The 2nd Amendment
Frank Borelli
Editor-in-Chief
Officer.com
With my last blog I was pretty sure I’d found the biggest hornets’ nest in the world and hit it with a big bat. To date, the number of comments received has been record setting (for me). SO, this time I figured I’d take on another politically challenging topic: The 2nd Amendment.
Now before someone accuses me of being something I’m not (in response to my post) let me be perfectly clear: I’m pro-2nd Amendment. I don’t favor many gun control laws. I’m quite happy that so many states are passing “shall issue” laws and then adding on “Stand your ground” laws (sometimes referred to as “castle doctrine”).
The reason I bring up the 2nd Amendment is because the Supreme Court just recently heard a case that may have a huge impact on how our country views said amendment with the Heller v. D.C. case. This is, to the best of my knowledge, the first case the Supreme Court has heard involving the 2nd Amendment since 1939.
Prior court hearings / trials in this case have resulted in D.C.’s gun laws being stricken as unconstitutional. For many years now it has been illegal to possess - even in your home - a functioning firearm and handguns had been completely banned. Obviously, anyone who can read Uniform Crime Reporting statistics can see that gun control has not reduced violent crime in D.C..
So, why bring this up? I’m hoping to get some mixed feedback from law enforcement professionals and civilians alike. I’m a cop; have been (if you count my Army MP time) for about 26 years now. I couldn’t care less if the law abiding public has and carries firearms. As a general rule I think they should all be trained a specific way and the licensing / carry permit process should have training requirements roughly equivalent to those of the police.
Here’s my suggestion (as if anyone asked):
In my perfect world you would have to be 18 to purchase a gun… any kind of handgun, rifle or shotgun. I say 18 because I firmly believe that if, at 18, a man or woman can go and give their life to protect and defend our country, they should have their right to own a firearm recognized. What TYPE of firearm shouldn’t be restricted so as not to include handguns.
Upon paying a 50% deposit for said weapon and completing the requisite paperwork, the person would need to stand by long enough for the state to perform a criminal history check. I KNOW this can be done in two or three minutes or less, but I would willingly accept as much as a ten day (ten DAYS, not WORK DAYS) waiting period to allow the check to be completed.
Once the purchase was approved the person would have to pay the balance and schedule him (or her) self for the basic firearms training program. Said program should be equal to the training police officers and deputies receive. Around here that would be a minimum of 35 hours of training with FIVE required qualification courses fired at the end of it. However, in my perfect world, that person’s graduation certificate would be their permit to carry that weapon concealed.
One thing that I think should be included in that training is how to respond to police when pulled over while carrying or transporting a loaded weapon. I believe that drivers should be required to surrender their driver’s license, registration, proof of insurance AND CARRY PERMIT to any officer that pulls them over. Why? So there are no misunderstandings that end with someone getting shot or killed. If I get pulled over I most assuredly surrender all those items to the officer. Why? Because I don’t want to get shot for speeding!
So, there’s my rant. It’s not a long one. Some will agree. Some will disagree. I ask that both groups respond with any variations or criticisms (or whatever)…
Stay Safe!
Frank
As a civilian, and one who is unhappy with many of the things I see going on today all around me, this is another topic that we agree on. My opinion would be this.
1) minimum 50-75% down or no purchase
2) 7 business day waiting period, no exceptions. Most government agencies operate of business days so that seems fair. What reason could anyone give to justify sooner
3) I agree on the courses, but not sure how much. It should be similar to getting a drivers license in my opinion. So some set and approved course with safety training, the other stuff you mentioned, etc
4) I think renewals on this license should be like a drivers license and enforced if you move you have to get a new one right away, etc
What about automatic weapons? I am not for these at all.
Couldn’t agree more Frank. As much as some champion the right to bear arms, dammit, I wouldn’t mind not being forced to deal with so many scumbags with guns.
The training issue you brought up is great too. You have to have a certain amount of hours behind the wheel to get a driver’s license, why not a gun?
Beware Frank, you’ll probably get a bunch of strict Constitutionalists disagreeing with you.
Let’s keep it civil folks … or I’ll shoot you.
Political Disgust: (being nit picky here) - in most cases seven working days works out to about the same. No matter what ten day period you use, with a weekend stuck in there, you get eight working days unless there’s a holiday… and then you’ll get your seven. Machine guns: right now, as I understand it, they can be bought if the person is willing to jump through the hoops and pay the extra fees / taxes. Here’s my take: I don’t care. If the citizen is law abiding, the the citizen is law abiding. What KIND of gun (s)he owns doesn’t really matter to me. Do I see any reason for the average citizen to have a machine gun? Nope. BUT, if we accept that it’s okay to restrict them, then we - by implication - give the government (federal, state, county or local) the ability to restrict what guns we NEED or DON’T NEED. Last time I read the 2nd Amendment it didn’t say anything about qualified weapons or need.
TuffCop: I don’t mind if people disagree with me. That’s part of what makes America great. We are all free to speak our minds. Hopefully those who disagree with me will do so in some logical and courteous fashion without name-calling… and no peeing in the sandbox. And I guess I should put this disclaimer in here: All opinions are expressly my own and in no way represent the beliefs, opinions, thoughts, etc of my employers, heirs, family members, dogs, etc. They’re MY opinions.
Frank said: <>
well let’s look at this realistically. they do restrict many things. just because i am “law abiding” I can not drive a car without a state/government issued license. Similar I can not drive an 18 wheeler without A DIFFERENT state/government issued and controlled license. That is just one example. I think my point is this. I am for the right to carry a gun, but I think there needs to be a limit to everything that has the potential to create massive damage. A person can be completely 100% law abiding for decades, get a gun permit, under your thinking get a machine gun, and decades later go insane and with that gun kill hundreds in seconds VERSUS the same person only is able to get a normal (I apologize for my ignorance on the terminology of guns, I am not on the job) non automatic gun and the same situation is still terrible, but no where near as potentially bad. I hope what I am trying to say makes sense.
Why the waiting period? If the background/records check is clear, then why wait? Also, what would it take to print “concealed carry” on a driver lisence? That would provide a photo ID for the concealed carry permit and ID the person to police right away.
The only problem I have with requiring a training course for a firearm is that some day it could be abused to prevent citizens from having firearms.
In a perfect world, yeah, it would be fine. Heck, in a perfect world it would be an elementary school course. But it’s not a perfect world, and that’s the problem.
Waiting periods do little good (the situation of a person without access to face-to-face firearm sales buying a firearm for a heat-of-the-moment crime must be rare, yes?) and prevents people with legitimate need to quickly purchase a firearm for personal protection from doing so without seeking face to face sales. If the background check CAN be done in two to three minutes, why not do it in two to three minutes? Even if a background check made sense, it would be ridiculous for any subsequent purchase to require a waiting period, though, since they already have a firearm.
I think there should be required waiting periods and mandatory training to keep stupid people from posting ridiculous ideas on a blog. Stick to writing traffic tickets and stop trying to take away my Constitutional Rights. There reason there is a Second Amemendment is so we can protect ourselves from people like Frank Borelli who want to limit our freedoms because he thinks he knows whats best for us.
As a police officer, part of my job involves educating the public about crime prevention and personal protection. It strikes me as foolish that I am not allowed to discuss responsible gun ownership with them as a means of personal protection. Studies have shown time and again that where law abiding citizens are allowed to own and carry firearms, crime rates are lower and people FEEL safer. However, I am for RESPONSIBLE ownership as a stated above, and part of being a responsible gun owner involves having to demonstrate that you are law-abiding and willing to take the necessary steps to ensure that you are physically capable of using a firearm. We do not allow people to drive who are of a certain age or are experiencing certain physical problems. So should we not allow firearm ownership by certain people.
As you said Frank, its not about the TYPE of firearm owned, its whether that gun can be RESPONSIBLY owned. As a police officer, I can tell you that people hate hearing that we cannot be everywhere all the time. The citizenry must have the means of protecting themselves prior to our arrival. Any politician that says the government can protect us all is sorely mistaken.
If you were as pro-2nd Amendment as you say you are you would notice the document states “shall not be infringed” and does not make any mention of classes required to exercise your rights. Surely you wouldnt be a proponent of such classes for the 1st Amendment, so why the 2nd. I cant see how you can claim to be pro-2nd amendment.
That aside your lengthy and expensive class is going to work VERY effectively at disarming the public. How on earth would you expect the common person to have the time off work, lose out on a paycheck AND pay for the class. The poor and working class…..they arent going to be able to get permits. Your class was payed for by your dept and you were payed to be there. At the least what you have just done in a nutshell is screamed “poor people have no right to self defense”.
I’m that big bad strict constitutionalist your talking about…I’ll be nice don’t worry. I disagree with you and the reason I do is this, the 2nd amendment was meant to allow citizens the ability to defend themselves from a TYRANNICAL STATE!!! There has been alot of debate over the years regarding whether this authorizes or protects private ownership of fully automatic firearms and I believe it does, I base this on the federalist papers which argued that citizens have the right to own the arms which would be issued to a soldier (in 1776 that was a musket, today that is pretty much any/all small arms). No the 2nd amendment was not intended for private citizens to have nuclear bombs (or in its day cannons, though interestingly enough private merchant vessels still were armed with artillery). I disagree with background checks, I can’t find any logic to the argument that they prevent crime, the guy who is willing to rob, murder and rape will most certainly not be stopped by a useless “gun law”. Furthermore I don’t agree with training “requirements” though I do most certainly believe in training/practice, let me ask you this, do you seriously trust the government which can’t keep its NFA records accurate (a relatively small amount of paperwork) to keep a record of 100 million gun owners who wish to carry concealed??? Furthermore the 2nd amendment gives the right to BEAR arms, I don’t see a licensing requirement. Yes you will see some accidental deaths/injuries due to ignorance, punish the individual, don’t restrict the masses over a few people who are not responsible. As far as the “car/license” argument goes I would have to argue that driving is NOT a RIGHT as enumerated in the BOR. I know that it seems scary to alot of people that anyone over the age of 18 should be able to purchase/carry any firearm they wish without any regulation but I have to agree with Thomas Jefferson in that I prefer the risks associated with to much freedom to those associated with to little freedom. Remember not a single genocide EVER occurred against a well armed citizenry, and while I am not convinced that our CURRENT leaders would ever engage in such behavior (i’m not convinced they wouldn’t either), I think that we need to defend our RKBA against ALL restrictions in case their is a day which evil men do rise to power. James Madison made it clear, the American Gov’t was designed so that it would work if devils were in office provided the rules were followed, he was right. But if we change the rules then we can rightly expect that will no longer be the case. Giving away or allowing restrictions of the single greatest balance of power that exists in these great United States of America.
Sorry I got a bit off topic, hope you at least enjoy reading what I wrote even if you don’t agree!!!
Thanks for jumping into this potential mess either way Frank, great topic!!! And for the record, I do sympathize with cops and the dangers they face, that being said if that is to much for you, maybe its time to find a new career!!! Not trying to be ignorant, thats just my opinion.
I agree with a lot that you have to say. I think there is a lot of wisdom in the idea of requiring training to use such a potentially dangerous tool as a firearm. How much training may be up for debate since I don’t really think it is realistic to require the same amount that a police officer gets. Also, a comparison of the use of firearms and training required to that of licensing for motor vehicles is useful but must be tempered by the understanding that driving is a privilege whereas bearing a firearm is a constitutional right. If the government is going to require training, then the government should probably provide it. All of this training talk aside however, there is one thing I think you may be missing the point on in your discussion of Machine Guns and the restrictions on those. Don’t forget that the Second Amendment was written by a bunch of radical guys who had just thrown off an oppressive government. The second amendment wasn’t just written to guarantee hunting or even home defense. It was written to guarantee national defense of “the people” from tyranny. The second amendment includes words about the militia with the idea that the everyday man would take up his arms to defend his freedoms. We have checks and balances in government between the different branches, and rightly viewed, the second amendment is the final check and balance of the people on the federal government. As George Washington said, firearms are the “liberty teeth.” This understanding should therefore inform what type of weapons the “militia” should be allowed to possess. If we say that law abiding citizens can’t buy a fully automatic weapon produced after 1986, and by so doing, limit the availability as well as increase the price of those type of weapons extravagantly, we in essence discriminate against the average law abiding man in favor of the criminal who will get fully automatic weapons irregardless of the law. In addition, we take a few of the teeth out of the mouthful of “liberty teeth” that Washington spoke of while leaving that advantage in the hands of the government we wish to hold in check and accountable. If your first inclination is to think that Machine guns are “just too dangerous” to let the average man have, than think about this. The Criminal mind as well as the mind of tyranny probably agrees with you. I believe it is doubtful that removing the automatic weapons ban is going to create a bloodbath. With proper checks and controls, I wager that doing so would create a positive effect, much the same way as CCW’s have in the states where they have been introduced. Obviously we shouldn’t just let anybody buy a fully automatic weapon, but we say that same thing in regards to any firearm and they still get used by people who shouldn’t have them. Proper training and background checks should be performed before someone should have access to a fully automatic weapon, but an outright ban as we presently have, I think is illogical.
Just my opinion though.
There are, to the best of my knowledge, over 100,000 legally owned machineguns in private ownership in the USA. Since the National Firearms Act of 1934 the FBI has recorded one murder with a legally owned machinegun. In this instance a police officer shot his wife/girlfriend with a registered Thompson machinegun in an act of passion. The fact that only 1 murder has been committed in all these years with a legally registered machinegun makes me wonder why so may people and politicians are so opposed to machineguns. I think most people think of a machinegun as some form of voodoo black magic. Something forged from the hubs of hell. Those of us who own and/or shoot machineguns regularily know that they are a simple machine that any amature machinist could manufacture, in an afternoon, with antique machine tooling. Most machineguns are less complicated than that gas powered leaf blower in your garage. In fact most people experienced with machineguns would agree that a semi-automatic firearm is often more effective. In the real world when “the Duke” squeezes the trigger on his Sten gun and empties his 32 round magazine all while swinging the weapon wildly back and forth, 60 crazed, charging Nazis do not really die. I heard a WW II vet once recount a German emptied a mp-40 machinegun at hin from across a street and never even grazed him. He went on to say how lucky he was that that soldier did not have a 8MM bolt action Mauser Or he would not have survived that day. The Bill Of Rights only affirms our inalienable rights granted us by our creator. The founding fathers did not grant us rights, they created the Bill Of Rights to guarantee the government would not infringe upon our existing rights. The second amendment is an individual right no different than the first. In 18th century America the idea that you could not defend yourself in your own home, with any firearm available, would have been thought rediculous. And I feel the same way today. Us law abiding citizens are not causing the problems in the USA today. I have been a student of the second amendment debate for decades and it seems clear to me that most in the anti-gun crowd hold the elitist belief that the average law abiding citizen is not capable of the responsibility of firearm ownership.
There should be no waiting period. A 16 year old can purchase a car and drive off the lot the same day - a car is much more dangerous than a gun. Think of the outrage if we all had to wait several days before driving away with our new car.
The same thing with mandatory training… should some course of training be required before getting a new car? Of course not, even though there is a fair chance that the teenager will crash it.
Regarding being required to show a traffic cop your carry permit… no way! I like cops - being a cop is very honorable in my eyes. i always speak with the utmost respect to all cops. however… not every cop is someone you want to be around (personally or professionaly). some cops would go berzerk if they found out you had a gun. and try to find some reason to give you a ticket. there are a [very] few cops that think they are a god and everyone else should bow down to them. they have the power to make your like miserable - even if you have done nothing wrong.
Only show a cop your carry permit if necessary. if i have my gun in the car when i get pulled over and the cop wants to search the vehicle, then of course i would immediately inform him/her. but if the cop just wants to write me a ticket then let ‘em do it and i will be on my way.
Final point regarding all of this training and waiting periods and other things, owning a gun [for a law-abiding citizen] is a fundamental right. should we make those who vote first pass a political test so see if they know of which they believe? of course not. even though voting can do more harm than any gun (the clinton years come to mind).
What is the need for all the training and waiting? The system we have right now works fine, the only thing I would change is to make Texas the model for the entire US and life all bans on importation and modification (even machine guns) and maybe eliminate the short barrel rifle/shotgun limitations.
Right now in Texas (as a CHL holder) I can hop in my car and be back with a shiny new Kimber in under an hour. I see no problems with this because I am licensed to carry, have a clean criminal background and am a stable member of society. When it comes to the machine gun stuff, I have no problem with civilians owning machine guns, I think the current method (tons of hoops) is just fine, the only issue I have are the importation bans which make an M16 with a selector switch go for around $15,000.
Political Disgust: There are no provisions in the constitution of these Unites States regarding the Privilege to operate a motor vehicle of any kind, I realize your using that as an example, but there is a fundamental difference, you don’t need a license to exercise you right to free speech….. (see below)
It is just a little too convenient (to me) that the largest news makers for “going insane” happened in places the publicly, and diligently, BAN the possession of firearms. I can’t believe that it did not enter their mind when planning this kind of carnage. Only a cop would have been equipped to stop them, and we all know they can’t be everywhere…..
Frank>
I agree with a qualification course. IF it is used to qualify (track) the PERSON, not the purchase, (ie; how many guns and what type I own) I am a staunch supporter of the constitution, all of it, not just the parts I like…..
We have to take a hunter education class to hunt, and really that could be best argument I have for testing to own and carry a firearm. But that qualifies you, not the method you choose to hunt with.
It used to be that Fathers and Grandfathers taught kids the proper way to handle and keep safe a firearm, apparently that is no longer the case, so society must come up with a better way to train our youth on the proper care and handling, not to mention the effects of carelessness!!!
I hear where you are coming from Frank but let’s define “law abiding citizen”. It seems to me that that would include the gang banger’s girlfriend that would go out and buy an M249 SAW for her man because she’s managed to stay out of trouble. I know she’s already doing that with handguns and more but I’d rather that Pookie the Crip not have a belt-fed MG. Just my .02
I think that unless you are a convicted felon (of violent crimes) or mentaly ill you should be able to own whatever gun you would like. I think you should still limit explosives and fully automatic weapons to the military and the police. I think the system they have in place now is just fine as far as checks go with NICS, about one minute and your done. I also don’t think you should make it mandatory to send everyone to training either, recommend it but not force them. (We still live in the USA) Besides I would assume everyone I pulled over has a gun in there car then you will be never dissapointed. Frank said somethin about not wanting to be shot over a speeding violation, well if I pull you over for speeding and you don’t flash your gun and I don’t suspect drugs in your car what difference would it make if I tell you I have a gun or not, as long as I don’t reach for registration and the gun is there with it. You don’t want surprises. Because the guys who will shoot you won’t tell you about the gun anyway and most of the time it will be stolen. I also read somewhere on here of a guy buying a automatic and ten years down the road snapping and shooting people. Well again we live in the USA and we can’t punish people for things they haven’t committed!!
Ok, I already own a 9mm, I decide I like the .45 I’m looking at in a gun store. Why should I wait 10 days?
Some excellent points made. I have to rethink my position. I like the idea of a driver’s license that has Concealed Carry stamped on it, but have also read arguments above that would indicate this gives cops unnecessary information up front. As cops come from all political outlooks, I have to agree that there are those who might use their position to prejudicially enforce gun laws. There are also those who believe in their oath to protect and support the Constitution and they aren’t negative about gun ownership.
As a parent who has taught all my children firearms safety (my ten year old is fairly proficient and has to recite the four prime safety rules before I ever unlock the gunsafe for him to handle his rifle, which he does only under supervision) I agree that this is a responsibility that should be carried by parents and grandparents. As the son of a couple parents who were almost completely firearms ignorant, I believe there has to be another education option.
On the one extreme we have those who believe that EVERY adult non-criminal should be able to purchase and carry any kind of gun they want, under any circumstances, anywhere, at all times. On the other extreme we have those (Like the Clintons) who have made it clear that they think the U.S. would be a better place if we could just get rid of all those pesky firearms. Many of us have opinions somewhere between the two.
In light of all of the foregoing, I still think it’s a good idea to require a CCW holder to identify that fact if pulled over. I think the opportunity for misunderstanding that results in an unnecessary injury or death is too great. Is this necessarily a matter for legislation? Probably not. The other side of that is, how many law-abiding citizens have enough respect for the police to willingly, without legal requirement, to say, “Officer, I don’t want to cause you concern. Here’s my license, registration, proof of insurance and carry permit. My weapon is in a pancake holster behind my right hip, and unless you direct otherwise, I’ll keep my hands on the wheel so as to avoid any misunderstandings or confusion.” As a cop, I’d appreciate that deeply. As a pro-2nd-amendment supporter, I understand there are plenty of CCW holders who wouldn’t want to do that because they worry that the cop might take their gun “for officer safety” until the stop was cleared, an open warrants check run, the weapon checked to make sure it wasn’t stolen, etc.
Obviously, this isn’t a debate that is quickly and easily going away. Please keep the intelligent comments and opinions coming. I eagerly (like many of you) await the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller v. DC.
Frank, first off thanks for having this thread on this site, I really enjoyed reading what people have to say. Obviously this is a hot topic and I’m glad to see for the most part people were able to stay cool and discuss the issue. I wish that I were able to say I have enough faith in all LEO to be up front about carrying concealed, but frankly I have friends whose exp. were so negative that I got to say I would not tell a cop unless I was going to be searched or it would be otherwise exposed (I don’t hate the cops, I actually would like to be one, but I’m a realist and the problem officers tend to give a bad rap). I live in PA and it is an Open Carry state (ie we can OC w/o a permit), I have had cops lie to me and tell me that isn’t true, only to later admit they lied, I also had one tell me it WAS legal but he would put me down hard and cuff me just because I had a gun. The presumption of guilt is enough to make me wary. One thing I’ll throw out there, and I’m sure I will get attacked for this but MY PERSONAL opinion is that once a criminal has done their time and completed their probation I believe they to should also once again retain the RKBA, now I realize how risky and dangerous that position can be, BUT if we as a society restore ALL of the other rights inherent to each living human being then how can we deny that person the RKBA? I know I’ll take some flak for that one but hey, I’m used to it…Please no sarcasm, I prefer intelligent conversation to stupid remarks.
there has to be background checks. you can not sell a gun to a person who has already committed and been convicted of a crime. that is lunacy. so the people who said “no background checks”, that is silly. Are you going to give a gang banger who just got out a jail the ability to legally purchase a gun? no way. Also, my example about the drivers license was that THERE SHOULD be training required. Yes the Constitution does not say you need a license for “free speach” BUT there was no cars when the constitution was written. Hence we now have laws about getting a license. As guns have become more readily available, there also needs to be rules and laws in my opinion.
- - -
Political Disgust
http://www.politicaldisgust.com
Frank said “As a parent who has taught all my children firearms safety (my ten year old is fairly proficient and has to recite the four prime safety rules before I ever unlock the gunsafe for him to handle his rifle, which he does only under supervision) I agree that this is a responsibility that should be carried by parents and grandparents. As the son of a couple parents who were almost completely firearms ignorant, I believe there has to be another education option.”
You are the EXCEPTION and actually are doing the education. That is why I agree with you 100% that there must be required education to obtain/purchase a gun.
Requiring every purchaser to train 35 hours and get a carry permit is a bit much for let’s say a senior citizen who just wants protection in their home. That’s just bureaucratic nonsense.
Waiting periods serve no purpose. Either you have a clean record or you don’t. Making someone wait each time they purchase a firearm is more bureaucratic nonsense.
People should not have to jump through government defined hoops like trained dogs to exercise a fundamental right to self-protection within their home.
Waiting period - maybe 10 minutes, unless the computers are down. There is no need to wait longer - especially if you are going to require training. Maybe the instructor keeps the gun until it’s complete. And if they have one already, a new one is theirs as soon as the OK comes back.
Maybe more jurisdictions would embrace “shall issue” CCWs if, in jurisdictions without CCW, officers were forbidden to search suspects for weapons unless there were just cause. Why? Because to search them otherwise is to presume they are committing a crime.
Political Disgust, do you seriously believe that criminals obtain their guns at gun stores??? C’mon man, criminals get guns on the black market via straw purchases or by stealing them. Background checks only infringe on privacy of law abiding citizens. The 2A gaurantees the RKBA, it doesn’t say anything of needing the governments approval based on their opinion of your actions. I would be ok with violent FELONS not being allowed to own guns for a period of time, that being said if a 16 year old is involved in a felony assault, serves his time/probation, turns his life around, becomes a productive member of society, according to OUR laws if he was charged as an adult that one single action at the age of 16 prevents him from being involved in shooting sports, hunting or from defending himself and/or his family. Yes there are alot of career criminals, I bet if the DA stops pleading them out and the judges impose stiff penalties (and stop with the “good behavior releases”) we might see some people actually change (maybe making prison a bit less than a room with a gym and cable would be good too). Guns are tools, nothing more, punish the individual, nothing more, nothing less. As I said above I agree with Thomas Jefferson, I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending to much liberty than to those attending to little liberty.
Guns have been readily available in this country for hundreds of years, and frankly if you look at history you WILL see that the more gun laws we have enacted the more crime we have had. The desired effect has NOT been achieved. As far as the argument that “cars” were not available that in my opinion is bogus for this reason, the Bill of Rights guarantees those rights which the founding fathers believed would prevent a tyrannical government (like the one which they had just won their freedom from). Those rights included the ability to speak freely, print/publish without fear of reprisal, worship however you saw fit, gather with other people to petition the govt for a redress of greivances. The ability to be secure in your property and posessions, the ability not to have government agents housed in your home during time of peace, the right to habeus corpus, trial by an impartial judge/jury, the right to fair representation, the protection afforded by requiring govt agents to have search/seizure/arrest warrants, and those rights are guaranteed by the single most important right, the right to keep and bear arms. How else can a citizen ensure that his rights are respected?? Having the access to the same small arms with which the government arms itself is the ONLY true protection from tyranny, allowing the government to regulate that RIGHT only serves to further a gradual increase in government power and restriction of those other rights guaranteed in our bill of rights.
Suppose the Supreme Court were to declare that I, as a citizen, have a Constitutional right to carry a gun, conditional on getting training comparable to that required of private security guards and no criminal convictions or rulings of insanity great enough to cause me to lose my civil rights in general. Suppose also that all levels of government had to go along with this. Under those conditions, I think your plan would be reasonable.
However, as long as states and local governments have the power to infringe this right, I wouldn’t trust government with gun ownership information.
For an analogy, because everyone in government recognizes and respects my freedom of religion, I don’t mind telling my religion to the census taker. But if cities and states were allowed to imprison me unless I gave up my religion, then I wouldn’t want the government to know.
I am strongly opposed to waiting periods. There are many examples of people killed while waiting for the waiting period, yet I’m not aware of any instance of someone who decided to kill someone just because they were mad was stopped from doing so by a waiting period. They’ll either wait it out & then go through with their plan, or buy a gun from the local black market.
Check out this website for a long list of examples of people who were murdered by an ex spouse who HAD A RESTRAINING ORDER (amazing how little good that stupid piece of pager does other than make it easier to find the killer after the murder is complete) while waiting for the waiting period:
http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html
Just one example: “Bonnie Elmasri
On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor, worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her children. When she asked the instructor about getting a handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.”
So, if we treat the right to “keep and bear arms” like we do the privilege of driving:
Private transactions require no background checks or license.
There is no age limit to vehicle ownership.
Operating a vehicle on private property is not limited.
You do initial training (used to be provided by the school district) and are subject to a written test every four years, which is waiverable (last I took was well over twenty years ago).
Granted, it is hard to conceal a vehicle.
A license is valid in all states, without restriction.
Yearly tags could be an issue though…
As for mandatory training - I’m very much in favor of offering optional firearms training in High Schools & Middle Schools. I’m against required training for purchasing guns. I think the more people we can have educated on gun safety the better we are, but I don’t want to give the government an easy way to restrict our 2nd Amendment. What would stop a legislature from requiring a year of training and an impossible to pass test? Where would they draw the line? We already see how far anti gun folks are willing to go by looking in Washington DC & Chicago. Look at the stupid ammo serialization bills being introduced in State legislatures all over the country that essentially would be an ammo ban. Let us not give the government enough rope to hang us all.
Here’s another example of a waiting period that could have gone bad had the woman not decided to break the law (also from http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html):
“Catherine Latta
In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her The clerk at the sheriff’s office informed her the gun permit would take two to four weeks. “I told her I’d be dead by then,” Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon’ she went to a bad part of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the street. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense homicide, or the illegal gun.”
I am a full-time LEO in Florida, a right to carry state. I fully support that right and believe that most citizens that go through the licensing process to carry firearms do so with good intentions. Florida requires minimal training before issuing a concealed carry permit and I believe the citizens would benefit by the increased time in the classroom and on the range. It would definitely drive up the cost of licensing though.
I don’t support new gun restrictions because they don’t stop the criminals from getting them. they only make it harder for law abiding citizens to get them. Enforce the existing gun laws and we will do well.
Regarding machine guns, with the price of ammo these days, who in the heck could AFFORD to shoot one?? Seriously, it is possible for an average citizen to legally own one if he or she is willing to jump through all the required hoops & pay a substantial fee. I’m leaning towards the side of those advocating minimal restrictions, but there will always need to be some education and training involved for a person to be responsible & competent in the use of a firearm. (Like being aware of the fact that the slide on a semi-auto pistol will slice you open if you wrap the thumb of your non-trigger hand around the back of the grip!)
Treating a RIGHT like a PRIVILEGE is ridiculous, driving was invented to make transportation easier, it is NOT a fundamental right. The RKBA IS a fundamental right and ought not be restricted. (fsilber) you mentioned you would be ok with a training plan if it allowed for unrestricted carry in the USA, We already have the RIGHT to carry unrestricted in the USA, we have ALLOWED our government to restrict and infringe upon that right. Our founding fathers were clear that if WE THE PEOPLE did not do our job and safegaurd our liberties by ensuring the politicians followed the constitution then we would be sure to lose those liberties, that is what has happened, we have allowed our government to take away from us our fundamental liberty in exchange for a false blanket promise of security and safety. We would do well to heed the advice of Benjamin Franklin in that those who give up essential liberty to purchase safety/security deserve neither, and ultimately history has shown us that as we sacrifice liberties we DO NOT in return gain security as promised by the government. Look at England, they have almost NO private ownership of firearms and their firearm crime rate since the restrictions have skyrocketed by 40%. When guns were legal and common the police in England did not carry guns, yet today with almost no private ownership of firearms the police are for the first time in England doing just that, they now carry guns. Why? Gun Control does not work, it is not about guns, its about control. That is what our founding fathers recognized and we would do well to heed their words of wisdom. As an interesting side note did you know that the battles of concord and lexington (ie the shot heard round the world) was fought over the British coming to “disarm” the colonists?
2A is clear..”shall not be infringed.” Everyone on the street can have any gun they want, period.
Besides the 7 day waiting period (which is often a lot longer in reality) I dont like the whole idea of some states having the “1 Gun a month” deal. I as both a law abiding citizen and police officer am the only one hurt there. Not a criminal. Since when do we “ration” our constitutional rights? And im not talking about not yelling fire in a theater. We dont tell someone
they can only use their 4th amendment once every 30 days, then your house/person/car is free game.
“I’m not aware of any instance of someone who decided to kill someone just because they were mad was stopped from doing so by a waiting period.”
How would you ever know that????? lol
I’m totally for gun control. The 2nd amendment has to be viewed in the context of its approval, a war against En gland. The amendment tried to legalize a militia to fight against England, it was never the intention of the our forefathers to let everybody carry a gun, that;s absurd, anybody saying the contrary is a right wing extrem ist, I’m sorry.
You Americans…I love you, but you guys are gun crazy!
You think that more guns makes a safer country. But a simple comparison with your murder rate versus Canada strongly indicates otherwise.
I’m not sure if you are more afraid of criminals invading your homes, if you want to be the hero stopping an armed robbery at the 7-11, or if you’re just paranoid about the government if you give up you “constitutional right” to carry weapons. Like Dustin said “Let us not give the government enough rope to hang us all.”
What, exactly, would the government do if everyone turned in their guns? What, is George Bush going declare himself dictator for life and ban democracy? Is that actually a serious concern down there?
Don’t get me wrong, I love my S&W as much as any gun nut from Texas
but it stays in my locker at the end of my shift. I don’t feel naked without it. When we seize a handgun from a vehicle stop, we high five everyone and go out for beers to celebrate.
I can’t imagine wanting to live in a society where everyone is so afraid that they feel they have to arm themselves 24 / 7.
Let me finish by saying that I’ve worked with some US agencies and have nothing but good things to say. Your tactical abilities are fantastic and the quality of guys I’ve worked with is second to none. But I just don’t understand the U.S. mentality towards having an armed population. I’m sure someone will explain it for me.
Working in the big city, I’ve seen some issues related to gun control, and my opinions may be a little different than others.
This is my idea of gun control;
1. background checks, good.
2. waiting period, bad.
3. mandatory marksmanship training, good.
4. mandatory legal use training, good.
5. mandatory issuance of CCW’s to qualified people, good.
6. requirement CCW people ID themselves if stopped by PD, good.
7. the more armed and trained citizens we have, the better.
Basically, gun control comes down to one major point.
Whether you believe people should be able to defend themselves, or whether they should have to rely on government to do it for them. It’s scope includes the “government as savior” concept that if you believe the government should do everything for people or if people should have control over their own destiny. Me personally, I’d rather take care of myself than turn my life over to a bureaucracy and hope that they’ll care.
If you are looking at government to take care of you like a parent, you’re going to continually be disappointed with the results. I’ve seen how government runs things. We’ve all had experiences with the post office, the state department’s of motor vehicles, etc.
I’ve seen how crooked and uncaring government can be at times. Best example I can think of is the housing projects in Los Angeles. We have people living in some that have literally been there for generations. Since we don’t have a policy in California forcing people off welfare like the rest of the country, we have people that depend on the government for their housing (along with everything else). These folks mostly are all cut from the same cloth. They prefer to give up their own sense of rugged individualism in trade for government to take care of them. Most of their lives are spent endlessly bitching and complaining that they are never happy with the results. I’d rather be dead than live like that, but some people prefer it.
If you look at the riots we’ve had over the years, and even just regular street crimes in general, the people that were armed tended not to be victims. The people that were not, got victimized.
There’s a reason why al caida is looking to target US schools in inner cities and major population centers, as opposed to out in suburban or rural communities.
This is because they know, like most criminals, that people that live in the big cities and urban areas (like Washington DC) tend to be voluntarily disarmed or have no knowledge in the use of firearms. People living in the rural areas tend to have knowledge of firearms and aren’t afraid to use ‘em, so these people are to be avoided.
We police in the big cities could learn something from these people.
Frank, tis is what I will accept as a legitimate restraint aupon my 2A “Right to keep and bear arms”. I will accep the Brady law for purchases from Dealers provided taht is the “instant check system”. If they can’t deny me within 5 minutes then I get my gun.
Now, NOBODY has the authority to mandate that I get training or otherwise demonstrate ability or need to own a gun. Thts why its called a RIGHT. To the extent the state makes jump thru hoops (such as in Illinois where one has to have a firearms owners card) then the right has been abolished.
Aso to arms, those obviously include ANY handguns, rifles, or shotguns. I will accept the 34 NFA requireing a license for automatic weapons, as you can make a colorabl argument that they might not be arms as envisioned by the framers, and to accept that ANY arm carried by a modern soldier is protect by the 2A leads to problems. However, the 1986 law that prohibits the current mfg and sale of full auto weapons to the public needs to be repealed.
Scott W.
Phxx,. AZ
Oh, also. Concealed carry should be part of the right also, however some, states have constitutions that specifically give the state the power to restrict that. That said those states should have “shall issue” laws, and the training need not be onerous nor expensive.
Scott.
Art Vasquez, I thought I had heard all the arguments about gun control but you have definitly NOT done your research. The 2nd amendment was written in the late 1780’s 6 YEARS AFTER the REVOLUTION was OVER. IT ABSOLUTELY WAS THE INTENT OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS THAT EACH CITIZEN BE ABLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, read the federalist papers and the anti-federalist papers. Read the quotes of the founding fathers. Your WAY off base with that comment. Look its like this, there are only 2 ways in which people can deal with each other and history has proven this, they are reason and force. If I carry a gun that makes people deal with me through reason, what other TOOL gives a senior citizen the ability to protect themselves from the abuse/victimization at the hands of the young and strong? What else enables a 100 lb. woman to face a rapist? Or a gay man against those who would do him harm? Carrying a gun is a CIVILIZED act which places ALL on equal levels. Tasers and Pepper spray are neither gauranteed to stop someone nor effective against multiple assailants so please don’t try that argument. The simple fact of the matter is that the RKBA is VITAL to any free society because it FORCES the GOV’T to deal with the citizens through REASON rather than force. Check up on your history man, and please go back even farther to the origins of the Theory or Natural Law, read the Magna Carta, you will see CLEARLY that our founding fathers intended for us to have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms without restriction or interference from the government. I have to agree with Ronald Reagan, government is not the solution, government is the problem.
I’m going to add a couple comments here to my post above.
First, for Art Vasquez. Art, take a look at the Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights wasn’t penned till some years later, but mostly by the same people, in the same time frame.
If you read the Declaration, there’s a part in there, that specifically mentions that if a government becomes oppressive, that people have the responsibility to do something about it. We’re not at that point in this country, specifically because we have representative government that is just that. But I believe our founding father’s intent, based off the language in the Declaration, supports the idea that the citizenry needs to be armed, to prevent their repression. You can argue anything you want about England, but there’s no language anywhere in the Declaration or in the Bill of Rights that says “this only applies till we throw the English out of the country.” Nice try though.
For Simon. I respect you as an officer, I am assuming from reading your post, that you are some type of LE officer in Canada.
I will tell you, that there was a time once, when I left my firearm in the car when I went into church or other places where I felt it was inappropriate to have a weapon. My thinking has since changed though, since I have read news articles about unarmed police officers being in churches when a mentally ill person came in and shot up the place. Happens very, very rarely, but it occurred to me that part of my responsibility as an officer, is to be armed, and aware, and take out anyone that is posing a threat to the community. That’s our job, on-duty or off-duty. I won’t go into detail, but I have specific criteria, based off the law and my Department’s policy, and common sense/ tactics as to when and where I will draw or use a firearm off-duty, but the point is, I’m going to have it with me and be ready at all times.
Also, from a safety standpoint, I am curious that you will arrest people for all kinds of charges, yet walk around unarmed. Has it ever occured to you that you might run across one of these people off-duty? I’d sure as hell be pretty concerned if I was working a narco task-force and putting people behind bars until the next ice-age, that one of them might try to do some harm to me or my family. That S&W locked in your locker ain’t going to be much help back at the station if someone’s coming through your front door at 3 am. I trust that you know best and follow your local laws and department policy, but I’m just throwing out some food for thought here…I have known a couple friends that got followed home from work, and suspects did things to their homes, really scary stuff…
good comment LA Blue, so basically you are against the waiting period, but all of the mandatory training you suggest would almost be like a waiting period anyway. One thing I think you might have incorrect is this.
You said “There’s a reason why al caida is looking to target US schools in inner cities and major population centers, as opposed to out in suburban or rural communities.”
The reason is because it is “more bang for their buck” so to speak. Let’s be honest - killing 3000 people in NYC or many more at a major sporting event will always have much more effect then killing 10-20 in the middle of Idaho. Both or horrible of course, but sadly in our media overloaded world, no one remembers the rural killing 3 months later while the world still talks about the major disaster for generations.
—
Political Disgust - http://www.politicaldisgust.com
Gotta throw out a couple comments here in response to a few above:
1) I used to NOT carry when I was on vacation. Then, in a resort town nearly four hours from where I lived and worked, I literally walked into a drug dealer (that I had previously arrested) on a crowded boardwalk. THAT MOMENT I knew I should have been carrying no matter how inconvenient it was. LEOSA gives all cops across the country the right to carry - all across the country - off duty. We’re silly, in my humble opinion, if we don’t.
2) I think that if you study terrorist actions around the world you’ll find that there’s a greater threat to rural schools than urban schools. I believe this because there will be fewer police to respond and the response times will be MUCH longer. It will still garner the terrorists the media attention they want, but will allow them extra time to fortify their position. Sure, big numbers are good, but days worth of media exposure will suit them just fine too.
3) THANK YOU all for your comments. They are greatly appreciated. While it’s obvious we don’t all agree on everything, it is obvious that many of us support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right and I do hope the Supreme Court finally just comes out and says that when they issue their opinion.
Up front, not an officer, but will be. I work in a PD part-time and listen to the sentiments of my officers. I have come up with my own little perfect world and strangely it is nearly exactly like Frank’s. Here it is:
Guns should be available to law abiding citizens 18 years and up. Here is my main reason, if I am old enough to move out and go to school hundreds of miles from home, why can’t I protect myself. My father owned and carried while I was at home, so he would protect me there, but when I moved to college, he wasn’t there. Also, if we can vote and potentially get drafted (which I don’t see coming), why not?
There should WITHOUT QUESTION be a criminal history check or QH for those dispatchers out there. However, not only felonies should disqualify a person but violent misdemeanors. If a man beats his wife, is charged with a felony but only convicted of a misdemeanor, should he be allowed to arm himself? I don’t think so.
Training is a great idea. I do not want someone out there trying to stop an armed robbery that can’t shoot the gun straight. That person would do more damage than they would do good.
Another one, that most will probably not agree with but I feel just as important is Campus Carry. Why can I not take my gun on a college campus? If I can take it other places, why not there? I read the book, April 16th. It is about the Virginia Tech massacre. Professor Granata, was one of the victims. He was upstairs in his office when the shooting started, instead of hiding or running, he went down stairs to try and help. He was then gunned down by a deranged person. How much different would that story have been if he had been allowed to carry a gun on campus. Kevin Granata was former Special Forces in the US military. Do you think he would not have taken that ___________ out? Just something to think about.
To Conrad Miller and LA blue, well I’m GA blue, and I still believe the reason for the second amendment was protection from an oppressive government (England), and even though we’ve already achieve independence, it was fragile, brittle, so we needed that protection and if you analyze it it refers to “militia” no regular citizens and time has proven that this is not an oppressive government, so why the guns. Look at England, Canada, Japan where they have very restrictive gun laws, and compare their crimes rates to ours. This is nation with a “gun culture”, romanticized from the “old west”. So I still believe that 90 to 95% of all law enforcement in this country is right wing and paranoid, so get a life, not a gun.
I have read a lot of that responses people put and have found some of them to be quite amusing. First off, I would like to address a comment made by Simon regarding Canada having less violence in general. From my understanding, Canada has always been less violent than the U.S., regardless of gun control. Let me put it this way, back in “the day” a person could buy automatic weapons, handguns and rifles with almost no requirements. There were no instant background checks or waiting periods. They didn’t require training classes, but for some reason the crime rate was considerably lower, including offenses with firearms. Even though people had easier access to weapons, they chose not to use them against people. We need ask our selves why? Where did the change come from? Why are these people feeling the need to pick up a weapon and shoot up a school? And why didnt they do years ago when it was even easier to buy a gun? Arguing that Canada is safer because of a few laws, is failing to understand the cultural differances between the U.S. and Canada.
You see gun control has become an ongoing debate for years and people I think of both sides of the issue are missing the mark. The violence we see it the result of this country’s moral corruption, resulting in a general decline. People dont even want to consider that as a possibility. They want to argue over what the law should be and if its passed the way they want it, they feel that everyone if safer and its all fixed. I got news for everyone, the government cannot legislate us into safety. As the country continues to decline until its eventual collapse, the politicians run in continue to sign more legislation (often worthless) to combat all the problems. All these laws are band aids to stop a huge gaping wound this country is suffering from.
As a result of the general decline, the criminal justice system has become over taxed and the police are asked to do more with less. The police are often called by people who want them to show up and fix all their personal and family problems on the spot. People do not realize they have to handle their problems on their own without the government there to hold their hand. And this all falls back to the gun control debate. People don’t realize we are on our way down and no gun control law on its own is gonna fix it.
That being said, I also think its a joke that many of you think that any basic regulation of firearms is an “infringement”, including automatic weapons. It kinda goes against common sense in my opinion. To me its like automobiles, aircraft and even alcohol. Firearms are tools designed to kill people, and yet people think their should be no regulation. The responsibility that comes with owning firearms is as great as anything out there and people want to blow it off. They hang their whole argument on the 2nd amendment. I hate to say it guys, but the 2nd amendment is a poorly written as it applies to todays world. I personally wish they would have worded it differantly. It was written back in the 1700’s to allow for minute men to remain armed. Although I to do not believe for one minute that it relates to the national guard, the way its written in the constitution gives anti gun supporters an argument in court.
The 2nd amendment mentions “arms” or “the right to bear arms”. What does that mean exactly? I read one of the comments, where a guy said that taking anything away or restricting firearms in any way is an infringement. However, when the constitution was written none of the founding fathers could know what future technology would bring. If we are going to use that same line of thinking, then should tanks and artilery be legal for someone to own? “Arms” is general term, and when you throw it around you have to understand there has to be a line drawn somewhere.
Let me end it by saying I am a supporter of basic firearm regulation and but am also a supporter of private firearm ownership and the right for someone’s self defense. When it comes to firearms, we need a balanced approach. At the same time, we as the citizens of this country need to look at ourselves in the mirror and ask why have we let this country decline to the point it has.
LA Blue,
Thanks for your reply. I would suggest that carrying off duty and the “rights” of the general population to carry firearms are two separate issues and should be analyzed individually.
I certainly can see valid reasons for LEO’s to carry off duty. My dept (RCMP) does not allow that and I would be seriously disciplined for doing so without some sort of special permission (which I have never heard of being given). And I’m okay with that. Gun crime here is rare, so it’s unlikely that I would come across a situation where I would be justified in interceding with my firearm.
As for running across someone I have arrested, it happens all the time and has never been an issue. I suppose it could be, but I would say that is very unlikely here.
Maybe things will change as we have seen an increase in illegal handguns with our organized crime groups, or maybe with a terrorist action (only a matter of time, in my opinion). But for now, the risks and liabilities of having off duty members carrying concealed weapons far outweighs the potential benefits. I know many officers who have questionable marksmanship abilities combined with a lack of common sense, so I can just imagine the situations they would put themselves in. I shudder at the thought.
I would agree with Chris’s comments that Canada isn’t relatively non-violent strictly because of our gun control, but it does help. Our gun laws have reduced the supply of firearms and while jail sentences here are typically a joke, the exception is with gun crimes.
What I don’t understand is the argument that everyone should be able to own whatever kind of guns they want because it’s in 2A. Just because some guys in 1780 wrote that down, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea today.
If you could eliminate every firearm in the U.S. and could start over, would you choose to have the exact same gun situation that you have now ? Is the threat of government oppression, in the year 2008, realistic enough that you want an armed population even though you know it will cost you hundreds (thousands?? - I don’t know the stats) of murders per year and significant threat to your police officers? Does the “Constitutional Right” argument really trump all other considerations?
Now, if I lived in the U.S., I probably would be packing 24/7 with a shotgun beside my bed, so I can certainly appreciate the “pro-gun” argument. I just wonder if, given the choice to do it all over again, would the pro-gun ownership advocates choose the current reality over one where guns aren’t allowed?
Thanks for reading fellas, please know that I have nothing but the utmost respect for you guys and I appreciate the chance to discuss some of our cultural differences. Next week’s topic: Healthcare!
To respond to Art, not all us LEO are right wing. The 2nd Amendment is so simple yet so complex. It refers to states and militias and arms. Firearms are not mentioned. Related documents that are not law or court decisions are quoted to further define what this amendment is taking about.
Over 100 years ago, the US Congress created the National Guard and generally took away the power of the states to create a militia. Taking the wording on its face, the 2nd says arms. We take that to mean weapons such as firearms. But what about Shurikens, Shobi-Zumi, Saps, Short Barreled rifles, or something as plain as knives?
In terms of laws, it is generally considered policy that states can create laws that build on what the US Constitution and Federal Law have already established. With that, States can regulate what “arms” a person can carry, if that person were to be called to the militia. Another doctrine established by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) is that cities are burdens of the states and do have any specific constitutional authority. The only governments mentioned are the national government and the state government. Using this, cities can create laws that are built on what the states did, if the state choses to allow that city to exist.
Waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, firearms safety training are great, but it is true that pretty much anyone can get ahold of some pretty serious firepower if they chose to deal with the black market dealers who exist in every US city. Just because you have the ability to own a military style assault rifle, does that mean you should own such a destructive weapon. Since ALL weapons are designed to destroy flesh, we compromise… Knives for kitchen use, shotguns and rifles for hunting (bows as well, for you hardcore hunters). Personal defense is the most quoted reason for owning a firearm. Although, bladed weapons and those who REALLY know how to use them are far more effective in the art of death ( if anyone has not seen any AOT videos, or works in custody).
What SCOTUS heard in their chamber, for those of us lucky enough to actually hear the entire transcript, was a debate about cities and their authority to regulate handguns. From what I heard, it sounds like the court is completely convinced of the right to bear firearms, despite the clear language of the 2nd Amendment and it use of the word “arms”
From what I heard, it sounds like they will rule against Washington D.C. and allow people to own pretty much anything.
Anyone who thinks that is a good idea and is LEO, needs to consider how the owning of assault rifles, or rapid fire weapons will effect our day to day operations. After attending Street Survival, I saw a lot of shootings. A good officer will consider every call he or she goes to a gun call, but how many officers will force our administrators to get rid of level 3A and go with 4 or 5? this will only further increase suspicious about law enforcement’s militarization. Not try to sound alarmist, but many agencies do not even have patrol rifles, let alone level 4 armor. There is no getting rid of firearms, they are hear to stay, but how do we deal with them will continue to change.
Please give these instructions to your local gang bangers and thugs; I am sure they will eagerly jump on board with your restrictions.
2nd amendment DOES NOT refer to state militias, it refers to the citizenry, age 16-60, that is what it was at the time of the writing of the bill of rights. Furthermore, it could not possibly have been talking about “state” militia or national guard considering they DID NOT EVEN exist until the early 20th century. And if you think our good old government is not capable or has not engaged in systematic abuses of our rights then please google the following: Bonus Army Massacre, WACO, Ruby Ridge, then research the racist roots of gun control laws in the United States (nearly all of them were initially passed to prevent black people from having guns to defend themselves against lynching etc…). Furthermore don’t use the argument that Japan/England etc… have lower crime rates, Japan does have a lower crime rate, they also have a government database on every detail of their citizens lives, they routinely arrest and hold people without charges. Now to address england, initially they saw a dip in gun violence, however now that the law has been in effect for a few years their gun crime rate has actually gone UP by 40%, for the first time in history the British Police are carrying guns (why do they need that if the citizens don’t have them?) Answer: because criminals get guns/weapons regardless of laws. Thomas Jefferson made it clear, laws which prohibit the ownership/carrying of arms only seek to disarm those who are neither inclined or likely to commit crimes, they serve to encourage rather than to prevent homicide and other such violent criminal behavior. Taking guns away from citizens only creates “gun free zones” where criminals KNOW that their prey is unarmed (see all the school shootings and shootings in government buildings where guns are “illegal”) I find it incredulous that someone would actually believe that passing a law making guns illegal will actually stop a criminal who wishes to get a gun, we have had mandatory background checks for years now and it has done NOTHING to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. Simply put someone who is willing to traffic narcotics, steal, rape, murder, etc.. is absolutely not going to stop and think twice about obtaining a “illegal” gun. Rather than focus on taking away inanimate objects from people we should focus on true punishment of criminals, community policing, and better childraising/parenting so that they grow up to be responsible citizens. A government which doesn’t trust its citizens to be armed doesn’t trust its citizens.
Simply put if you don’t want guns, DON’T OWN THEM!!! BUT PLEASE LEAVE MY RKBA ALONE!!! If I want a gun, ANY gun there is no good reason that ANYONE should be able to tell me I am not allowed, its NONE of their business!!!
As a cop, a blogger, a home owner and a father, I say don’t tell me what to do…period. If I use a gun inappropriately, arrest me. If I use according to the law regarding my 2nd amendment and my right to defend myself, my “castle” and my kids, you can video tape me as I blow the smoke residue from the barrel of my weapon.
There are clearly many here that have not done their research. It both amuses and horrifies me that some commenting here cannot distinguish a privilege from a right.
To those of you in favor of restrictions and regulations on the Second Amendment I have a question.
Do you believe in Natural Rights? That is, the idea that your rights come not from government (or even from the Constitution or BoR), but from God or nature. That you have rights by simply existing as a human being.
You see, I believe that no man has the authority to deny me my right to defend my life, no matter the means by which I choose to do so. If that means I choose to carry a handgun, so be it.
Now before anyone assumes I’m for letting the average Joe walk around with a nuke, I’m not. A nuke is not intended as a weapon of individual self defense (I’m not talking about a country here). I do however believe that we should be able to have the items currently used by our infantry as the Second Amendment was indeed written to guarantee an answer to tyrannical government (see the Federalist papers, Declaration of Independence, and various quotes from the Founders at the time).
Frank, even more responses than the illegal immigration one. Congrats.
It’s a tough issue. I get the right of the 2nd Amendment, but that was also written hundreds of years ago in completely different circumstances. And there are limits to rights - You can’t go yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater for sh*ts and giggles and claim the First Amendment.
Still, believe me, I love my guns, so I’m torn. But like I said before, I don’t know how sad I’d be if the less perps were armed. The hows, I don’t know.
And non-trained folks are statistically more likely to shoot a family member or friend than actually defending themselves from an intruder.
Lets try a little experiment.
lets take all the felons out of prisons in every state and put them on the street and in their place at the prisons put 1 firearm.
Then we will really know if guns cause crime.
1 firearm per released felon. by the way.
I don’t have to get any permission to buy a car. All I need is cash. If I can’t drive it, I can have it towed. I don’t and shouldn’t need any permission to buy a gun. That’s a constitutionally protected right.
Now, if I want to DRIVE that car on the street, then I need training, licensing, and to show competence before I’m allowed. I believe in order to CARRY a firearm, the same restrictions should apply. But what I do with my gun or my car on my own property is my business, even if I’m careless. Darwin will make sure to weed out the fools.
Hi Frank,
Great column, I wish I could have jumped into the fray earlier, but here goes…
Your desire to institute an increased requirement for training and demonstration of competency is very common. I see it all the time from those of us who had some type of formal training. It usually comes in the form of, “Everyone should have the ‘right’ to carry a gun, as long as they can prove they are at least as competent and well trained as I am.” As pointed out by others, the problem becomes where do we draw the line? Look within your own agency. What happens when the minimum standards for qualification are increased? What if everyone is required to shoot at least to the minimum standard of a by-the-book Federal Air Marshal qualification? Of what if we required everyone to shoot at least as good as Robbie Leatham, Dave Sevigny, etc… (world class IPSC shooters)?
The point is, the vast majority of civilian (non-law enforcement) self defense shootings won’t/don’t require a high level of shooting skill, nor a high degree of situational judgement. It’s pretty clear cut when a badguy is in your face with a screwdriver asking to borrow five dollars that the situation is life threatening. I don’t have to tell you (but I will) that civilians (non-LE) are involved in many times fewer mistaken identity shootings than law enforcment officers. Civilians don’t arrive on the scene and have to figure out who the players are.
Don’t get me wrong, I encourage everyone who owns a firearm to get as much training as they can. BUT… is it realistic to require a disabled retiree/senior citizen whose neighborhood has gone downhill around them to qualify to an LE style standard? How can the average college student, getting by on student loans and a part-time job, squeeze in 35-40 hours plus a few hundred rounds of ammo (on top of the firearm purchase itself)? Or most single-parent under-employeds who are just getting by as it is? That style of training requirement just isn’t realistic.
Your suggested requirements are somewhat similar to the ‘resonable restrictions’ required of TSA Federal Flight Deck Officers, yet I believe we would both agree that what the TSA beuracracy has done to minimize participation in the program by pilots is a far cry from what was generally intended (in my mind, the idea should be that every flight crew officer is armed. If they are trusted and competent enough to fly an aircraft then they are good to go for the firearm.) Also consider how some states/localities have twisted HR-218. What should be so simple (do you/did you carry a gun as LE? then you’re good to go) is totally screwed up with restrictions, qualifications, who can qualify, where, how, etc…
My ideal world? 18 and up can purchase what they want (long guns, handguns, NFA); Insta-check background check (five-ten minutes); cash and carry on the purchase (no waiting periods). Convicted felons would be required to have a big red “FELON” stamp on thier gov’t issued identification (driver’s license/state ID). (Florida took a small step in this direction - convicted sex offenders and convicted sex predators now have their status displayed “in code” on their DLs/IDs.) Anyone legal to purchase/possess a firearm is legal to carry with no further requirements (just like Vermont and Alaska). Notification to LE is a common cortesy, but I hesitate to endorse mandatory notification requirements.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment.
F. Williams
Tampa, FL
First I should say I have a great respect for the law enforcement community. And I’m ecstatic that many comments made here by the law enforcement community have been pro 2A. The only exceptions I have read here have been by a socialist and an officer who needs to read the constitution. I have owned 2 pawnshops, and have been an active FFL SOT for 10 years plus. In my business we have had to endure an arcane, unfortunate stereotype that we are crooked somehow because some people and LEOs come to us with the preconceived notion that anyone who runs a pawnshop is crooked. But 90% of the officers understand that we are one of the most regulated small businesses in the city and are completely on their side. That being said I would like to make you all aware of an injustice that happened to me. About 4 years ago a 2-time felon broke into one of my stores and stole a berretta 40 S&W. We soon found out who he was and he was arrested. (Note: he was out of jail in days) The gun was entered into the NIBIN system for three years. (I hope the acronym is correct) I understand why this is done and I don’t have a big problem with that. But, after sending them several letters, it became clear that they did not want to return the firearm to us. We were persistent and eventually (4 years later!) we did get the pistol back. By the police departments’ admission the weapon had been test fired per NIBIN regulations. But when I received the firearm back it was damaged to the point that you couldn’t even move the slide. It could not have been fired in the condition in which I received it. I therefore have to assume that it was purposely damaged while in police custody. It looked, very much like it had been hit with a hammer in the middle of the slide. I, however, was able to repair the gun. The most ironic thing about this is that I sell guns to LEOs. In fact the first person to have interest in that firearm was a police officer. The second was an Iraq vet. I want officers to know that some of us are the good guys. I know it is easy to assume and I know it easy to draw conclusions when you deal with the lowest forms of humanity. But please remember most of us are on your side! Don’t regulate us all for the mistakes of the ignorant.
Oh this is a can of worms, good choice. I would like to begin with the fact that our founding fathers had to be some of the wisest group of men to land in any one place. They had all been victims of discrimination in one form or another. We forget that the majority of the people who came to the new world where rejects from the societies of western Europe. They found a place to start anew and because of their previous experiences, did not want to repeat the mistakes of Europe. When the Constituion was written, the founders made the first ten amendments the cornerstone of the document - The Bill of Rights. Most people forget these facts. These rights were inherent to the citizen not the state. These rights seemed to be placed in an order of importance. First and formost was the ability of the citzen to speak their mind and question the government on its actions and ensure that everyone could worship their God as the saw fit, or not to. Right behind this as the shortest right in the entire document. Two simple sentances, well actually one long sentance. If the Second Amendment does not mean exactly what is says and the government want to ride itself of this pesky rule, how far off are the other Amendments and how safe are they. That unreasonable search and seizure law and the right against self incrimination will be next. Enforce laws already on the books, make gun crime penalties tougher. I’m not afraid of the armed citizen as much as I am the armed criminal. Any one who can vote, a powerful ability, should be allowed to purchase a firearm under federal law. However, carry is another matter. If a person wants to carry the weapon in the general public, they should have a minimum of training and licensing just like drivers ed. Driving a car is a privilege owning a firearm is a right. Automatic weapons should continue to be regulated as they are. If you are a honest citizen and are able to pay the tax and affort the weapon-why not. You can own a Porsche but still have to drive the speed limit.
I am very pro 2nd ammendment rights. I am also a police officer and have been for 6 years. The only issue I have with concealed carry is that the person carrying has to use their brain when dealing with the police. I have personally ran across one situation that could have gone very bad for someone with a concealed carry permit. I was investigating a traffic accident and asked a person for their ID. She said it was in her purse in the trunk. I walked back to the trunk with her and she opened her purse and started to reach in, when I saw a handgun in there. I grabbed her hand and told her that that was not a good idea. If you carry and don’t want to be shot by the cops you have to be smarter than that. Use the brains that God gave you.