Gun confiscations when the SHTF?

[straitshot]

I've been on the inside when government knowingly decided to take action "in the public interest" and let the courts deal with the legalities later. It's not at all uncommon. Always be prepared to fend for yourself. ss.

 

[TemplarKnight21c]

This thought has crossed my mind before. The second amendment is very tedious.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I might be more inclined to discuss that if I had any idea what you mean by tedious.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

The thing that I find particularly odious about these kinds of bannings and confiscations is that they undermine the case for more reasonable and less onerous forms of gun control. I don't really like the argument that licensing or registration is a precursor to some kind of large scale gun seziure, but events like this tend to make it seem more credible.

Events like those in Canada make it very credible.

I don't agree with the concept of gun control. To use the NRA's mantra, what we need is crime control. Since it's not the guns but the people that kill, we need to certify which of "the People" the Constitution is referring to. I would accept that reliable citizens of sound mind and body should be certified to keep and bear arms. This would eliminate the need for any controls on specific weapons.

Citizens without criminal or psychiatric records, demonstrably capable of written and practical wielding of representative weaponry, would receive a picture ID freeing them from further interference with their constitutional rights.

Any location needing to restrict carry would need to provide legally armed citizens with a secure self-storage locker at point of entry.

End of problem.

 

[JCaswell]

Events like those in Canada make it very credible.

I don't agree with the concept of gun control. To use the NRA's mantra, what we need is crime control. Since it's not the guns but the people that kill, we need to certify which of "the People" the Constitution is referring to. I would accept that reliable citizens of sound mind and body should be certified to keep and bear arms. This would eliminate the need for any controls on specific weapons.

Citizens without criminal or psychiatric records, demonstrably capable of written and practical wielding of representative weaponry, would receive a picture ID freeing them from further interference with their constitutional rights.

Any location needing to restrict carry would need to provide legally armed citizens with a secure self-storage locker at point of entry.

End of problem.

Sound good and all, but you've just made a 'right' into a 'privilege'--making firearm ownership automatically unlawful without the govt-supplied credentials--the issuance of which they control.

In practice this is what happens ...
Works great for a little while, then some terrible tragedy ... licenses are no longer issued, old ones are grandfathered (to avoid too much backlash) and they get their way in the end. (or some variation of this scenario.)

Los Angeles CCW policy is PERFECT example of this. The law allows for what sounds like a reasonable CCW issuing procedure, but they generally issue none outside a few politicians, etc.

California's 'Assault-Weapon' policy is similar. They banned them outright--except with the 'proper papers.' No new papers were issued after a certain date, and ownership is non-transferrable. They get 'em all in the end and they didn't have too much of a fight because most current owners got to keep theirs'.

 

[Esav Benyamin]

JC, the problem is, right now we don't even have the privilege in too many places, and even where we do, the secondary restrictions -- on the weapons themselves -- make a mockery of access to them. I am suggesting a system where no restrictions be placed on the weapons themselves at all.

I am suggesting that it may take an Amendment to the Second Amendment to secure this, that every normal citizen be automatically understood to have the right to keep and bear arms, and that the state will not even need to issue a permit for concealed carry since that's part of the package.

But we do not live in Eighteenth Century America anymore. There are 300,000,000 citizens now, and many of us live in fairly densely populated areas. I think it's counterproductive to ignore the implications of having just anyone pick up a piece at the local mall kiosk.

By having a records check and a simple written and practical test, we can certify reasonable personal capability of handling weapons safely. If that's too much to ask, I don't know what else to say, other than: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[JCaswell]

JC, the problem is, right now we don't even have the privilege in too many places, and even where we do, the secondary restrictions -- on the weapons themselves -- make a mockery of access to them. I am suggesting a system where no restrictions be placed on the weapons themselves at all.

I am suggesting that it may take an Amendment to the Second Amendment to secure this, that every normal citizen be automatically understood to have the right to keep and bear arms, and that the state will not even need to issue a permit for concealed carry since that's part of the package.

But we do not live in Eighteenth Century America anymore. There are 300,000,000 citizens now, and many of us live in fairly densely populated areas. I think it's counterproductive to ignore the implications of having just anyone pick up a piece at the local mall kiosk.

By having a records check and a simple written and practical test, we can certify reasonable personal capability of handling weapons safely. If that's too much to ask, I don't know what else to say, other than: Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I like where you're coming from, but as you know, when certain folks get in power, it really doesn't matter what's written as you've noted about how the 2nd amendment has already been badly abrogated. One would think "Keep and Bear" would have things pretty well covered.

I suspect that your worthy idea would be shortly perverted into a very powerful tool against any/all firearm ownership because without their paper there is no ownership--period. I think it could become the one "linchpin" they could pull at the federal level to effectively declare unpermitted ownership illegal, and they'd control the permitting process? I smell danger there.

As things stand now, I'm OK with background checks and training for CCW--a national CCW would be sweet, assuming they don't just stop issuing permits and use it to override a state's CCW process. (i.e. "Sure you can have a state permit, but it doesn't matter because without the federal permit, you're breaking the federal law that says you must have a federal CCW---you know, the one that we don't issue to just anybody anymore...").

Some of this might be avoidable if the legislation was written correctly, but dang! Like I said, you'd think "Keep and Bear" would have it pretty well sewn up and look where we are.

 

[MG_Saldivar]

Since the thread has gone in this direction, I may as well mention the recent court ruling overturning the insanely restrictive DC gun ban:

The District will ask the Supreme Court to uphold its strict 30-year handgun ban, setting up what legal experts said could be a test of the Second Amendment with broad ramifications.

The high court has not ruled on the Second Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms since 1939. But at a morning news conference yesterday, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) and Attorney General Linda Singer said they expect the court to hear a case they called crucial to public safety.

In a 2 to 1 decision in March, a panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the city's prohibition against residents keeping handguns in their homes is unconstitutional. In May, the full appeals court declined a petition from the city to reconsider the panel's decision.

Some gun control advocates have cautioned that a defeat in the Supreme Court could lead to tough gun laws being overturned in major cities, including New York, Chicago and Detroit. Fenty said the District had no choice but to fight because more guns in homes could lead to increases in violent crime and deadly accidents.

"The handgun ban has saved many lives and will continue to do so if it remains in effect," Fenty said. "Wherever I go, the response from the residents is, 'Mayor Fenty, you've got to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.' "

Gun rights advocates welcomed the chance to take the fight to the high court. A central question the D.C. case poses is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's rights to keep and bear arms.

Experts say gun rights advocates have never had a better chance for a major Second Amendment victory, because a significant number of justices on the Supreme Court have indicated a preference for the individual-rights interpretation.

"Any accurate, unbiased reading of American history is going to come down to this being an individual right," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "To deny people the right to own a firearm in their home for personal protection is simply out of step with the Constitution."

The city's three-decade-old gun ban was challenged by six D.C. residents -- backed by the libertarian Cato Institute -- who said they wanted to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. The District's law bars all handguns unless they were registered before 1976; it was passed that year to try to curb gun violence, but it has come under attack in Congress and in the courts.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The last Supreme Court ruling on the issue, in Miller v. the United States, is considered by many to define the right to bear arms as being given to militias, not to individuals.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan dismissed the residents' lawsuit -- Parker v. the District of Columbia-- several years ago, ruling that the amendment was tailored to membership in a militia.

But the appeals panel ruled in March that the District has a right to regulate and require registration of firearms but not to ban them in homes. The ruling also struck down a section of the law that required owners of registered guns, including shotguns, to disassemble them or use trigger locks.

"We're very pleased the case will go to the Supreme Court," said Alan Gura, an attorney for the residents. "We believe it will hear the case and will affirm that the Bill of Rights does protect the individual."

Singer said she will receive pro bono legal assistance from several high-profile constitutional law experts, including former acting solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger III. She called the city's handgun laws "reasonable" and said many handguns are used in illegal activities.

"This is not a law which takes away the rights to keep and bear arms," Dellinger said. "It regulates one kind of weapon: handguns."

Singer said she will ask for a 30-day extension to file the District's appeal with the Supreme Court, which would push the deadline to Sept. 5. The city's handgun laws will remain in effect throughout the appeal, Singer said.

"If the U.S. Supreme Court decides to hear this case, it could produce the most significant Second Amendment ruling in our history," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. "If the U.S. Supreme Court follows the words of the U.S. Constitution and the Court's own precedents, it should reverse the Appeals Court ruling and allow the District's law to stand."

 

[Esav Benyamin]

I am always struck by the clumsiness of the sophistry that claims the Second refers to a militia and not to the people. I am a native speaker of English, and the words clearly state "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Whatever the logic, whatever the militia was in those days, the right of the people is what the Amendment declares shall not be infringed.

 

[TemplarKnight21c]

I might be more inclined to discuss that if I had any idea what you mean by tedious.

What I meant was, yes, we have the right to bear arms. That's what the document says. But then some other law somewhere somehow supercedes this right by saying we need licenses to have them. My interpretation of the original right was that we should be allowed to have them either way. However, I do understand and appreciate the need for most of the restrictions. I can think of several people off the top of my head whom I know, without a shadow of a doubt, would kill someone unnecessarily if they were allowed to own a firearm.

There are lots of ways to interpret what the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have to say. It all depends upon the reader's viewpoint when starting out. Someone who is against gun ownership by the common people could make an entirely different statement than I would (I strongly support the right to bear arms, for all legal citizens), and still be correct and valid.

The second amendment isn't the first to be twisted by the government, either. News sites like The Associated Press are rife with articles, if someone had to motivation to look, about violations of our 'inalienable rights', even if it isn't said outright.

 

[JCaswell]

I can think of several people off the top of my head whom I know, without a shadow of a doubt, would kill someone unnecessarily if they were allowed to own a firearm.

If they don't mind murdering someone, they won't mind owning a gun without permission!

The bad guys have (or will get) whatever they want. Legal restrictions are only relevant to the good guys

 

[g30ff]

Events like those in Canada make it very credible..

I'm not sure whether you are referring to our gun registry here which gun owners hate but I have little problem with in principle, on the condition that any guns so registered are 'grandfathered' against future gun regulations (seems to be the case so far) most of which I'd probably oppose. Or whether you might be referring to Dalton 'ban everything I don't understand' McGuinty's call for a ban on all handguns. This I hate every bit as much as the gun owners because it is stupid, and will do zero good. Fortunately I don't think he'll have much success, since unlike pit bulls, guns fall under federal jurisdiction.

I more or less agree with you about specific weapons being restricted. Provided someone is basically law abiding, I see no reason why they shouldn't own any gun regardless of how 'military' (i.e. cool) it looks. There does have to be a line drawn somewhere. Most people would probably prefer to see rocket launchers out of civilian hands. I'd be happy to see the line drawn at fully automatic weapons.

Obviously there are some pretty fundamental differences between Canada and the US in terms of their attitudes towards gun ownership and gun control. In the US it is a constitutional right, but in Canada it is considered a privilege. In either country however, I think it can be shown that on the whole legal gun owners are more law abiding than the average citizen. Since that's the case I don't see the point of treating them poorly or confiscating their property and I wish the NRA every success in their lawsuit.

You guys got life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in your declaration of independence and as an infringement upon your liberty it bothers you. I understand the 2nd Amendment intellectually, but I just can't have the same visceral attachment to it that many Americans do. We got peace, order and good government in the B.N.A. Act of 1867, and it is as a complete failure of good government events like these bother me. Being pretty 'left' even by Canadian standards, it might come from a different line of reasoning but my objection to bans like these is no less sincere for it.

 

[Pritch]

What I meant was, yes, we have the right to bear arms. That's what the document says. But then some other law somewhere somehow supercedes this right by saying we need licenses to have them. You need to look up what "a constitution" is. By definition, a constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all other laws enacted are subordinate to it. My interpretation of the original right was that we should be allowed to have them either way. However, I do understand and appreciate the need for most of the restrictions. I can think of several people off the top of my head whom I know, without a shadow of a doubt, would kill someone unnecessarily if they were allowed to own a firearm.

There are lots of ways to interpret what the US Constitution and Bill of Rights have to say. No, actually there are two. The first is to actually seek to determine what the document means, and the other is to impose your policy preferences on the document. It all depends upon the reader's viewpoint when starting out. Someone who is against gun ownership by the common people could make an entirely different statement than I would (I strongly support the right to bear arms, for all legal citizens), and still be correct and valid. NO! The Second Amendment HAS a meaning. Either the founders meant to acknowledge our fundamental right of self defense or they meant to provide for militias. It cannot mean both.

The second amendment isn't the first to be twisted by the government, either. News sites like The Associated Press are rife with articles, if someone had to motivation to look, about violations of our 'inalienable rights', even if it isn't said outright.

This level of ignorance about our Constitution is truly distressing. Like it or not, this is not simply a matter where "Hey bro, everybody's got an opinion." is sufficient. The Constitution is not a recitation of rights conveyed by the government to its citizens. It is a limitation on the power of government that acknowledges the rights we already possessed before forming the republic.

Don't drink the Kool-Aid that the Constitution is a "living" document that supposedly has the "flexibility" to accomodate a changing country. Would you play poker with me if I could "reinterpret" the rules whenever it was in my interest?

To get an idea of what the founders meant by the Constitution, read what they wrote about it in The Federalist.

-- FLIX

 

[swedishdwarf]

I always assumed we would be disarmed in the event of a major disaster. This is why a second cache is so important.

 

[mkhop]

You might think that D.C. would be the show place of all our freedoms but it is not. The I support the NRA but think they have started getting weak by making deals that water down there stand. I will take a que from the goverment I will take action to protect mine and sort it out later. If you stand erect you can see over the B.S.

 

[pict]

Concealed means concealed. You can keep you guns accessible but not immediately visible in an emergency. Mac

 

[pinetree]

My in-laws live near the Gulf coast. They've been hit by a couple hurricanes in recent years. The last one took the power out for over a month. Most in that area are on wells - no power no water. Many of the roads were unusable. Crisis brings out the best and worst in people. The good - the tree on their house was gone in a day and the roof patched up. Generators were shared to keep freezers from thawing. People checking up on one another, sharing and helping. Then there are the folks that would steal anything not nailed down - meth'd-up gangsta want-a-be's and general low-lifes. The closest small sheriff's department is 30 miles away and patrols a 1000 square miles. The home of the closest busted drug dealer is 1 mile.

I believe it is my right to protect myself and my family. I have guns for hunting, shooting sports, personal defense and collecting. I carry concealed when I can and practice often. My wife is a great shot.

I believe in being self reliant. Too many people in our nation stand around waiting, waiting for the government to do something. They are too lazy and or too stupid to do anything for themselves much less there neighbors.

Z51 - don't forget China has leaked that if we impose strict trade embargoes that it could unload nearly a trillion dollars of US Bonds, sinking our economy and plunging us into a recession. They own us.

 

[MG_Saldivar]

Z51 - don't forget China has leaked that if we impose strict trade embargoes that it could unload nearly a trillion dollars of US Bonds, sinking our economy and plunging us into a recession. They own us.

Who needs government trade restrictions when their toy companies and food processors lose contracts because they put lead in toys and antifreeze in toothpaste?

China will be the US' great adversary in the 21st Century but at least in the next 10-15 years, they need us as much as we need them. We need their cheap goods to keep our consumer prices low and they need our markets and access to our product R&D.

 

[JimMLa]

Getting back to the Katrina SHTF, it was not as bad and much worse than reported. I live in the fishbowl, inside a small incorporated town outside of New Orleans. We did not flood, but had massive storm damage. The governments issued mandatory evacuation orders which I understand is their legal authority. If a person stayed behind to ride out the storm, (dummies) then they were in violation of the order. I heard this was the justification for everything that happened after the storm. Now the courts are judging.

First rule of survival is to be prepared. In this case, the preparedness was a well planned evacuation. So, my first question is how can anyone justify staying inside this fishbowl with at least 72 hours notice that the stuff will hit the fan? For those that don't know about us, to the south is the Mississippi River, to the north is a big lake. Almost everything between is under sea level, sinking, and inside levees. It would be easy to picture 18 feet of water in downtown New Orleans.

Oh please justify staying in an area that the professionals ordered you out of. I have heard to protect property, couldn't transport the pets, etc... Does a lot of good when the property is under eight feet of water and the pets are swimming.

I managed to get by the roadblocks and visit my town two days after Katrina. It would be three weeks before we were allowed to return. I brought stuff like water, tp, and can goods (and smokes). I dropped it off at the police station. They may not know my name, but some knew my face from telling them hello every time I see them around town. Do you say hello to the LEO's? None of them asked if I had guns on me.

My basic point is 1) avoid having to survive. 2) that piece of paper that lawyers talk about is important, but human interaction goes much further when the SHTF.

Jim

 

[MG_Saldivar]

First rule of survival is to be prepared. In this case, the preparedness was a well planned evacuation.

I'm glad you made it through. I hope you and yours are recovering.

Regarding evacuation -- I've seen numerous news reports indicating that many people did try to evacuate but were sent to venues that were unprepared or underprepared to provide even basic assistance (the convention center and SuperDome come to mind). Also, many people without their own vehicles were stranded after mass transit stopped running during the height of the storm. So, I'm sure at least some of those who remained did not choose to defy evacuation orders but instead were simply unable to get a lift out of town.