Supreme Court rules in favor of gun owners

[Warbird]

I know what you are getting at but it is not 1850, we are not in the wild west.  Take a look at some of the African and mid east areas where everyone is carrying around an AK 47 from kids to old men and women.  Think you would like to live there or in that environment where you feel you have to gun to survive?

I know what the current date is and, living in the true Last Frontier of this country, I am well aware that this is not the Wild West.  ;)  I like living where I am and I bleed red, white, and blue.  Africa is a completely different set of rules and circumstances; however, if I did live there, I certainly would not carry an AK 47.  AK's are fun to shoot but IMO, they suck for protection.  In that country, I would likely carry 2 guns: For medium to long range protection, a .308 semi-auto with a decent scope so I could use it for sniping, and for close up protection, a Springfield Armory .45 XD (the full size version, no need for concealment there).

Thanks for asking. 

[flip]

Give an example of a ban on ownership please.

Certain states you are not permitted to own/possess a class 2 or class 3 weapon, destructive device or silencer.  My state, you can but you have to jump through a few hoops and pay for a stamp and allow the ATF to inspect the site the class 2 or 3 weapon/device is kept at their convenience.  The ATF can choose to allow the ownership based on how you fill the form out.  

Guys, this is a state issue, not federal any more.  The supreme court said DC couldn't deny private ownership, they may as well said NO city, district or state.  But they also said as long as it is a legal fire arm and the person is elegible to own one, obviously a criminal is NOT elegible, nor should they be.  If the laws stink in your state, I feel for you.  Right now I don't feel like my 2nd amendment rights have been or are compromised in the state I live.  BUT I also feel like there have to be some controls to the system and not on the federal level.  

[Radar67]

The class 2 or 3 weapons are covered in the GCA. (States can't block them). Anyone eligible to own a gun can apply for a license for class 2 or 3 weapons (doesn't mean it will be granted). As a former FFL holder, I can say all forms of ownership, use, etc.. are covered by this act.

The ATF can choose to allow the ownership based on how you fill the form out.   

Based on how you fill the form out, determines what type of background check and the depth of the check you go through.

Guys, this is a state issue, not federal any more.  The supreme court said DC couldn't deny private ownership, they may as well said NO city, district or state.  But they also said as long as it is a legal fire arm and the person is elegible to own one, obviously a criminal is NOT elegible, nor should they be.

This is not a state issue. The Supreme Court uphelp the individual's right to bear arms. DC was limiting that right by not allowing handguns. And, they (the Supreme Court) did basically say NO city, state, or district can deny ownership of firearms.

Again, the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 covers all forms and fashion of gun ownership while not infringing on the induvidual right to own one. States are free to add to that, as long as they don't take anything away from it, which DC did.

Please don't mistake my tone as angered. I am calm as I type this out, just wanted to point out some of the facts.

[tcsmpsi]

The class 2 or 3 weapons are covered in the GCA. (States can't block them). Anyone eligible to own a gun can apply for a license for class 2 or 3 weapons (doesn't mean it will be granted). As a former FFL holder, I can say all forms of ownership, use, etc.. are covered by this act.

The ATF can choose to allow the ownership based on how you fill the form out.   

Based on how you fill the form out, determines what type of background check and the depth of the check you go through.

Actually, depending on the answers given to specific questions on form 4473, determines whether the Federal Firearms Licensee is allowed to transfer the firearm, without the FBI background check.  (just being more specific)  ;)

Right before Christmas, I had ATF throughout my orifices for a week.  Being in compliance considered a great many more details than in the past.
Though I am generally considered to keep well above average compliance, and my volumes of transactions are always easy and effective to follow,  I did get one, genuine, permanent record, certified disciplinary action. 

Anytime any one entity purchases (or otherwise transfers) more than one handgun in any 5 day (working days) period, it is required to fill out and submit the "Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers" form 3310 to ATF and local law enforcement jurisdiction.   Well, a holiday and a weekend coming together at one period, and I misfigured the 'five business day' on one of my multiple handgun sales. 
There were a couple of the 4473's on which it had been found a PO Box address given that had gotten by me.  I was able to 'dodge the bullet' on those by tracking down the transferees and getting them to come in with proof of physical address.  Of course, that wasn't too difficult, as their alternative to that option was ATF coming to find them.  :D

In the past, very little scrutiny was given to the repair shop.  This time, every old junk firearm/parts I had ever gathered had to be recorded.  I spent many long hours going through old parts piles.  Some of which had not even been touched for many years.

Now, of course, the GCA of '68 has been ammended by the Brady Act, and later the Lautenberg Act. Which have ultimately added more restrictions.
The more recent concerns have brought significantly more administrative restrictions and regulations.  Changes in mental health determination has brought yet another ammended 4473 form.

For several months now, it has been a federal felony for a Federal Firearms Licensee not to provide a locking device for any transferred handgun.

And the list goes on.

I'm not sure yet what has changed today.    :

[Radar67]

Thanks for the clarification tcsmpsi. I dropped my FFL back in 91 before all this new stuff came about. Didn't part of Brady expire? I know the computer background checks started with Brady and was one of the parts that continued, and I think the background checks were a good addition.

[flip]

I'm glad we can agree to disagree and be civil.  I feel like this would be a better 'round the poker table discussion than through a computer.  I think we agree on most of the same things maybe even all but I think, between my incomple and chopped up thoughts, I may be leading  this in the wrong direction.  So as it is, I am happy that those that were denied the right to own a gun now can.  I also think that the justices left some wiggle room on certain points that need further clarification to shore up the ruling so we are not revisiting this in another 35 years.

[tcsmpsi]

Thanks for the clarification tcsmpsi. I dropped my FFL back in 91 before all this new stuff came about. Didn't part of Brady expire? I know the computer background checks started with Brady and was one of the parts that continued, and I think the background checks were a good addition.

There are still some lingering attributes of the Brady Act, dismissive of the 'over 10 rnd. magazines' etc..  Some of the firearms are still prohibited, changes in the 4473 questioning and a lot of dealer hulabaloo. 
When the Brady Act passed, one of its mandates is that there would be a National Instant Background Check within 5 yrs. of its passing, and would sunset (come to an end) in 10 yrs (unless reinstated).  Of course the FBI implements the NICS  (National Instant Check System).  Actually, it is a pretty amazing networking accomplishment.  Unfortunately, they still don't have it able to work with Win. Vista, so I've had to go back to the phone for the time being.  Actually, it is quicker to do the checks by phone. 

The 4473 is a 3 page white form now.  (paperwork reduction act, you know)   ;D

The Lautenberg Act is what made it a federal felony (up to 10 yrs in the federal pen and/or a fine up to $250,000) for anyone who has ever been convicted of any domestic violence misdemeanor to own, transfer, transport or possess a firearm and/or ammunition.  (felony punishment for an otherwise misdemeanor crime)

[scsmith42]

The class 2 or 3 weapons are covered in the GCA. (States can't block them). Anyone eligible to own a gun can apply for a license for class 2 or 3 weapons (doesn't mean it will be granted). As a former FFL holder, I can say all forms of ownership, use, etc.. are covered by this act.

Stew, I think that I'm not understanding your answer on this, as I recall 13 states prevent private ownership of title 2 firearms. 

Usually the class 3 rules come into effect "if" your state allows private possession.  If it doesn't, then ATF will not approve the application.

Now, you can still have a Class 2 or 3 dealers license in those states, just not be a civilian in possession of title 2 arms.

Scott

[Radar67]

You are correct Scott, there are 17 states that don't allow private ownership of Class 2 or 3 weapons. I'm not sure of each states rules though.

Those rules do not violate the second amendment, the people are not prevented from owning guns, just the restricted guns. (Machine guns are covered by the National Firearms Act of 1938)

Even in those states, a person could be a dealer or manufacturer, as you stated. It has been a while since I have been involved in all this, but Class 2 and 3 dealers can still transfer the weapons to each other for the $200 tax/fee (is that still the right amount?) Or has this changed drastically since the early 90s? I do know anything manufactured after sometime in 1986 has special rules for transfer or sale, only the earlier weapons can still be owned by qualified individuals.

Somebody correct me if I'm way off base.

[TexasTimbers]

Soooo since the criminals do not respect the rule of law, we should not either because they don't? 

I'm saying we should hold government accountable as much as we hold ourselves and criminals. I am one of those strict constitutionalists. I am for no bans at all for those of us with clean records. I do believe crime tends to be lower in a community/region/state where there is unrestricted gun ownership in the hands of law abiding citizens.

I have no problem with instant baqckground checks but I don't view that as a a ban.

[Texas Ranger]

Joe Horn here in Texas may have benefited by the SC ruling, he shot and killed two burglars that had just robbed his neighbors house, and he shot them down in escape mode.  Grand Jury no billed, using new Texas Castle doctrine as a base, but it was a very narrow view of the right to keep and bear, and the castle doctrine.

[DanG]

I'm just tickled to death for the people in D.C., the people of Florida, and any others who have been the recipients of recent easing of gun laws.  I view it as a great step forward in the restoration of our personal rights.  HOWEVER, I have seen the scary side of this movement, too.  There is a certain element hereabouts who see these new rulings as a license to kill.  They are mostly alcoholics who wouldn't hurt a flea when they're sober, but get all these wild ideas when they're about half schnockered.  I know one guy who celebrated when the Fla. Supreme Court OK'd the easing of the self defense guidelines in our State.  He took it as a RIGHT to shoot anyone who set foot on his property.  Of course, his eyes were glassy and he was slurring his words at the time, and he was snoring in his recliner a few minutes later, but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if a jogger had come by at the wrong moment.   On another occasion, the same guy was riding with me when some guy cut me off in traffic.  I tooted the horn in protest, and the other driver flipped me off.  I laughed about it, but my passenger pulled out his weapon and said, "Aren't you going to catch him?"  I turned around and took the drunken bastard back home, and he didn't speak to me for a month. :'( :'( ;D :D

Now, don't get me wrong here.  I'm fervently in favor of easing the gun laws in all parts of this Country, but we must also insist upon a higher standard of behavior for those who avail themselves of "The Right to Bear Arms."  Currently, the courses that qualify people to carry concealed weapons mostly concentrate on proficiency and safe handling rules.  I think they should emphasize responsibility and the legal ramifications for the lack thereof.

[scsmith42]

DanG, the NC CC class that I took primarily focused on the legal issues, and the message that it left you with was don't shoot unless you have to, and only as a last resort, as you would have to endure extensive legal action afterward.  They really did a good job of encouraging responsible behavior.

Stew - the class 3 transfer fee is still $200.00 per transaction, but the tax only applies to transfers to individuals.  Dealers can still transfer items between them w/o paying the tax.  If I remember correctly the Class 2 or Class 3 license costs are either $500.00 per year or $1000 per year - can't remember which.

Off the top of my head, there are several categories of firearms under the NFA act of 1934.  Pre-'86 fully transferable, pre-86 dealer samples, post '86 dealer samples, post 86 firearms (military and LE only), Curios and relics, destructive devices (grenades, mortar rounds, etc, $200.00 each item!), suppressors, and AOW's (any other weapons).  Certain factory produced short barrel shotguns fall under the AOW classification, and the fee is $5.00

[moonhill]

With out going back through all the post has anyone brought up the other decision made by the court on the death penalty?  It seems they went one way on one decision and the other on the next.  I think there should be more judges sitting at the bench so there could be a wider margin in the out come of their decisions.  One vote either way is too close for me.  

Would the drunk with the gun think twice if his life hung in the balance?  Maybe, Maybe not.  I would hope so though.  No death row for years on end either, just get it over with.  Harsher punishment should be the deterrent.  Prisons seem to be too cushy.     Tim  

[TexasTimbers]

I too understand the seeming dilemma of the Drunk With a Gun Doctrine (hey I just coined . . . . something ). You have the concern of preventive law if you will, to protect the many from the few, and still balance it on the scales of liberty and law.

I think the crazies, drunk or sober, are going to cause harm and desrtuction with or without guns. I also agree guns in those crazy hands are far more dangerous than a Ash Bat or a razor knife. But we as a society struggle to maintain as much liberty for the 98% of law-abiders as we can, while attempting to impose enough reasonable, yet effective regulations so as to give our society the necessary tools, to prevent those crazies from having a field day when they decide to go nuts.

It is not as cut-n-dry as it seems, but we must have a guidepost. A lantern, something to use as a basis by which all those laws are measured and tied to. That is the Constitution. If we don't keep our evolving laws bound by those fundamental precepts in the constitution then we drift further and further away from our lantern and get lost in the night.

The constitution gave us the greatest form of government in history, and the BOR gave the central government and the several states, the clearest prohibitions against tyranny ever set forth by any nation.

The concerns we all have here are quite similiar I think. Flip, you and I are not really all that far apart on our view of Liberty I believe. We just use different routes to get there maybe.

We live in such a great country even today, even though our rights have been eroded more than most of us realize, this decision is growing on me DanG. You and I were the first to print our concerns, but I have read alot of opinions online and this decision may be as good under the surface as it is on it.

This is a great discussion of the ruling here and I am glad to be a part of it.

[OneWithWood]

We live in such a great country even today, even though our rights have been eroded more than most of us realize, this decision is growing on me DanG. You and I were the first to print our concerns, but I have read alot of opinions online and this decision may be as good under the surface as it is on it.

This is a great discussion of the ruling here and I am glad to be a part of it.

A great discussion indeed!
TT has raised a point that is very much on my mind as I read this thread.  Many folks who scream the loudest about the infringement of personal rights guaranteed by the BOR have veheminantly defended the eroding of those same rights in the name of combating terrorism or the sanctity of marriage or upholding certain religious beliefs over other faiths.
How do you square standing up for one right while systematically denying so many others?

I am not trying to be argumentive.  It is a fair question and I would appreciate reasoned answers on how this occurs.

[TexasTimbers]

How do you square standing up for one right while systematically denying so many others?

Common sense goes a long way. ;D

But as Voltaire  said, it is not so common.  :-\

[OneWithWood]

Would you be saying that it is only common sense that if you have a gun in your pocket you get to dictate how everyone else lives?  :

[TexasTimbers]

Would you be saying that it is only common sense that if you have a gun in your pocket you get to dictate how everyone else lives?  :

Nah. I have had a gun in my pocket or at the ready many times and have never tried to dictate how someone lives.

I think you are referring to issues I really don't want to get into here but would be happy to discuss in PMs. But just to touch on it lightly, gun ownership is not something being "forced" on someone. Anyone has the right not to own a gun.

For me, this all heads back to Ephesians 6:12 - for me, there is simply no way around it. And I know Jeff and many others here don't want me espousing my spiritual beliefs (and I understand why it opens a can of worms) but I can go no further with my answer to your question without explaining my views that way, so I will repsect everyones right not to have to hear them, thus my PM invite.

[DanG]

OWW, I can give you my answer without referring to anything.  I am upset about the erosion of many of our rights, just as much as I would be if the gun issue were going the other way.  I think I made my feelings plain in the thread about the flood victims.  There are certain things the Gov't has done since 9/11 that I strongly disagree with, and some that I agree with.  Strip searching airline passengers is absurd, and involving Homeland Security in natural disaster has been a disaster itself.  I don't however, have a problem with the monitoring of International calls to certain areas, but that is probably because I'm so familiar with the phone system.  In reality, anything you say on the phone has a chance to be heard by someone else anyway.  The folks at the phone company hear so many things that they don't even care what is said.  This paranoia over "privacy" is just silly.  Within this Country, wiretaps are extremely rare, and are handled with utmost care.  It is much more common for 2 lines to get crossed and things to be heard by someone else just trying to use their phone.  In short, don't tell your closest secrets over the phone, and let the Gov't do their job.

One freedom I'd like to see reined in a little bit is "Freedom of the Press."  The news needs to be told, but it also needs to be true, and told in a responsible manner.  In this day of instant communication, it is all too easy for it to become a competition to get the most sensational story.  Don't even get me started on the "Paparazzi!"  Those morons are using the Bill of Rights as a shield to justify tromping all over the rights of others.  We seem to have lost the premise that your rights stop where mine begin.

[Toolman]

I agree with DanG
If
my neighbor or anybody is talking on the phone with a known terrorist/organization I expect and demand that our government is listening in and doing everything in it's power to apprehend and/or deter any aggressive actions against our citizens. As far as gay marriage, I don't agree with it, but, I would'nt have a problem with it. It's none of my business. If it does'nt infringe on my daily freedoms, I don't care. Hell, go marry a dog if you want, just stay out of my business.

It's ironic though, alot of people who want gay marriage rights want to step on our Constitutional right to own a firearm. I'll cite Rosie O'Donnel as one of MANY examples.

As far as religion, pray to whoever you choose, just don't rub my nose in it. If your Muslin, Jewish, Catholic, Buddist or whatever, I say practice away. Keep it out of politics and don't judge me for being a protestant. If you are an religious extremist and try to force your views and opinions on me with threats and violence, refer to 2nd ammendment. Our society has no welcome mat out for those type of people.                                                                                     

People need to mind their own business. Practice your religion, get married to whoever, use your constitutional rights responsibly. We have too many people who try to force their views down other peoples throats. That's not acceptable. That includes Federal Govt. who want force their programs down the throats of those who don't want it. Where is your freedom of choice when you are forced into rip off programs like Social Security, and possibly the proven failure of National healthcare. The government needs to concentrate on National Security, Justice System, balanced budget and strengthening of the dollar. That's it. Stop infringing on our freedom of choice.