What are the acceptable limits of the 2nd Amendment?

[Platapus]

One acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is to enact and enforce very very harsh sentences for criminals that use a gun to commit a crime.

In my opinion, if someone uses a firearm to commit a felony (or types of felonies) there should be an automatic 10 year sentence that can not be plea bargained, and must be served consecutively to all other sentences.

The second amendment grants citizens a considerable amount of power. With that power comes responsibility, accountability, and consequence for using that power.

Another acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is that there needs to be some codification on who can legally own a gun. Almost all states have some limitations, but they are not uniform. Nor are the states always communicating with other states/federal government.

There is a delicate balance between medical privacy and public safety.

If I had some very contagious disease, where just by coughing/breathing on people I could cause many deaths, would my right to medical privacy trump the public safety concern? Probably not. Depending on the disease and the situation, the state has, and should have, the right to guarantee me to include involuntary confinement.

I believe the same schema should apply to types of mental illness and owning of firearms. We already had a thread where I outlined my wacky plan. But the bottom line is that IF there is medical evidence that a person may pose a danger to society if they have access to firearms, then it is the responsibility of the states to work together to prevent such individuals from legally obtaining firearms. The devil is, of course, in the details.

Another acceptable limitation to the 2nd Amendment concerns the right to "keep" firearms. There needs to be a legal responsibility to keep firearms securely. The intent is to prevent people not capable of owning firearms from obtaining someone else's firearms.

If a firearm owner chooses not to securely keep their firearm, then that owner should have to accept some level of responsibility if his or her firearms are obtained by someone else. What that level of responsibility is, I don't know.

Again, being able to "keep" firearms is a source of power and that power must be balanced with responsibility, accountability, and consequence.

The Second Amendment states that the government can not infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms. By the Incorporation Doctrine, this has also been applied to the state. But no where in the Constitution does it state that there is no responsibility, accountability, or consequence to keeping and bearing arms.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Platapus

One acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is to enact and enforce very very harsh sentences for criminals that use a gun to commit a crime.

In my opinion, if someone uses a firearm to commit a felony (or types of felonies) there should be an automatic 10 year sentence that can not be plea bargained, and must be served consecutively to all other sentences.

I do not know about other states but in Florida it goes like this 1)be in possession of of a firearm while committing a crime 10 years 2)ANY assault with that firearm in commission of said crime 20 years 3)harm any person in any way if having fired said firearm life.(obviously death is possible if a murder was committed)

[Armistead]

We have 1000's of gun laws in varying states, the problem will remain, criminals don't care about laws. The other issue, we hardly enforce the laws that exist, so we feel the need to make more laws to deal with the other laws we don't enforce.

Mental health is tricky. Today big pharma loves to create diseases so they can sell all their pills. Millions of Americans get a little depressed, go to Doc, placed on several meds and labeled mentally ill. It's mostly a profit scam. Fact is, many of these meds are causing issues, not solving them.

Ending, they will pass laws that are most profitable or create more government control and spending.

[TarJak]

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

There are no limits. Wherever the latest push ends up the government will soon begin pushing for even more restrictions.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by August

There are no limits.

So what was Justice Antonin Scalia referring to?

[August]

Originally Posted by TarJak

So what was Justice Antonin Scalia referring to?

Something else than what I was referring to?

You asked:

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

There are no limits to what the government can and will impose if they can get away with it. If semi-autos are banned then handguns will become the new target for restrictions. If they are banned then hunting rifles will be next after that.

Like a friend of mine just posted recently:

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by TarJak

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

The news today was that VP Biden has a plan to limit the kinds of guns you may purcahse that are the same kind being used in these terrible crimes from Arizona to Colorado to New England area.

He is also recomending limits on clips capicity to be limited to ten rounds.

They say these laws can be passed at the top levels of our country without public approval. I'm no really sure about that, but I do know the president is not running for office, perhaps he really does feel strongly about doing something.

Seems impossible to me ... How do you stop mental illness that constantly tries to figure out to murder someone and get the attention that particular person is really after.

Have you ever really seen somone that has Alzheimer’s disease and dementia?

They will try to untie the knots that bind them all day till they succeed.

Same with these mental ill people if they even know someone with guns they will figure out a way to obtain them and then use them for whatever it takes to gradifiy their senses.

What I want to know is what happens to people that already have these guns and the clips that may or may not become available in the near future?

Surely everyone won't have to march down to their nearest police station and turn them in.

We are talking tens of thousands of clips and semi-automatic guns in private hands.

It is almost impossible to stop what is going on and and no matter what they pass nothing would've stopped that crazy teen from killing his mother to obtain his guns and kill all of those poor innocent children ... not one law that is.

One armed teacher nearby would've saved perhaps half of the casualities, but not all.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by geetrue

The news today was that VP Biden has a plan to limit the kinds of guns you may purcahse that are the same kind being used in these terrible crimes from Arizona to Colorado to New England area.

He is also recomending limits on clips capicity to be limited to ten rounds.

They say these laws can be passed at the top levels of our country without public approval. I'm no really sure about that, but I do know the president is not running for office, perhaps he really does feel strongly about doing something.

Seems impossible to me ... How do you stop mental illness that constantly tries to figure out to murder someone and get the attention that particular person is really after.

Have you ever really seen somone that has Alzheimer’s disease and dementia?

They will try to untie the knots that bind them all day till they succeed.

Same with these mental ill people if they even know someone with guns they will figure out a way to obtain them and then use them for whatever it takes to gradifiy their senses.

What I want to know is what happens to people that already have these guns and the clips that may or may not become available in the near future?

Surely everyone won't have to march down to their nearest police station and turn them in.

We are talking tens of thousands of clips and semi-automatic guns in private hands.

It is almost impossible to stop what is going on and and no matter what they pass nothing would've stopped that crazy teen from killing his mother to obtain his guns and kill all of those poor innocent children ... not one law that is.

One armed teacher nearby would've saved perhaps half of the casualities, but not all.

My guess is that they would(notice i did not use will) wind up grandfathering in already produced magazines just like they did with previous bans.Even that New York ban makes it crime only if you happen to get caught with an illegal magazine so a smart New York gun owner would move to another state if they can not do this then they just keep their high cap magazines out of sight.

It will be nearly impossible to pass any such laws through congress though and even if they did there are more than enough states that would not ratify.That leaves an executive order but those can be vetoed by Congress 2/3 majority.I think in the end what they will wind up with is some sort unilateral requirement on back ground checks right now private sales and in some states sales at guns shows do not require a back ground check.In a way this is good for any gun store because they would be the broker of the back ground check which gives them the chance to sell something else to the person wishing to purchase the firearm and at least the gun store gets a fee for the background check and most likely some will try to get the person to buy some better firearm than the one they are about to buy from the private seller I can see that.

To be honest right now I wish I had about two dozen AR-15s if i did I'd sell them for two grand to all the yahoos just now deciding to buy one because it is trendy.$2,000 is the going rate for a AR15 right now.A buddy said he saw a guy selling used ones for $1500 at a gun show which is what a good one made by Colt or Rock River used to go for new two years ago depending on what you ordered.I have about 50 30 and 20 round STANAGs that I do not have need for that have never been used. I was on a job the other day this guy wanted some so I said I have brand new ones he said name your price I said $30 each for a 20 rounder $50 each for a 30 rounder half jokingly and he said yes and bought 3 30 rounders from me $150.00 dollars for magazines that I paid about $8.00 a pop for when I was in high school.

[TarJak]

Originally Posted by geetrue

What I want to know is what happens to people that already have these guns and the clips that may or may not become available in the near future?

Surely everyone won't have to march down to their nearest police station and turn them in.

We are talking tens of thousands of clips and semi-automatic guns in private hands.

You are talking millions of semi-automatic rifles: http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/201...n_america.html

A November 2012 Congressional Research Service report found that, as of 2009, there were approximately 310 million firearms in the United States: “114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns.” However, author William J. Krouse went on to note that “data are not available on the number of ‘assault weapons’ in private possession or available for sale, but one study estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994.

Even if you say only 2% of the 110 million rifles are in the banned categories you are still talking about 2.2 million guns plus all the mags to go with them. I've said elsewhere that I can't see the US being able to afford to run a buy back of these weapons as at below market rate of $1500 per weapon you'd be talking a cost of $3.3bn plus mag costs. If there are more than that then the math gets worse for the Treasury. Nothing in comparison to the deficit mind, but can you see Congress passing another $3bn plus in the current economic climate? Not to mention the bleating that will come from the manufacturers about jobs etc.

Originally Posted by Stealhead

My guess is that they would(notice i did not use will) wind up grandfathering in already produced magazines just like they did with previous bans.Even that New York ban makes it crime only if you happen to get caught with an illegal magazine so a smart New York gun owner would move to another state if they can not do this then they just keep their high cap magazines out of sight.

It will be nearly impossible to pass any such laws through congress though and even if they did there are more than enough states that would not ratify.That leaves an executive order but those can be vetoed by Congress 2/3 majority.I think in the end what they will wind up with is some sort unilateral requirement on back ground checks right now private sales and in some states sales at guns shows do not require a back ground check.

And so the US will go around the same buoy again with the next shooting of children.

So how does the Congress veto look in the current make-up? If it goes along party lines then the executive order would stand would it not? If its a conscience vote then I'd say its up in the air.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I agree. But the "right to bear arms" can be interpreted many ways. The right to bear "what kind of arms"?

Muskets, that's what the 2nd Amendment was drafted with in mind after all.

(Well that and towns having the ability to raise a defensive militia in case of invasion because the US didn't have a standing army at the time.)