the bill ACTUALLY states.

I'm coming to the belief that there is little sense in discussing matters on Huffpost, as the liberal mindset is so steeped in its own belief system that it has no interest in discussing or even addressing demonstrable historical facts.

[Cacey]

01:42 PM on 02/25/2011

Did Lee own slaves?  Did he free his slaves?  Then his words really don't count do they.  You obviously know a lot more about the details surrounding the discussion that led to the writing of the Consitution and presumably on both sides of those arguments but the key is that those words did not make it into the final document and therefore really have no bearing.  I view the Constitution as a document that was created as a reaction to the failure of the Articles and done under near emergency conditons.  I also believe that it is an incomplete document finalized under frustration yet the true genius being in its not being complete.  The Founders left it up to future generations to adjust the Constitution, albeit slowly, to the needs of times they new would have changed.

[schotts]

02:59 PM on 02/25/2011

Where is niteklubber?

[littleleadmen]

12:33 PM on 02/25/2011

What particularly annoys me about your posts on this subject are that you seem to know so little about actual US history, then deny it or ignore it when it is presented to you.

You want to spout off on a position of hating guns, which is your right to feel. But you do so by making statements that are demonstrably false and/or inaccurate with over 235 years of documented American history (and that's just the "modern" incarnation of our country, that doesn't even begin to look at the additional 150+ before the Revolution. )

Your "understanding" of the Constitution is wrong, at least according to the men who actually wrote it. And you couldn't even name the correct person who wrote it.

Furthermore, these men took the trouble to document the entire process and debates associated with its drafting and ratification, as a way of providing insight to the American public for future generations to understand the thought process behind the decisions made. Yet you consciously ignore all of it, merely because it conflicts with your worldview or position on the subject.

It's bald-faced ignorance to do that, and I object to it.

[EndRacismNow]

01:34 PM on 02/25/2011

If Gun Control advocates were honest, they would argue for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Instead they use mental gymnastics to twist a very clear thought out amendment. The militia argument is extremely weak and can be picked apart piece by piece with logic and historical references. But that's all they seem to have when arguing for infringing on individual liberties. You can argue with them until you are blue in the face and they still won't budge. Gun Control zealots are reactionaries who throw logic out the window and instead use emotions to guide their thought processes. Facts and reason don't matter when they are inconvenient to their agenda.

[ScorpioTop]

01:19 AM on 03/01/2011

The 2nd states what it does, there isn't an alternate version. It was never intended for 30,000 Americans including children, to die from gun use yearly.