Should the United States have better gun control ???

[SEMIJim]

I think something a bit stricter than the requirements for a drivers license should be required,

This argument is brought up often. The problem with it is that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a constitutionally-recognized basic right. The right to drive a car on public roads is not.

Actually, that is only your interpretation I have the same Right as you, ...

You do, but you have no Constitutional acknowledgement of same, and your government has taken great care to leave itself plenty of holes.

Look up discussions on "U.S. Constitution vs. Canadian Charter," sometime

Jim

 

[v7guy]

I thought of this thread when I read this survey

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

 

[Fire06]

Politicians will never acknowledge something like this.. It makes sense.

 

[SEMIJim]

I thought of this thread when I read this survey

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives

Thanks for bringing that to our attention, v7guy.

That follows with my personal experience with real cops. In all my years of working with police officers and conversing with others I met in casual circumstances, I've only once come-across a real officer that was anti-gun, and that was only by word-of-mouth.

The cops you see standing with and behind anti-rights people like Obama, Biden, etc. are mostly of two types: Political hacks who take an anti-rights position because they feel it's favourable to their career, and rank-and-file that are forced to be there.

So remember this the next time you see some anti-rights politician or the dominant media claim "police officers overwhelmingly support gun control." Then perhaps ask yourself "I wonder what else they're lying to me about?"

Jim

 

[Badbart]

The cops you see standing with and behind anti-rights people like Obama, Biden, etc. are mostly of two types: Political hacks who take an anti-rights position because they feel it's favourable to their career, and rank-and-file that are forced to be there.

So remember this the next time you see some anti-rights politician or the dominant media claim "police officers overwhelmingly support gun control." Then perhaps ask yourself "I wonder what else they're lying to me about?"

Jim

Very True. I call it Grandstanding. Much like what Obama did by exploiting those children that he had stand on the podium when he was pushing so hard for gun control.Just their attempt to sway the vote.

I don't understand how a person with any logic at all can honestly believe that these gun control measures can have any positive effect on curbing gun violence. People, be vigilant. They are not through. If they can get a foot in the door they will. Contact your political leaders and let them know in no uncertain terms that the constitution stands. Period!

 

[RayVoy]

You do, but you have no Constitutional acknowledgement of same, and your government has taken great care to leave itself plenty of holes.

Look up discussions on "U.S. Constitution vs. Canadian Charter," sometime

Jim

Jim, as a Canadian, I have the right to bear arms, as you do; my rights are constitutionally acknowledged, as yours are (read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). In fact, my friend, your Charter of Rights and my Charter of Rights came from the same source, the English Bill of Rights.

We have the same rights, as I said earlier, your government, and mine, have different interpretations.

And, far as the "holes" my government has on their side, perhaps you might like to expand upon your version of the "holes"?

 

[Short Bus]

Jim, as a Canadian, I have the right to bear arms, as you do; my rights are constitutionally acknowledged, as yours are (read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). In fact, my friend, your Charter of Rights and my Charter of Rights came from the same source, the English Bill of Rights.

We have the same rights, as I said earlier, your government, and mine, have different interpretations.

And, far as the "holes" my government has on their side, perhaps you might like to expand upon your version of the "holes"?

Absolutely not!!!

 

[SEMIJim]

Jim, as a Canadian, I have the right to bear arms, as you do; my rights are constitutionally acknowledged, as yours are (read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

Not according to what I've read. For example (note the source): The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Canada

Our right to bear arms is not mentioned in recent documents such as the Constitution or Charter because it's already stated elsewhere in Canadian law.

"Elsewhere in Canadian law" is not the same as "constitutional guarantee."

In fact, my friend, your Charter of Rights and my Charter of Rights came from the same source, the English Bill of Rights.

Yes, I know.

We have the same rights, as I said earlier, your government, and mine, have different interpretations.

So they're the same, except they're different?

And, far as the "holes" my government has on their side, perhaps you might like to expand upon your version of the "holes"?

I read up on it several months ago, as a result of a similar discussion elsewhere. Just do a search on "U.S. Constitution vs. Canadian Charter of Rights" and you'll find no end of learned discussions on the differences between the two.

Essentially, the primary difference is the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. government little wiggle room (see below), whereas the Canadian documents give their government lots.

In the final analysis, the differences are largely academic. If the government wants to do something, it will find a way to do it. If the people let it get away with it, then it matters little what the law says. Witness the SCOTUS' abuse to the Commerce Clause all these years.

Jim

 

[RayVoy]

Jim, this is a non-ending debate, neither of us are experts on our own constitutions, let alone on the others, a 30 minute google and reading a couple of out-of-date discussion papers only provides fodder for mis-information.

The debate wasn't over the rights being the same, the suggestion was that as Canadians, we did not have the right to bear arms.

If the "holes" you are referring to are loop holes (for a government), perhaps your original writers, and your courts, have closed what Americans perceive to be loop holes. They will always be tested.

Our government, and most governments based upon British rule, have instituted some rules around gun ownership and the citizens have accepted them (we perceive the rules as common sense and good for the overall safety of the citizens). Our government forced a very unpopular gun registration upon us, we fought it and lost the first round. However, a few years later, the registration has been removed from law. The people will eventually be hear and will eventually win.

And quite frankly, from my side of the boarder, I fail to see the substance in the American argument that some form of gun control will prevent the American public from defending against a government that wants to "over take" the citizens. With, or without gun control, auto weapons in the hands of citizens can not defend against the military of the United States.

 

[HARDTRAILZ]

Still trying to figure why Canadians opinions count on this issue. I don't care what other countries think. If they want to be a part of the US and its gun control, then move here. Its not like they can vote or are even affected by it.

Nothing against Canada, but I do not live their for reasons of my own. I am also polite enough not to debate those issues, since I choose to live in the US and not have them affect me and probably do not have a fair frame of reference.

 

[Badbart]

For the sake of discussion, all opinions are welcome. We all have to recognize that our country's constitution, or charter are not one and the same. But my belief is that ALL free men should have the right to defend against tyranny, both foreign and domestic. But we're not going to resolve that here.

 

[RayVoy]

And quite frankly, from my side of the boarder, I fail to see the substance in the American argument that some form of gun control will prevent the American public from defending against a government that wants to "over take" the citizens.

Still trying to figure why Canadians opinions count on this issue.

Not stating an opinion, asking a question. It's part of a topic that I do not understand.

For the sake of discussion, all opinions are welcome.

And a Canadian did start the thread, just saying.

 

[TollKeeper]

And the Government strikes again...

Feds defend decision to scrub 3D gun plans from Internet | Fox News

 

[Grimor]

And the Government strikes again...

Feds defend decision to scrub 3D gun plans from Internet | Fox News

Doesn't matter, they are already out there. And really they aren't hard to duplicate anyway.

 

[triz]

Jim, as a Canadian, I have the right to bear arms, as you do; my rights are constitutionally acknowledged, as yours are (read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). In fact, my friend, your Charter of Rights and my Charter of Rights came from the same source, the English Bill of Rights.

We have the same rights, as I said earlier, your government, and mine, have different interpretations.

And, far as the "holes" my government has on their side, perhaps you might like to expand upon your version of the "holes"?

As a Canadian did you not mention that you need paperwork to take your weapons to the shop or range?

Do you have a CCW law in Canada?

The point of being an American is to be free. This country becomes less and less free everytime we need permission to do something.

As far as the media reports of Cops wanting more gun control, why wouldnt they? It gives them more control over you and me. I think that is another lie as well since most cops I know are against more gun control.

 

[RayVoy]

As a Canadian did you not mention that you need paperwork to take your weapons to the shop or range?

That is correct, however, "paperwork" varies. I must have a permit to move a weapon.

Btw, I also need a permit to move my vehicle.

Do you have a CCW law in Canada?

Nope, we do not permit CCW; most of us see no requirement for it, sorry.

Oh, and btw, I'm Canadian and I am "free".

 

[triz]

That is correct, however, "paperwork" varies. I must have a permit to move a weapon.

Btw, I also need a permit to move my vehicle.

Nope, we do not permit CCW; most of us see no requirement for it, sorry.

Oh, and btw, I'm Canadian and I am "free".

No one is truly "free" when they need someones permission to do something. IMHO I think thats ludicrous. But that is just me. Lets not compare apples to oranges and start injecting things that have not one thing to do with the other. Though I am in agreement that training should be a mandatory requirement when purchasing a firearm.

I am also of the mind that some really should not have weapons, and they see the firearm as a first resort in a violent confrontation. I believe that firearms are a last resort when all other options have been exhausted. Ialso don't agree that another person must be armed to be considered a last resort.

I am of the mind that its everyones right to defend themselves and there family and even property by whatever means necessary. Its also everyones right not to do so. If you don't want to own a firearm then don't but don't try and remove that option for everyone else.

I don't want to be at the mercy of the police to defend myself. I pray for the day when a firearm might be needed for just hunting. Until then....

 

[SEMIJim]

Jim, this is a non-ending debate, neither of us are experts on our own constitutions,

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an "expert" on the U.S. Constitution, but I know it fairly well. Have several books on it, and its genesis, on my bookshelves. Even have a copy in the briefcase I no longer carry.

reading a couple of out-of-date discussion papers only provides fodder for mis-information.

The page I cited was last modified Nov. 22, 2011. Has something changed with your Constitution or Charter, acknowledging Canadian citizens' RKBA, since then? That would be great news, but I'm surprised I would miss such a momentous event.

The debate wasn't over the rights being the same, the suggestion was that as Canadians, we did not have the right to bear arms.

You claimed you had the same rights. I agreed, but noted they were not acknowledged in your Constitution (or Charter). I was correct on my points, was I not?

With, or without gun control, auto weapons in the hands of citizens can not defend against the military of the United States.

First of all: Fully automatic (aka: select fire) weapons are not commonly available in the U.S., contrary to popular misinformation. They are hard to get (legally), and very expensive to buy, even in states that do allow them. (This is a fact the anti-rights crowd and the dominant media go to great lengths to obscure.) Your second point is a whole 'nother argument. There are ample past and current examples with which to counter your assertion.

Jim

 

[Short Bus]

[video=youtube_share;XW15CGAiscw]http://youtu.be/XW15CGAiscw[/video]

 

[Daryl NHT]

Better mental disability reporting to show on backround checks.

 

[Grimor]

Better mental disability reporting to show on background checks.

Who's to say who's "mentally disabled"? Will there be due process? To a lot of people just wanting to own a gun shows you're mentally disabled. I have no problem with limiting the access to firearms for crazy people, but only if there is a system in place that provides for due process. Just a random Dr putting you on a list with no chance to argue your case or second opinion, or no judge ruling that you are in fact mentally unfit to own a firearm just seems like another way to keep guns away from the people the government doesn't want to have them.

Think the government is wanting to take your guns - paranoid - lose your guns
Speak out against the government - antisocial personality disorder - lose your guns
Watch too many violent movies - clear violent fantasies - lose your guns
Sleep too much? Not enough? Eat too much? not enough? Too happy? Too sad? - Depressed - lose your guns

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/excerpts/hicks_50.pdf
Physical complaints and worries (can reflect psychological difficulties).
Sexual disorders (performance problems and unwanted urges and pre-occupations).
Personality disorders (persistent and extreme character styles that often lead to problems in relating to others)

Everything is a mental disorder these days...

 

[SEMIJim]

Better mental disability reporting to show on backround checks.

Sounds good, but you have to beware the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Let's say the government institutes a comprehensive, iron-clad reporting system. (Forgetting for the moment the doctor/patient confidentiality issues that would arise from such an attempt.) Now everybody knows that if they visit their familiy doctor to complain of restlessness, anxiety, trouble sleeping, depression, thoughts of ending it all, a desire to run away and leave it all behind, strange dreams... you name it, they run the risk of being entered into a federal database that may subsequently deprive them of the freedom to purchase a firearm. What do you suppose some, or even many such people, might do?

I'm thinking they may think twice about seeking medical care.

Oops!

Furthermore: Do you imagine for even so much as a New York heartbeat that such a system won't eventually have its scope expanded? I don't.

Jim

 

[HARDTRAILZ]

Better mental disability reporting to show on backround checks.

I see you are new or I would not bother responding to such a simple unsubstantiated statement, as I see it as just trolling; however it can bring up some valid subject matter and you may not have read through this entire thread to see how passionate and educated many members are on this topic.


Could you please expand this statement with any research as to how this would be able to be effectively utilized?

Maybe share your idea of how to fairly do such a monumental task?

How about an explanation of what you consider "mental disability"?

Who would enforce this?

NCIS background check or would it be something seperate?

Would there be a process to plead your case once labelled "mentally disabled"?

Would learning diabilities be included? Maybe any child that is ever tutored should not get a firearm...

Would the database be public? Could employers use it to help avoid insurance costs that may arise from hiring the "mentally disabled"?

I could go on, but basically...could you expand on your thoughts and share the knowledge you may have to contribute?

 

[v7guy]

the natural evolution of gun control

New Jersey: Court Upholds Man Arrested For Visible Gun Case In Car


cliff notes. former military, former law enforcement officer, while moving from Maine to Texas had a case that looked like it might be the type that conceals a firearm, so after law enforcement removes him from the car, they search it for "officer safety" despite the motorist being removed from the vehicle and having no way to access the vehicles contents. They find multiple firearms that are being transported from one residence to another and now the man is getting 5 years in prison. Then a court finds the search of the vehicle to be legal and the conviction stands.

This man was just moving his possessions and pulled over to take a nap. Because he had something that "looked like a case for a firearm" the search of his car was legal. No consideration to his past record was taken into consideration and TX itself extradited him. This was during a normal check at a rest stop. Had he had something as simple as a blanket over things he would probably be fine.

This is so full of fail I'm without words.
Something looks like a gun case so it's searchable? how the fuck is that legal?
Someone that is removed from a vehicle still had the vehicle tossed for officer safety for a routine car stop, are you serious? How do you search a vehicle for officer safety when the motorist has no access to it?
TX extradited someone to a bullshit state for bullshit charges, seriously?

This "was" a law abiding citizen transporting his property. He was trying to take a nap to avoid endangering the public. He was a former servant of our country and his municipality. Now he's going to jail for basically moving his property.




This is where things are going gentlemen. This could be any one here.

 

[Badbart]

Why did he not simply identify himself as a former LEO and advise the officer(s) that he was transporting guns, instead of denying he had anything illegal/suspicious in the vehicle? That made him look suspicious what with the gun cases and then denying it.

 

[triz]

New Jerseys gun transport laws are very vague. And it can be argued that he was transporting correctly or incorrectly, depending on where the gun case was. If it was in the "cargo" area of the SUV, I'd say he was correct. There law merely states that the firearm must be in a locked case with ammo and firearm separate. I can say that as a former LEO in a neighboring state we were even warned when crossing into NJ with our firearms.

For transport puposes I recommend a hard case with a combination rather than the soft case he was most likely using. I hope this guy wins this on appeal. I refuse to travel anymore to States who do not recognize a CCW permit.

 

[Badbart]

New Jerseys gun transport laws are very vague. And it can be argued that he was transporting correctly or incorrectly, depending on where the gun case was. If it was in the "cargo" area of the SUV, I'd say he was correct. There law merely states that the firearm must be in a locked case with ammo and firearm separate. I can say that as a former LEO in a neighboring state we were even warned when crossing into NJ with our firearms.

For transport puposes I recommend a hard case with a combination rather than the soft case he was most likely using. I hope this guy wins this on appeal. I refuse to travel anymore to States who do not recognize a CCW permit.

The article says the cases were visible in the back seat of an SUV. Not really what I'd call a cargo area. Any time I transport my long guns, they're in the cargo area of my SUV with the cover pulled over them, or the trunk of my car. Just common sense to me. I don't want them seen. To easy for someone to do a smash and grab.

Those officers most likely thought they had apprehended a burglar given the quantity of guns in the vehicle. When I was a deputy one of my guys did a traffic stop on a suspicious vehicle at 2:30 in the morning and observed hand guns on the passenger floor. He held the driver at gunpoint until backup got there. The passenger bailed and ran but was caught later. We recovered 17 guns that night and solved 12 burglaries that these guys committed.

I really believe if the guy had properly identified himself and not lied to the officer about what he had in the car he probably would have walked. But when I see a gun case in your car and you tell me, "No, no, all good". That's a red flag!

As for the concern about searching the vehicle for officer safety, I'm good with that. Yes, they had the suspect out of the vehicle, but they had gun cases in plain veiw. They had a suspect that was not cooperative or forthcoming when questioned. What would you do? Let him go back to his vehicle after you had determined he had gun cases in it and wait to see if he pulled a gun? That's not how we operate. They did the right thing. He didn't. Never lie to a law enforcement officer. And if he was indeed a former officer, he knew better.

 

[SEMIJim]

There are places in the U.S. where it's not safe to reasonably transport firearms. New Jersey is one of those. Yes, it sucks, but that's New Jersey for you.

If you're going to travel from state-to-state, with firearms, it's best to know each state's laws regarding firearms and its "attitude" about personal firearms ownership. Some states are arguably not safe to travel through, with firearms, almost irrespective of how you have them stored. For example, and this is a PITA, for me, considering where I live: If I was headed anywhere west of Michigan, I'd feel obliged to detour completely around Illinois. Through Michigan's U.P., I suppose, if I was headed northwest.

The northeast is a problem, because New York state is very firearms-unfriendly, and you certainly cannot transport through Canada. (Well, you can, but that would be even worse than trying to transport through NYS.)

Jim

 

[Playsinsnow]

I have a problem with folks who do not know the proper way to store a gun. It blows my mind how some will not avoid the "grey" areas in the law. Do your homework. I've never been randomly searched and if I did it was because I did something wrong. How many of the unlicensed have had to shoot while in transit?

Granted, I've never been fortunate enough to drive through Chicago or the East coast with a gun but the hunting is much better elsewhere. And handguns, well you better be smart about it. You are at home right?

 

[triz]

One thing I totally forgot about when mentioning the above case.

HB 218- The Law Enforcement Safety Act. Which allows the retired LEO to carry a concealed firearm in any state.

I see no mention of this in the decision. I do not believe this guy was a former LEO. Most likely a corrections officer which I believe does not apply. This guy screwed up in so many ways its unbelieveable. He never even went to his trial. Had total disregard for the law and basically just buried himself with lies.

I really was trying to find something that they might have screwed up. But I think this guy dug his own hole.

 

[Badbart]

One thing I totally forgot about when mentioning the above case.

HB 218- The Law Enforcement Safety Act. Which allows the retired LEO to carry a concealed firearm in any state.

I see no mention of this in the decision. I do not believe this guy was a former LEO. Most likely a corrections officer which I believe does not apply. This guy screwed up in so many ways its unbelieveable. He never even went to his trial. Had total disregard for the law and basically just buried himself with lies.

I really was trying to find something that they might have screwed up. But I think this guy dug his own hole.

The key word is "retired". A former law enforcement officer is not the same as a retired law enforcement officer. I can carry in all 50 states as I am retired. It did not state that he was retired. In any event he wasn't very smart.

 

[BO TIE SS]

One thing I totally forgot about when mentioning the above case.

HB 218- The Law Enforcement Safety Act. Which allows the retired LEO to carry a concealed firearm in any state.

I was going to bring this up too.
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see no mention of this in the decision. I do not believe this guy was a former LEO.

Or he might not have been a "qualified retired peace officer". Who knows if he even left that job in "good standing"?

 

[Short Bus]

The key word is "retired". A former law enforcement officer is not the same as a retired law enforcement officer. I can carry in all 50 states as I am retired. It did not state that he was retired. In any event he wasn't very smart.

No law abiding citizen should be denied the right to protect themselves (carry).

 

[Badbart]

No law abiding citizen should be denied the right to protect themselves (carry).

I agree. But we've allowed these restrictions to be placed on our second ammendment over the years aparently, and now, with all the controversy, I don't see that being removed anytime soon. And I do believe a standard of training should need to be set. There are some folks who have no idea how to handle a firearm.

That's one of the issues I have with teachers being armed in our schools. Not all are capable. And would they "freeze" at the moment of conflict? LEO's are carefully screened and run through hours of scenario based training to evaluate our actions in the worst possible situations. I'm not sure that teachers would or could dedicate that kind of time and training with all the things already on their plate. I personally believe that retired LEO's would be a good choice for school security. Put them in plain clothes, and give them access to assault rifles on the school campus.

 

[navigator]

...... of denying he had anything illegal/suspicious in the vehicle? That made him look suspicious what with the gun cases and then denying it.

could it be that he didn't realize he was doing anything illegal? I realize he should have better researched the NJ gun laws but having a gun cased in the back seat so that they don't get beat up by cargo in the rear makes sense to me. In NC you can ride around with loaded firearms in the front seat. I would also consider the fact that if he was tired and was awaken from sleep, he likely wasn't thinking real clear.

If he was parked and sleeping, can they really charge him for transporting? Does the officer know that he didn't move them to the front when he parked to sleep? I think if I was sleeping in my car in NJ, I would want to be armed myself.

It does appear either he didn't handle himself well or the cop was being a jerk about it.

could it be that he didn't realize he was doing anything illegal? I realize he should have better researched the NJ gun laws but having a gun cased in the back seat so that they don't get beat up by cargo in the rear makes sense to me. In NC you can ride around with loaded firearms in the front seat. I would also consider the fact that if he was tired and was awaken from sleep, he likely wasn't thinking real clear.

If he was parked and sleeping, can they really charge him for transporting? Does the officer know that he didn't move them to the front when he parked to sleep? I think if I was sleeping in my car in NJ, I would want to be armed myself.

It does appear either he didn't handle himself well or the cop was being a jerk about it.

one other thing to add to my previous note, he had over 20 guns, it could be that his cargo area was too full to put everything back there.

 

[Badbart]

could it be that he didn't realize he was doing anything illegal? I realize he should have better researched the NJ gun laws but having a gun cased in the back seat so that they don't get beat up by cargo in the rear makes sense to me. In NC you can ride around with loaded firearms in the front seat. I would also consider the fact that if he was tired and was awaken from sleep, he likely wasn't thinking real clear.

If he was parked and sleeping, can they really charge him for transporting? Does the officer know that he didn't move them to the front when he parked to sleep? I think if I was sleeping in my car in NJ, I would want to be armed myself.

It does appear either he didn't handle himself well or the cop was being a jerk about it.

One of the first things taught at a law enforcement academy is that ignorance is no defense of the law. Yes, it would have been beneficial if he had studied the laws in the states he was transporting in. Had they been stowed in accordance with NJ/whatever state law, we would have no knowledge of this incident. Unless there is something missing from this story.(which often is the case with the liberal/slanted/biased media these days)

Those guns were in a licensed motor vehicle on a public thoroughfare. Unless he can get Mr. Scott or somebody from the starship Enterprise to testify that they inadvertantly beamed them down to his SUV, then he's transporting.

 

[BO TIE SS]

IMHO, it seems kind of pointless to debate this specific case. Obviously no one here has all of the facts. We could play the "what if" scenario for several more pages.

 

[HARDTRAILZ]

What if he was planning to become a serial murderer and now he wont be able to and 487 people will keep their lives...not mention the pain and suffereing those people loved ones have avoided. Glad he is off the streets!

 

[Short Bus]

What if he was planning to become a serial murderer and now he wont be able to and 487 people will keep their lives...not mention the pain and suffereing those people loved ones have avoided. Glad he is off the streets!

You forgot the purple text, some of the more "special" (Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein, The Brady Bunch) anti-gunners might not see the sarcasm.

 

[HARDTRAILZ]

Not sarcastic really. There is as much truth to that as what half yall's "what if" stuff has. He may have been a piece of shit as an officer, he may have saved old ladys and buses full of nuns. We do not know. No one else was using purple so I see no reason to.