The Official Second Amendment / Gun Ban Thread

[Meg 368]

I updated this to include the Ohio bar law. Might as well keep it all together.

I also wanted to add a link.

A few years ago, a European friend said, quite sincerely, that she imagined that the US government was planning to confiscate all of the guns any day now, right? I told her it wasn't going to happen and what would be involved in making it happen.

I saw a show that conveyed the situation better than I could so I figured I'd post it here.

How the States Got their Shapes For the next while anyway, the "State of Rebellion" episode will be online. It isn't necessary to watch the whole thing, just watch the beginning part about Montana. It explains it better than I can.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

As a Gun collector and an active shooter in the centefire community i would think that a gun ban would have issues. A majority of americans don't support a gun ban, nor do they want to see more laws, just better enforcement of current laws.

As a person living in the Peoples Republic of New Jersey i can tell you have harsh gun laws are here, and while i think they are harsh and a little to much, i also believe that because of that i am safer as well.

It all comes down to the gun shop/ the carrier or who ever is selling guns illegally, that is the problem.

While gun ownership is small in new jersey only about 3 million FoID's exist for a mere 8 million residents i can say that the number of gun owners who committed crime was so insignificant that the state police reported "0" last year infact according to the Mayor of Newark only 1 homicide was committed in 2009 by a lawful gun owner, the rest 250 or so were committed by illegally possessed weapons or were used by person who do not fit under the NJ state for gun ownership.

We need to remember that the right to bear arms is not so you can hunt, its so you can protect all of the anti-gun liberal who use their 1st amendment right so well, that they forget that the 2nd amendment protects the first, and in the end it is the doomsday amendment, the one in which all other methods fail, then at least one will survive, and the founding fathers knew this.

[Easy Bakes 253]

I updated this to include the Ohio bar law. Might as well keep it all together.

I also wanted to add a link.

A few years ago, a European friend said, quite sincerely, that she imagined that the US government was planning to confiscate all of the guns any day now, right? I told her it wasn't going to happen and what would be involved in making it happen.

I saw a show that conveyed the situation better than I could so I figured I'd post it here.

How the States Got their Shapes For the next while anyway, the "State of Rebellion" episode will be online. It isn't necessary to watch the whole thing, just watch the beginning part about Montana. It explains it better than I can.

that was an interesting history lesson.

Looks like Sidney Edgerton[sp] was the 1st lobbyist.

[astronelson 339]

While gun ownership is small in new jersey only about 3 million FoID's exist for a mere 8 million residents i can say that the number of gun owners who committed crime was so insignificant that the state police reported "0" last year infact according to the Mayor of Newark only 1 homicide was committed in 2009 by a lawful gun owner, the rest 250 or so were committed by illegally possessed weapons or were used by person who do not fit under the NJ state for gun ownership.

Is that total homicide or firearm homicide only? Here's a comparison: Australia had, in 2008, 282 homicides total. Firearm homicides made up about 11% of these, or around 30. In 2008, Australia's population was about 21 million. 12% as many firearm homicides for about 2.5 times as many people.

It is likely the decline is related to the increase in gun control after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. In the 15 years since then, we have not had a mass shooting. Monash University was close, with 2 deaths and 5 injuries. The shooter was stopped while changing guns by the lecturer (who had been shot in the arm and knee) and a student who had martial arts training.

We need to remember that the right to bear arms is not so you can hunt, its so you can protect all of the anti-gun liberal who use their 1st amendment right so well, that they forget that the 2nd amendment protects the first, and in the end it is the doomsday amendment, the one in which all other methods fail, then at least one will survive, and the founding fathers knew this.

You say liberal like it's a bad thing.

No-one knows exactly what the founding fathers were thinking. It is likely, however, that high-powered rifles or any weaponry capable of delivering precise death at a distance were not anywhere in their minds. In any case, I tend to read it as allowing one to be a member of the military. The language as it was at the time supports this.

[Duke87 1,070]

But let's be honest here. Crime is caused by social turmoil, not by the presence of weapons. It isn't the means so much as the motive that matters. Let's note that America has "ghettoes" that are nothing like anything found in any other developed country, populated by people who aren't very well taken care of growing up and lead dysfunctional adult lives as a result.

282 homicides in 2.5 million population (Australia, 2008) is 1.128 homicides per 100,000 people.

New Jersey, a state with some pretty nasty neighborhoods, had 319 homicides in 2009 with a population of 8,707,739. 3.7 per 100,000 people.

The aforementioned Montana, meanwhile - a state that's very rural and thus generally lacks "ghettoes" - in 2009 had 28 homicides in 2009, out of a population of 974,989... that's 2.9 per 100,000 people, but towards the higher end of the dataset. It has hovered down around 1.8 per 100,000 people in other years.

Now let's look at a state that really has no bad neighborhoods: Vermont. 1.1 homicides per 100,000 people in 2009. Oh, look at that, just about what Australia had! (okay, so other years have been a bit higher, but still)

Point is, America's crime statistics are hurt significantly by the existence of all the rough urban areas. If you look only at the rest of the country, it isn't appreciably more dangerous than any other developed nation. This isn't a national problem, it's a problem that exists in pockets. And the legality of guns isn't an appreciable factor: as has been pointed out, most gun crimes are committed with guns that are not legally owned. Gangsters, mobsters, drug traffickers, etc. don't carry legally. Too easy to trace a registered gun (makes it easier for the cops to catch you), and very difficult to impossible to legally get one if you've got a rap sheet.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am inclined to agree. At the time of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, the pistol was a dueling pistol that fired only one shot at a time, and had to be reloaded manually. Cartridges were either unknown or used only for cannon. Even long guns were single shot muzzle loaders for the most part. The Winchester rifle had not been invented. Firearms were bulky and awkward.

The right of the people to bear arms does not necessarily mean fire arms. You could get off more arrows than bullets in those days, and altercations were close up and personal, including warfare. Swords and daggers were a lot more useful since reloading wasn't necessary.

Notwithstanding the 2nd amendment, with which great license has been taken, I firmly believe that automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons capable of rapid fire should be restricted to the military and officialdom. If you want a handgun, it should be no more than a revolver, and other items should be illegal in the hands of a private person. Similarly, long guns should be single shot weapons where you have to at least manually pump the bolt mechanism to load a shell from the magazine.

In my country, handguns are rigidly controlled, and a concealed carry permit is very hard to get. The only control over long guns is the stupid long gun registry which is much more expensive than it is worth. It is an expensive boondoggle. Most long guns are owned by people who farm or are living in sparsely populated areas. These folks usually have either vermin eradication or personal protection from wild predators reasons for having a long gun.

Unfortunately, people who freely carry hand guns often dispose of two legged vermin in an illegal manner.

[hym 358]

...I firmly believe that automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons capable of rapid fire should be restricted to the military and officialdom.

I can understand the rationale behind restricting the sale of automatic weaponry (though I will again point out that of the 185,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the US, ATF records show no indication that any of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime), what determines a rapid fire weapon? For example, a M-16 can be set to fire one round per trigger squeeze, then switched to fire 660 rounds per minute, then back to one round per trigger squeeze, all with the flip of a switch. What do you classify it as? Even more difficult, how do you classify a handgun that is semi-automatic, but capable of rapid fire if the operator is capable of pulling the trigger fast enough?

Definitions are vitally important here, and current gun technology makes many guns capable of being many things to many different people.

If you want a handgun, it should be no more than a revolver, and other items should be illegal in the hands of a private person.

Why? Revolvers are more complex and require more maintenance than many modern handguns which makes them more prone to failure in the hands of the general populace. Additionally, they tend to be significantly more dangerous to children than many modern handguns. Furthermore, there is no real proof that revolvers make killing sprees more difficult to execute, and finally, there are plenty of revolvers that are far more deadly than a typical 9mm Glock handgun.

[Easy Bakes 253]

You say liberal like it's a bad thing.

No-one knows exactly what the founding fathers were thinking. It is likely, however, that high-powered rifles or any weaponry capable of delivering precise death at a distance were not anywhere in their minds. In any case, I tend to read it as allowing one to be a member of the military. The language as it was at the time supports this.

Yes we do its just the common sense they had has been spin doctored away.

As nonny moose said

"The right of the people to bear arms does not necessarily mean fire arms"

the founding fathers were not that far removed from a time were the average Joe was not allowed to own weapons of war, no swords, bows and arrows, Armour etc.it was to prevent peasant revolutions being better armed then the soldiers.

[sneakeypete 16]

(though I will again point out that of the 185,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the US, ATF records show no indication that any of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime)

Now, i know i'm just picking up a point on your entire argument, however, its very true, registered weapons are much less likely to be used for crime. However, i'd be willing to guess that the presence of larger numbers of registered weapons in a country leads to a higher presence of unregistered weapons, due to thefts etc being more common.

I mean, if someone broke into the home of an owner of one of these automatic weapons, (or any other weapon), somehow found a key and stole it, and then used it in a crime, would the ATF still count it as a "legally owned" weapon?

  Edited May 27, 2011 by sneakeypete  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

...I firmly believe that automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons capable of rapid fire should be restricted to the military and officialdom.

I can understand the rationale behind restricting the sale of automatic weaponry (though I will again point out that of the 185,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the US, ATF records show no indication that any of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime), what determines a rapid fire weapon? For example, a M-16 can be set to fire one round per trigger squeeze, then switched to fire 660 rounds per minute, then back to one round per trigger squeeze, all with the flip of a switch. What do you classify it as? Even more difficult, how do you classify a handgun that is semi-automatic, but capable of rapid fire if the operator is capable of pulling the trigger fast enough?

Definitions are vitally important here, and current gun technology makes many guns capable of being many things to many different people.

If you want a handgun, it should be no more than a revolver, and other items should be illegal in the hands of a private person.

Why? Revolvers are more complex and require more maintenance than many modern handguns which makes them more prone to failure in the hands of the general populace. Additionally, they tend to be significantly more dangerous to children than many modern handguns. Furthermore, there is no real proof that revolvers make killing sprees more difficult to execute, and finally, there are plenty of revolvers that are far more deadly than a typical 9mm Glock handgun.

One of the things you are very good at is lifting things out of context. The point of my post is the remove from private hands any fire arm that could be fired more than once without a pause to load the chamber. The m-1 is a military weapon, and should not be on the streets, for example. It is an automatic weapon because it can be used that way.

This is the kind of hairsplitting that got your country into its second amendment mess. The country has made its bed, and now must lie in it. It is important to understand the intention of legal/constitutional pronouncements and avoid taking license from them. One of these days, the people will find that they are in a corner on this, and the angst between states like Montana and New Jersy could well come to more than suits in the courts.

  Edited May 27, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[pepsi71ocean 2]

While gun ownership is small in new jersey only about 3 million FoID's exist for a mere 8 million residents i can say that the number of gun owners who committed crime was so insignificant that the state police reported "0" last year infact according to the Mayor of Newark only 1 homicide was committed in 2009 by a lawful gun owner, the rest 250 or so were committed by illegally possessed weapons or were used by person who do not fit under the NJ state for gun ownership.

Is that total homicide or firearm homicide only? Here's a comparison: Australia had, in 2008, 282 homicides total. Firearm homicides made up about 11% of these, or around 30. In 2008, Australia's population was about 21 million. 12% as many firearm homicides for about 2.5 times as many people.

It is likely the decline is related to the increase in gun control after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre. In the 15 years since then, we have not had a mass shooting. Monash University was close, with 2 deaths and 5 injuries. The shooter was stopped while changing guns by the lecturer (who had been shot in the arm and knee) and a student who had martial arts training.

We need to remember that the right to bear arms is not so you can hunt, its so you can protect all of the anti-gun liberal who use their 1st amendment right so well, that they forget that the 2nd amendment protects the first, and in the end it is the doomsday amendment, the one in which all other methods fail, then at least one will survive, and the founding fathers knew this.

You say liberal like it's a bad thing.

No-one knows exactly what the founding fathers were thinking. It is likely, however, that high-powered rifles or any weaponry capable of delivering precise death at a distance were not anywhere in their minds. In any case, I tend to read it as allowing one to be a member of the military. The language as it was at the time supports this.

That was number of homicides traced to gun oweners. where the gun owener actually went out and killed someone. That doesn't include non certified perole to have them.

Well many gun oweners look at the situation to where only the anti-gun brady people, and then leftist "liberals" are the ones to blame for an ever tightening hanging rope to our gun ownership. We in New Jersey are already so restricted it takes more money then it does brains to buy guns. the last guy who was issues a Class 3 license in NJ, spent something like 15,000 dollars entertaining state police and judges before they granted his permit.

Me, i can barely afford to keep up withy current costs, and so NJ will become one of those you have to pay to play states, where only the rich can have firearms.

I am inclined to agree. At the time of the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment, the pistol was a dueling pistol that fired only one shot at a time, and had to be reloaded manually. Cartridges were either unknown or used only for cannon. Even long guns were single shot muzzle loaders for the most part. The Winchester rifle had not been invented. Firearms were bulky and awkward.

The right of the people to bear arms does not necessarily mean fire arms. You could get off more arrows than bullets in those days, and altercations were close up and personal, including warfare. Swords and daggers were a lot more useful since reloading wasn't necessary.

Notwithstanding the 2nd amendment, with which great license has been taken, I firmly believe that automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons capable of rapid fire should be restricted to the military and officialdom. If you want a handgun, it should be no more than a revolver, and other items should be illegal in the hands of a private person. Similarly, long guns should be single shot weapons where you have to at least manually pump the bolt mechanism to load a shell from the magazine.

In my country, handguns are rigidly controlled, and a concealed carry permit is very hard to get. The only control over long guns is the stupid long gun registry which is much more expensive than it is worth. It is an expensive boondoggle. Most long guns are owned by people who farm or are living in sparsely populated areas. These folks usually have either vermin eradication or personal protection from wild predators reasons for having a long gun.

Unfortunately, people who freely carry hand guns often dispose of two legged vermin in an illegal manner.

A revolver is more dangerous then a semi-automatic handgun, especially when loaded because it has no saftey for the hammer to catch if it were accidentally knocked backwards. In this sense there is no difference between a revolver that can fire 6 round before you use a speed loader. Frankly have you ever scene a competition shoot where they use revolvers with speed loaders they can usually keep up with the guys with semi-automatic hanguns.

Your making a anecdotal statement that implies all who carry guns will kill others, and i must ask on what fact can you base this on, the part where Vermont has (no gun restrictions, and very little crime, where people openly carry their firearms?) Or is this based on the Jared Laughtner scenario, where he was not mentally fit to even be issued a gun, and got one anyways and went on a rampage. Sadly i wish there was a open carry person there and that they shot him down, because im almost certain it would have ended on a different note.

(though I will again point out that of the 185,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the US, ATF records show no indication that any of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime)

Now, i know i'm just picking up a point on your entire argument, however, its very true, registered weapons are much less likely to be used for crime. However, i'd be willing to guess that the presence of larger numbers of registered weapons in a country leads to a higher presence of unregistered weapons, due to thefts etc being more common.

I mean, if someone broke into the home of an owner of one of these automatic weapons, (or any other weapon), somehow found a key and stole it, and then used it in a crime, would the ATF still count it as a "legally owned" weapon?

No, the Homeowner must report any theft of firearms to the police withing days, its written law, now in the case of Class 3 weapons the NFA(national Firearms act 1934) weapons the Select fire weapons you speak of then they must prove how hard it was, if you have a registered Class 3 weapon you must keep it locked up, and If you can afford the 20,000 dollars for a Select fire weapon you can afford a gun vault to keep it in.

...I firmly believe that automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons capable of rapid fire should be restricted to the military and officialdom.

I can understand the rationale behind restricting the sale of automatic weaponry (though I will again point out that of the 185,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the US, ATF records show no indication that any of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime), what determines a rapid fire weapon? For example, a M-16 can be set to fire one round per trigger squeeze, then switched to fire 660 rounds per minute, then back to one round per trigger squeeze, all with the flip of a switch. What do you classify it as? Even more difficult, how do you classify a handgun that is semi-automatic, but capable of rapid fire if the operator is capable of pulling the trigger fast enough?

Definitions are vitally important here, and current gun technology makes many guns capable of being many things to many different people.

If you want a handgun, it should be no more than a revolver, and other items should be illegal in the hands of a private person.

Why? Revolvers are more complex and require more maintenance than many modern handguns which makes them more prone to failure in the hands of the general populace. Additionally, they tend to be significantly more dangerous to children than many modern handguns. Furthermore, there is no real proof that revolvers make killing sprees more difficult to execute, and finally, there are plenty of revolvers that are far more deadly than a typical 9mm Glock handgun.

One of the things you are very good at is lifting things out of context. The point of my post is the remove from private hands any fire arm that could be fired more than once without a pause to load the chamber. The m-1 is a military weapon, and should not be on the streets, for example. It is an automatic weapon because it can be used that way.

This is the kind of hairsplitting that got your country into its second amendment mess. The country has made its bed, and now must lie in it. It is important to understand the intention of legal/constitutional pronouncements and avoid taking license from them. One of these days, the people will find that they are in a corner on this, and the angst between states like Montana and New Jersy could well come to more than suits in the courts.

I can load and fire my Mauser and or my Lee enfield as fast as my brother armed with a M1 garand, Hell i have been to Vintage centirefire matches where i can keep up with the guys who are toting M-14's and Ar-15 look alike around, and guess what they say you think you can keep up, and they are amazed at how i can keep up. There is a video somewhere let me find it

http://tyoberg.multiply.com/video/item/5

This match has all people armed with AR-15's and M-14's(and one guy with a M1 Garand) all are semi automatic firearms, note how fast he can keep up with those guys who have large magazines(of 20 rounds). My point is regardless when in the hands of skilled people a bolt action rifle can keep up, why do you think the British keep the Lee Enfield in Service until 1957, (i think it was the mad minute that they could go as fast as the guys with Garands)

They are pushing Conceal Carry through in New Jersey, but the last i heard NJ will issue you a carry permit after you put down a 500 dollar non-refundable cost to determine electability, now im sure it will pass if they raise it high enough, hell this state loves money. And i know of hundres who would drop the money for them. And i know of many friends who carry their handguns when they go into center city Camden, Elizabeth, Union Newark, and Atlantic city is starting to get out of control.

I was down there and almost got mugged by a guy, till i pulled out my knife and returned combat, after which he ran away, do you think scum like that should be allowed to live so they can rob the next white guy in line, i think we need to bring the mob back and let them take the trash out.

[hym 358]

(though I will again point out that of the 185,000 legally owned automatic weapons in the US, ATF records show no indication that any of them have ever been used in the commission of a crime)

Now, i know i'm just picking up a point on your entire argument, however, its very true, registered weapons are much less likely to be used for crime. However, i'd be willing to guess that the presence of larger numbers of registered weapons in a country leads to a higher presence of unregistered weapons, due to thefts etc being more common.

I mean, if someone broke into the home of an owner of one of these automatic weapons, (or any other weapon), somehow found a key and stole it, and then used it in a crime, would the ATF still count it as a "legally owned" weapon?

From my understanding of the ATF's rules on automatic and assault weapons, the question is whether, in the act of theft, ownership of the weapon was actually transferred. If ownership was not transferred, then the weapon is still legally owned (and I believe the gun owner can be held accountable). If ownership was transferred by the theft, then the guy who stole it is guilty of possession of an illegally owned automatic weapon.

The ATF has some very nonsensical rules on automatic/assault weapons.

One of the things you are very good at is lifting things out of context. The point of my post is the remove from private hands any fire arm that could be fired more than once without a pause to load the chamber. The m-1 is a military weapon, and should not be on the streets, for example. It is an automatic weapon because it can be used that way.

This is the kind of hairsplitting that got your country into its second amendment mess. The country has made its bed, and now must lie in it. It is important to understand the intention of legal/constitutional pronouncements and avoid taking license from them. One of these days, the people will find that they are in a corner on this, and the angst between states like Montana and New Jersy could well come to more than suits in the courts.

I'm going to break this down in several points:

The point of my post is the remove from private hands any fire arm that could be fired more than once without a pause to load the chamber.

This may seem like a good idea, but it has impact on one's ability to "defend oneself" and that could easily make it run afoul of the Second Amendment if it was ever successfully argued that it was an unreasonable restriction.

The m-1 is a military weapon, and should not be on the streets, for example. It is an automatic weapon because it can be used that way.

Years ago, it was acceptable to define an automatic weapon as any weapon capable of firing multiple rounds without releasing and subsequently reapplying the trigger. The definition made sense to your average person and it held up in court. Advancements in weapon technology, most notably the widespread implementation of selective fire systems, have forced a change in how an automatic weapon is defined. It is no longer sufficient to simply say "multiple rounds without releasing the trigger" as was done in the past. Now, it is necessary to develop a distinction between burst fire operation and fully automatic operation and there is little difference between the two modes, both logically and operationally. A weapon capable of only burst fire mode could easily be considered as having fully automatic capabilities if you want to make the clip small enough or its burst big enough, and an assault weapon set in "full auto" looks like it's being fired in burst mode if the user can't keep his finger on the trigger after the initial recoil. If you want an effective law that will make it illegal to possess automatic weapons, you have to settle on a rock solid definition of what constitutes an automatic weapon, otherwise you're setting things up for a court challenge that will likely overturn your law. (Just to give you an idea how difficult it is to really define what makes an automatic weapon "automatic," the ATF has one definition, the FBI has another, the states have a variety of different definitions, and various cities have even more definitions. Even the gun industry isn't completely settled on what constitutes an automatic weapon.)

This is the kind of hairsplitting that got your country into its second amendment mess.

"Hairsplitting" is a necessary part of this process. If you split too many hairs, you wind up with so many loopholes that the entire effort was pointless. On the flip side, if you don't split enough hairs, you walk on people's legally guaranteed rights, and they will only put up with that so long before they revolt. To put it another way, people who only worry about the details can't see the forest, and those who don't worry about the details pave the road to Hell.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Carrying any weapon capable of killing another person does not mean that there is a likelihood that one will do so. However, it should be noted that weapons don't kill people, others do.

A revolver can be perfectly safe if you carry an empty chamber under the hammer, by the way. When I was licensed to carry concealed, I had a .32 revolver, and it did have a safety catch. I was a plain clothes bank messenger at the time, as well as treasury teller at the bank branch I was working in. This was a requirement of the bank's insurance. This was prior to 1962, and I doubt fire arms design for revolvers has changed much.

  Edited May 28, 2011 by A Nonny Moose  

[pepsi71ocean 2]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/03/...n%3BcontentBody

There is the link.

And according to it the ATF told them to let the guns into mexico which makes me want to go and say WTF.

The way i see it is the US government was letting guns walk into Mexico, was this to propose a gun ban (the liberal agenda)(like the Mexican President saying to all Americans to fix the gun holes and institute a ban to save Mexican lives), or was it to help feed the Capitalism machine and expand the gun industry, (like we did in Vietnam by sending over Campbell Pork and Beans and selling it to the North)?

Either way There we go creating our own problems again!

So it seems that our gun laws are not our problem, the Government is. We must feed the killing machine, by letting thousands of guns walk into mexico, through the black market, i would NOT be surprised if our own ATF was buying them legally to begin with.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

You are surprised? The U.S. government is so large and sluggish that the left hand has lost contact with the fingers, let alone the right hand. Too many bureaucrabs and snivel serpents, who would just as soon hassle the citizenry than do their jobs, whatever they are and if they know what they are. We were falling into the same state, but the recent election slapped everyone on the back of the head.

If someone in the enforcement arms allows something illegal, orders or not, he is guilty of the crime and should not get away with it by saying "I was just following orders" and/or "I'd get fired if I didn't". Not only is he guilty of some relevant felony, but the person(s) who ordered this are also guilty, and all are guilty of conspiracy. I believe the U.S. code is quite clear on that. In any case what happened to the oath he took when he became a peace officer? Did he think it was just words? What a travesty!

So, was this character arrested? If not, why not? What about those responsible? Was this order in writing? Does the prosecution have a copy of it?

You can clearly see that there is "trouble in the cellar".

[sneakeypete 16]

Now, i know i'm just picking up a point on your entire argument, however, its very true, registered weapons are much less likely to be used for crime. However, i'd be willing to guess that the presence of larger numbers of registered weapons in a country leads to a higher presence of unregistered weapons, due to thefts etc being more common.

I mean, if someone broke into the home of an owner of one of these automatic weapons, (or any other weapon), somehow found a key and stole it, and then used it in a crime, would the ATF still count it as a "legally owned" weapon?

No, the Homeowner must report any theft of firearms to the police withing days, its written law, now in the case of Class 3 weapons the NFA(national Firearms act 1934) weapons the Select fire weapons you speak of then they must prove how hard it was, if you have a registered Class 3 weapon you must keep it locked up, and If you can afford the 20,000 dollars for a Select fire weapon you can afford a gun vault to keep it in.

We have to keep everything locked up, even weapons such as .22 rimfire rifles. And the safe has to be secured to the house/floor in some manner. Ammo doesn't have to be secured to the ground, but still needs to be locked up, and in a seperate enclosure.

However, my point still stands: the black market is responsible for the firearms used, certainly, and they aren't used by registered gun owners. However, i'm sure that theft of registered guns is a large source of that black market trade (of course a lot of it is going to be illegal imports, which should be stopped if possible of course).

Also, pumnp action centrefire rifles have become quite popular here in the last decade due to them being legal to own, and semi automatic rifles no.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Now, i know i'm just picking up a point on your entire argument, however, its very true, registered weapons are much less likely to be used for crime. However, i'd be willing to guess that the presence of larger numbers of registered weapons in a country leads to a higher presence of unregistered weapons, due to thefts etc being more common.

I mean, if someone broke into the home of an owner of one of these automatic weapons, (or any other weapon), somehow found a key and stole it, and then used it in a crime, would the ATF still count it as a "legally owned" weapon?

No, the Homeowner must report any theft of firearms to the police withing days, its written law, now in the case of Class 3 weapons the NFA(national Firearms act 1934) weapons the Select fire weapons you speak of then they must prove how hard it was, if you have a registered Class 3 weapon you must keep it locked up, and If you can afford the 20,000 dollars for a Select fire weapon you can afford a gun vault to keep it in.

We have to keep everything locked up, even weapons such as .22 rimfire rifles. And the safe has to be secured to the house/floor in some manner. Ammo doesn't have to be secured to the ground, but still needs to be locked up, and in a seperate enclosure.

However, my point still stands: the black market is responsible for the firearms used, certainly, and they aren't used by registered gun owners. However, i'm sure that theft of registered guns is a large source of that black market trade (of course a lot of it is going to be illegal imports, which should be stopped if possible of course).

Also, pumnp action centrefire rifles have become quite popular here in the last decade due to them being legal to own, and semi automatic rifles no.

All i can say is LOL, i though in New Jersey you had to keep everything locked up, hell here you can't even get Class 3 stuff, let alone rifle magazines over 15rds and handgun mags over 10. But yes it is a crime in Nj to leave your gun's withing (what they deem) reasonable accessible to a minor. So they explained that a padlock going through the safety of a M14 or a M1 Garand type firearm is completely not legal, however in their eyes it is perfectly to store a 98k without a trigger safety, provided the the "safety" switch is set to safe? WTF) i know.

Anyways my Jersey Legal set up is a locked armed closet(with a separate alarm from the house one), then the gun vault its self is made using 1/2 sheet rock on the outside wall, then 3 inch of plywood, tile and rebar then more sheet rock, then a nice hard wood interior using finish plywood. The door its self is a reforced door with 2 inch thick plywood with rebar slid inside between the two, the whole thing is inside this dam closet door and the whole thing is concealed as well.

And when the State police cam to inspect they found it satisfactory.

Total value of firearms 5,000+ USD total cost of building gun vault, more then the guns were worth Sastifaction of building a Jersey legal gun safe worth :bunny: :bunny:

[FreewayofFlight 41]

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/06/16/next-idea-no-permit-necessary.html?sid=101

Ohio Governor John Kasich is expected to sign Senate Bill 17 into law soon that would concealed carry into bars, restaurants and some stadiums.

People who carry a gun into an establishment that serves alcohol are prohibited from drinking. Those who do would be guilty of a fifth-degree felony.

The bill would also remove the requirement that a gun must be secured in a holster, locked case, or unlocked in plain sight while driving.

The proposal would allow establishments to post signs stating guns are prohibited. Some insurance companies will not ensure a bar or restaurant unless such signs are posted.

Also, House Bill 256 has been introduced that could further extend concealed carry. The bill would allow guns to be carried in churches, colleges, child-care centers, and government buildings- possibly even the Ohio Statehouse.

The problem with Senate Bill 17 is that there is no menton on ENFORCEMENT! How are bar and restaurant owners supposed to make sure patrons are not armed? "Umm, sir, can you show me your piece, please?" Is the bartender going to be wanding people before serving? Are we supposed to trust that the person sitting next to us with the margherita doesn't have a Glock on them?

These are some huge questions that are unaddressed by this proposed law. That doesn't even cover the gun-in-the-car issue.

House Bill 256 is 20 times as absurd! Why do you need to carry a gun to church?

We are well aware of the damage guns do on college campuses, how are campus police supposed to detect a threat to students when people are ALLOWED to carry guns to class?!?

And with child-care centers, GUNS HAVE NO PLACE NEAR CHILDREN!!! Having a security guard at a preschool is one thing, but a teacher or parent bringing a weapon into the building is simply rediculous! There are so many accidents that could happen. What is going to happen when a gun misfires and kills a child? Remember the story back in 2008 when an 8-year-old boy lost control of an Uzi and killed himself (link below)? That case is enough of an example to prove that children and guns need to be seperated.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6121915&page=1

Also, allowing concealed carry in government buildings will make it much easier for someone to get close to a high-ranking official (judge, congressperson or the Governor himself) and attempt an assassination.

Furthermore House Bill 256 could eliminate the need for a permit; another shot at enforcement, and an easier way for questionable people to aquire a gun.

And lastly, I firmly believe that any weapon more powerful than a handgun or shotgun should be reserved solely for the United States military and law enforement agencies. I don't care how much you love collecting guns, I don't want to live next door to someone who owns an AK-47.

[Easy Bakes 253]

This will be fun. It all good to have concealed carry laws but you still cant carry the thing into certian places.

they can refuse you service and subject you to a search to keep guns out of thier places of bussiness.

there will be problems just from business that want to keep guns out

of thier bars.

  Edited June 16, 2011 by Easy Bakes  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Political silliness. That legislature needs a good clean-out at the next election. Concealed carry should be illegal except on rigidly controlled permits.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Since the Republican Party has majority in both the Ohio House and Senate, they can pretty much pass whatever they want. The Republicans have shot down several amendments to the bill that is set to go before the Governor.

The Second Amendment people like to say 'guns don't kill people'. However people like to use guns to kill people; whether they are mentally unstable, or just have a score to settle. Background checks and gun control laws help make sure mentally unstable people can't use guns to commit college shootings, assassination attempts, etc. Also it is important to limit where guns can be brought, I mean seriously, why do you need to carry a gun in a day-care center?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Even more important, what would you be doing with a piece in a bar? Theoretically, it is illegal to consume alcohol if you are carrying, but what if some drunk gets your piece away from you?

[Ocram's Razr 963]

Interesting news.

Well, even if there are such great restrictions on firearms that no one really has one, non-lethal forms of defense should be allowed, like stun guns, mace, pepper spray, bear repellent, etc.

[Duke87 1,070]

How are bar and restaurant owners supposed to make sure patrons are not armed? "Umm, sir, can you show me your piece, please?" Is the bartender going to be wanding people before serving? Are we supposed to trust that the person sitting next to us with the margherita doesn't have a Glock on them?

If the guy sitting next to me at the bar has a gun that he legally owns, I really don't care. Even if the owner of the establishment has chosen not to allow it. He has no reason to use it on me and I have no intention of giving him one, so it isn't threatening.

As for enforcing such a ban, that's what bouncers are for.

Why do you need to carry a gun to church?

Why not? You, your family, or your property can come under threat anywhere. No harm in having the ability to defend yourself.

We are well aware of the damage guns do on college campuses, how are campus police supposed to detect a threat to students when people are ALLOWED to carry guns to class?!?

Based on the behavior of the person involved.

Besides, if you have armed students, a madman on a rampage won't get very far before someone fires back - thus saving lives.

And with child-care centers, GUNS HAVE NO PLACE NEAR CHILDREN!!!

Says who? Guns have no place in the hands of children, but in the hands of a responsible adult near children it's not a problem.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Why do you need to carry a gun to church?

Why not? You, your family, or your property can come under threat anywhere. No harm in having the ability to defend yourself.

What you are saying is that the civil authorities can't protect you, even in church. Remind me not to come and live there.

[hym 358]

What you are saying is that the civil authorities can't protect you, even in church. Remind me not to come and live there.

As ugly as that comment may sound, there are important things to consider when making that statement.

• Most religious institutions do not have dedicated police officers. Some do contract with the police department to keep an officer on the property during certain times, but that's generally only because they've been subject to crime before and don't want to be victimized again.
  
• It's not just churches. Most businesses can't simply rent an officer even if they want to. Those that do contract to have a dedicated police officer onsite are usually either high-value targets or are subject to continual crime problems.
  
• No matter how proactive the police are about trying to prevent crime and keep everyone safe, they are a reactionary force. In the event of an incident, they don't respond till after it has already started (and possibly finished, too). The only way to fundamentally change this reality is to station police everywhere, and that isn't financially feasible.
  

As the saying goes...

When every second counts, the police are only minutes away.

[Duke87 1,070]

What you are saying is that the civil authorities can't protect you, even in church.

The police can only protect you in an incident if they happen to be there at the moment. And in no country in the world can the police be everywhere all the time. It is far more likely than not that the people present will have to fend for themselves until the authorities arrive. By which point, it's probably too late for them to save anyone. All they can do is clean up and chase after the attacker.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

OK, now think of what you guys are saying. Your society is unsafe?? What price freedom? If that's what you think you have. Your right to bear arms has been interpreted far too loosely for me, or any sane person. Who would want to live in such a country?

I think, as do many, that it is time to tighten up the rules, crack down on violators, and go after illegal weapons as if it were a public health issue. This should not concern the National Rifle Association, unless what they want to rifle is your possessions.

[pepsi71ocean 2]

Since the Republican Party has majority in both the Ohio House and Senate, they can pretty much pass whatever they want. The Republicans have shot down several amendments to the bill that is set to go before the Governor.

The Second Amendment people like to say 'guns don't kill people'. However people like to use guns to kill people; whether they are mentally unstable, or just have a score to settle. Background checks and gun control laws help make sure mentally unstable people can't use guns to commit college shootings, assassination attempts, etc. Also it is important to limit where guns can be brought, I mean seriously, why do you need to carry a gun in a day-care center?

I don't think that they decided to pass a law because they know people will do it, but i know that the though of would be good enough to keep most people honest.

Lets face it, I live in a state where CCW is illegal, people do not carry, let alone carry other things (knives etic), so i know odds are greatly in my favor if i wanted t carjack or mug someone for their cash, hell mug someone in AC and you could make as much in one time as you would working a week or so.

Now that there are only 2 police officers in 1 squad car paroling the whole Casino district that means the odds of getting away with mugging them and not being caught are even better.

So why don't i do it? because i was raised better, but more importantly i valve my freedom over some quick 500 bucks in cash.

Why do you need to carry a gun to church?

Why not? You, your family, or your property can come under threat anywhere. No harm in having the ability to defend yourself.

What you are saying is that the civil authorities can't protect you, even in church. Remind me not to come and live there.

I live in the rural south of new jersey, we have state police, so when our neighbors got robbed it took the state police 45 mins to come to their house, funny the robber died by then, before he pulled out his ILLEGAL hand gun to shoot our neighbor.

Go figure.

Oh it gets better, the gas station got robbed down the road, and turns out the attendant pressed the hold up button, at the same time two guys came into the station for gas, when the attendant didn't come out one went to look for him inside the store, saw the two guys with guns, then he went back and they two guys went into the gas station with their LOADED (they loaded them), shotguns and held up the robber for over 40 mins, by then the state police after 40 mins arrived.

And yes no one was shot that time, although the town hear about it, and then later found out that the two guys (who robbed the station) broke out of the Trenton state just a week before and making their way south and needed cash and a vehicle.

Can you image what if those guys were unarmed, and the robbers then stole their truck, by the time the state police would have arrived those guys would have been gone, almost out of the state.

Have i ever been house robbed, no, and i make it know i have an alarm system and video cameras (both real and fake ones), but when the day comes i know i have a .45 waiting, along with a heavy .223 round that i know between both should keep anything at bay until i can get to the armory.(yea like that will ever happen, maybe when the zombies arrive).

[Meg 368]

Your right to bear arms has been interpreted far too loosely for me, or any sane person. Who would want to live in such a country?

Based on the rate at which the borders are being overrun, I'd say lots of people.

I think, as do many, that it is time to tighten up the rules, crack down on violators, and go after illegal weapons as if it were a public health issue.

Efforts to do so will result in people stockpiling weapons. I know people who do this and I don't even life in the "real" part of the country.