Gun control among proposals before Maine lawmakers

AUGUSTA — Gun control and related issues are expected to account for a sizeable portion of bills for this year's legislative session in Maine after Friday's deadline for submission passed.

Details of the bills, even the number submitted, remained hazy, as legislative staff sorts through the avalanche of proposals.

In the meantime, lawmakers are anxious to see what surfaces, especially on sensitive issues such as gun control, which has gained increased national attention since the Dec. 14 massacre at Newtown, Conn., elementary school, in which 20 children and six adults were gunned down.

Among the proposals so far are propositions to reconsider gun magazine size and the current system for criminal background checks, said assistant House Democratic leader, Rep. Jeff McCabe of Skowhegan.

"By the middle of (this) week when we have a list of titles, I think we'll be able to wrap our hands around what the gun discussion will be here in the state," said McCabe.

Seeing all the bills will help lawmakers to craft a comprehensive approach to gun safety, said Democratic House Speaker Mark Eves of North Berwick.

"Largely this is a federal issue, but there are things at the state level we might want to take a look at. Again, this will be done comprehensively, with the stakeholders at the table, folks on the front line with issues related to public safety, mental health issues and school safety," said Eves.

About 100 demonstrators, many standing in the snow and some holding flags and placards, gathered Saturday at the capitol in Augusta as part of nationwide demonstrations in support of gun rights.

"Every law-abiding citizen has a right to bear arms. It's a constitutional right. Nobody should try to take that away from us," said Joe Getchell of Pittsfield. Another demonstrator held a sign that read, "Educate not legislate."

There's no clear timeline yet for any legislation. There are no time limits for the governor to submit bills, and legislators' after-deadline requests for admission can be considered by Legislative Council, the bipartisan group of House and Senate floor leaders and presiding officers.

Based on past years' figures, the total number of bills for this year's legislative session is likely to exceed 1,500. Twenty years ago, in 1993, a total of 1,567 bills were submitted. By 1999, the total was up to 2,258.

The tide of bills is always heaviest during odd-numbered years, when the sessions run five to six months, longer than the four-month wrap-up sessions in even years. In an atmosphere of tight money and heightened efforts to save time, the total was back down to 1,588 by 2011.

Still, lawmakers are encouraged from time to time to limit their bills, with hopes of streamlining the process.

The agenda is well-defined and busy for the Appropriations Committee, which must plug major holes in the current year's budget, then review Gov. Paul LePage's $6.3 billion budget for the 2014-15 fiscal years and other major fiscal initiatives he's put forward.

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

RONALD RIML's picture

The School Shooter: A THREAT ASSESSMENT PERSPECTIVE

This is an older report from the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/school-shooter

"The monograph was developed from the concepts and principles developed by the FBI's NCAVC in nearly 25 years of experience in threat assessment, ideas generated at a l999 NCAVC symposium on school shootings, and an in-depth review of eighteen school shooting cases."

Steve  Dosh's picture

Gun control among proposals before Maine lawmakers

Mainers , 13.01.21 9 pm
More guns in schools are not the answer . Fewer guns are ? 
In fact , we have policemen and women in our intermediate and high school here in Pahoa , HI . Pahoa means dagger in Hawai'ian
How and why are they going to use their guns anyway against minors ?
It's drugs and a lack of meaningful parental involvement that is the problem
Sorry gun nuts
To quote the Blue Comedy Tour , " You can't argue with stupid."
/s , Steve , seven year ( 7 ) school volunteer at ' remedial status ' schools , ref : http://www.nclb.gov

Andrew MacIsaac's picture

So Steve...

Ever had a mass shooting at "The Dagger"?

RONALD RIML's picture

Where is our 'Resident Expert' - Mark Eliot getting his data?

Here is the official Australian publication by the Australian Institute of Criminology - which is the equivalent of our FBI's yearly UCR (Uniform Crime Report)

Australian Crime: Facts and Figures - 2011

There's 179 pages here. Let's see if it backs up Mark's allegations.

Snopes has also weighed in on some of this.

Australian Guns

Andrew MacIsaac's picture

The intent of the framers of The Constitution ...

is clear. You need only to read The Federalist No. 46.

The idea of the citizenry being armed was to have the ability to stand up to and repel a national armed force with despotic intent. This can only be accomplished if the citizenry has the right to keep itself armed as well as the national force is armed and in sufficient numbers to match that of the national force.

History tells us that nearly all despots, Hitler, Mao, Castro, et al, as one of their early actions disarmed the people.

Read it for yourself.

n·fringe [in-frinj] Show IPA verb, in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object)
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

RONALD RIML's picture

Sorry - Art I, Section 8 of Constitution trumps Federalist

Congress Shall Have the Power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Rebel at your own Peril - Ask Jefferson Davis

Jim Cyr's picture

Rebel at your own

peril ? Tell that to Mr. Dred Scott & how about Mr. Joe Brown ?

Jim Cyr's picture

Sorry, my bad,

not Joe but John Brown.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

The Fringe

There are as many interpretations of what the founding fathers meant as there are versions of the Bible. In both cases cherry picking the word that makes your point and ignoring all contexts is usually erroneous. The founding fathers were much more concerned with foreign attack and the problems they had raising an army to fight the British than they were busy planning the overthrow of the government they were creating. Secondly there is also mention of a" well REGULATED militia". Thirdly the country was nearly all rural with little or nothing in the way of law enforcement. In fact law enforcement often consisted of a designated posse. None of that has anything to do with the urban warfare we have to deal with now. I realize there is a fairly strong contingent of Tim McVeigh followers in this country who want to blow up the country if their point of view does not carry the day but our government is based on the principle of majority rule and minority dissent. Nowhere in the Constitution does the minority have the right to overthrow a democratically elected government they don't agree with. Secession and revolt were decided in the 1860's and are considered treason and are illegal. Lastly, I would like to know of one historical instance of someone overthrowing a tyrant with an army because they had a home arsenal. As far as I can tell it has never occurred.

Mark Elliott's picture

Um Claire.....yes, there are

Um Claire.....yes, there are many interpretations, however, the second amendment was written by James Madison and the Federalist #46 essay explaining it was written by JAMES MADISON........are you saying James Madison interpreted his own words incorrectly?????

RONALD RIML's picture

Federalist trumped by Constitution.

Read above, Insurrectionist.

Andrew MacIsaac's picture

My Dear Mr. Riml,

I have been called worse, by better people.

The point is we all have a "natural right" to defend ourselves and our property. Whether we defend against a despotic government or a burglar that wants our coin collection is inconsequential. If you limit the law abiding citizen to a ten round magazine you put him at a distinct disadvantage against the criminal who has proven he gives not a damn about the law, so still has his seventeen round clip.

RONALD RIML's picture

I'm not your 'Dear'

And there are limits to your/our rights.

Practice wins over theory every time.

Andrew MacIsaac's picture

Not...

If they don't impede anyone else's rights or property.

Mark Elliott's picture

The only acceptable time to

The only acceptable time to limit anyone's rights is when they directly impede the rights of another and my owning a 30 round mag does NOT impede your rights in any way.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Emotional

I've heard it said that the response to Newtown is just emotional sentimentality and that politicians are using it to advance an agenda. Well we had an emotional reaction to 9/11 also. In fact, surveys tell us that Americans are more emotionally outraged about Newtown than they were about 9/11. As a result of that outrage we fought two wars, spent trillions, lost thousands of our young and learned to live with enhanced security in our airports. As citizens we accepted the rights of warrantless wiretapping, indefinite incarceration without benefit of trial, lawyer, or conviction and guilt by association for our government in the Patriot Act. We accepted all this because we did not want to live with terror from abroad. Newtown has taught us that we don't want to live with home grown terror either. If we have to live in bunkers carrying weapons every time we go to a theater or to school because we fear getting shot we are terrorized. Compared to the rights we have already given up to live free from terror, asking gun enthusiasts to give up the right to buy and sell guns secretly seems like small potatoes. It also seems to me that cities should have the right to deny open carry for anyone other than law enforcement personnel. This is a public safety issue since we cannot tell if someone is proclaiming their rights or committing a massacre until after the fact. As for better mental health services and reporting, limiting violence in the media, and praying more all that is fine but useless in reducing the number of shootings unless we regulate guns.

Dexter Voter's picture

Uninformed People

I trained thousands of people on the use of weapons. I trained them on firing fast and accurately. That involved changing magazines. Now it does not take anyone long to change a magazine whether it be a 10 round or a 30 round magazine. They can fire just as many rounds with either.While on semi-automatic. Thinking a ban on large capacity magazines will cure the problem is silly. People read or hear something from a "news expert" and they believe it to be true. Get training people and learn the truth. It does not matter the weapon or the magazine a crazy person will kill because the media will put his name in the public eye for years.

Mark Elliott's picture

You are correct Dexter

You are correct Dexter Voter......it takes 2 seconds to swap out a magazine. All the data works in our favor. We can put it all in front of them and they deny it exists! This can only mean one thing......they have alterior motives!

Read the truth behind New York democrats real plan! -> http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2495/ny_democrat_pleads_with_repub...

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Also a question

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of guns than I can answer this one. If the larger magazine is not more deadly than the smaller one then why have it? And what difference would it make if it were no longer available?

Dexter Voter's picture

This about gun laws

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953,
about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1..5 million
Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total
of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were
rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million
political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated..

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated

------------------------------

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million
educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century
because of gun control: 56 million.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens.'

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in
defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more
important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is
supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY
CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!

DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

Dexter Voter's picture

The larger magazine

The larger magazine is used mainly in competition where they want to move and fire quickly. They could use smaller magazines but that would only cause safety problems while they are running around. A semi automatic weapon will fire one round when you pull the trigger. Changing magazines takes a second and a smaller magazine would not have stopped the carnage that happened at Sandy Hook. This man went there because he knew there would not be any resistance. He could of killed as many with a single shot weapon, because the police were to far away to stop him.

Mark Elliott's picture

Why did Rosa Parks HAVE to

Why did Rosa Parks HAVE to sit in the front of the bus???

RONALD RIML's picture

Because the Rednecks in back drank too damn much.

and cussed a bit.

CLAIRE GAMACHE's picture

Cure the problem

You are correct that this will not cure "the problem" because there are several problems involved. It certainly would not affect the high number of shooting accidents that happen but safety training, gun locks and keeping the guns out of the hands of children might. It wouldn't affect the huge number of gun suicides but waiting periods, better reporting from mental health experts, gun buy backs and better tracking of stolen weapons has proven to reduce these significantly in Australia. As for the crazy Rambo wanna-bes, according to news reports several of them were killed or disarmed while changing magazines. Maybe they weren't all as well trained and maybe they were stressed out but there you are. It would seem the more often they change magazines the better the odds of killing them.

Andrew MacIsaac's picture

Not...

if no one has a gun to kill them with!

Dexter Voter's picture

That may be true

They might have been killed wihle changing magazines but they could have killed alot of people before the police got close enough to shoot them. Not making a differance what size the magazine. It depended when the police showed up.

ANTHONY NAZAR's picture

It remains to be seen

which legislators are ideologues, which are more concerned with retaining their seats in the legislature and which will do the right thing.

I am shocked by the knee-jerk reaction by some in the US Senate of whom I thought better. They fear a vocal minority so much that they vacillate between the safe choice and the right choice. Let's hope that Maine's legislators show a bit more spine.

I'm not talking about gutting the 2nd Amendment, just recognizing that it was not written with 30 round clips or weapons (not collectibles or toys) designed for the sole purpose of killing as many humans as possible in the shortest time possible. Even Justice Scalia recognizes the need for some regulation.

Mark Elliott's picture

and our right to travel

and our right to travel freely wasn't written with 130 mph death machine Cadilacs in kind either........

The purpose of the 2A was to allow us to defend ourselves and our country against tyranical government agencies.......if we must do it with muskets, then so shall they!

Bob Berry's picture

power is relative

When the second amendment was written, muskets were the best way to take up arms to defend yourself and your country. No, a mad man could go on a shooting spree with one. Instead, he would make a bomb.

Our technology has increased. But the best way for a mad man to kill a bunch of people is still a bomb. Ergo, rifle technology is not a reason to infringe on our constitution-given right.

You may ask, "But, why then don't these nuts use bombs if that's so much better?" Answer: fame. The anti-gun media has ensured that a rifle wielding mass killer will be investigated thoroughly, giving him the attention he craves. So do we infringe on our constitution-given rights for a few evil men? No!

But the 2nd amendment writers didn't know about high-capacity magazines? True, but they did live during a time period of advancing technology. They knew then, as we do now, that technology is not static. Perhaps that's why they used the term "shall not be infringed."

Mark Elliott's picture

FYI Bob....the constitution

FYI Bob....the constitution doesn't give us our rights. We are born with them and the constitution simply protects them.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Fame? You jest.

Most of the killers involved in mass shootings kill themselves before they can be arrested. They don't care a wit about an investigation. One killer set up bombs in his house, but used a large magazine semi-automatic rifle to kill innocent people. What's common here is hate. They hate people many times for irrational reasons. Their shootings are acts of rage and revenge not cries for help or attention.
Advancing technology was addressed in the National Firearms Act of 1934. The law recognized that some firearms because of their high cyclical rate placed society in danger and therefore regulated those weapons and accessories. Its a simple and compelling question, is our 2nd amendment and natural right to own firearms outweighed by the government's compelling interest in maintaining a safe society. Newtown answered that question with a simple yes. Gun owners do as well. Semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines should be included in the NFA and regulated not banned.

Bob Berry's picture

Newtown was a tragedy

Newtown was a terrible tragedy. It points out our need to help or put away crazy evil people. It did not show a need for expanding the NFA34.

You are wrong regarding fame, attention, and the investigation of these incidents. Death, even suicide, does not preclude desire for fame and/or attention. Seems to me the opposite is true.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Of course it does.

crazy, evil people don't think as you or I do. What motivates us will not motivate them. You can't find or put away crazy evil people. They have the same Constitutional rights as you or I do. Paranoids can act just like you and I until the day they lose control. To find them and put them away takes care of a small part of the problem.
we can't afford to dismiss Newtown with the caption of terrible tragedy. Its much more than that. It was a cost no civilized society should have to bare.
The NFA34 regulated machine guns because of their high rate of fire. Semi-automatics while having a lower rate of fire certainly are too high for us to afford. They fit well within the reasoning for the NFA.

Bob Berry's picture

Wrong again

Crazy evil people can be found, and are routinely found. You just don't hear about it in the media. Nearly all of the mass killings have been performed by people on a behavioral drug, such as Zoloft and the like. Start your search there, if you must.

But you're right in that not every crazy person will be caught. The people in question are usually highly intelligent and capable of hiding in society. And they have tactical initiative.

Please tell me the specifics on how a new AWB will keep a crazy person from obtaining one of the millions of 30 rnd magazines in existence? Or how a new AWB will stop one of these highly-intelligent but socially evil monsters from making their own with $5 of parts you buy at Home Depot? They will obtain good weapons, modify them to be good weapons, or use another- and worse- weapon.

Therefore, if we cannot find all of them, and we cannot disarm all of them, they need to be stopped in action. They must be stopped in action. Put an armed officer in every school, or allow teachers to voluntarily take proper training and carry in schools.

Disarming, regulating, and infringing on law-abiding citizens is not the answer, and is unconstitutional.

Of course, you could call for disarming everyone. That'll be the beginning of the end. Molon Labe.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

I oppose the AWB in any formulation.

NFA regulates. It does not ban. AWB is unconstitutonal. The NFA is not.
They might. But that's not the issue. If its harder, some will not try. If its harder still, some won't succeed. And if harder still some will be identified and arrested.
The idea of armed teachers is the same type of mistake. Teachers aren't trained guards. That's not what most of them are good at. Some would do OK. Most will not. The ones who do may not be at work that day.
These are acts intended to create terror. A fire fight in a elementary school creates terror. Doesn't matter if the good guys win there will still be the terror. So government needs to prevent the shooting, if it can't prevent it then stop the carnage, and if it can't minimize the damage. But in the end if all else fails, armed teachers/guards with high levels of combat training, monthly refresher courses has to be considered.
That they hide in society is true and my point. The more occasions we can force them out in the open the better our chance to stop them.

Mark Elliott's picture

US Constitution: "shall NOT

US Constitution: "shall NOT be infringed"

Maine State Constitution: "shall NOT be questioned"

not allowing us access the accessories is infringment of my right......

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

That's the problem in reading Constitutions out of context

Scalia's decision in Heller with which I can only quibbel a little makes it very clear. Limitations on the 2nd Amendment are obvious and have been the ruling of courts for years. No Constitutional principle is unlimited if they were we wouldn't need judges. Constitutional principles conflict and the conflict must be resolved. Acessories aren't arms. The Constitution can not conflict with natural rights. Where they do, the decision must favor the nature right. Life is the formost, first, most important nature right on which the Constitution is based. If arms threaten life and Newtown proved they do, then under some circumstances government has a compelling interest that is perfectly Constitutional to act i.e. felons, children, mentally ill, high cyclical rates of fire, silencers, etc.
State Constitution meaningless. Its a Federal issue. 2nd Amendment makes it that.

Andrew MacIsaac's picture

That gun...

did not take anyone's life. It was just sitting there minding it's own business until some lunatic picked it up.

Mark Elliott's picture

"shall not be infringed" can

"shall not be infringed" can not possibly be misunderstood.

A ban on accessories can result in an indirect ban on the firearm itself......EG: New York Governor knew he couldn't ban the AR15....but, what if he had successfully banned the ammo? That would render the firearm useless but not "banned".......(strict ammo regulations have been tried in this manner before)

The only way a firearm "threatens life" is in the hands of a killer........period! Using that mentality, we should ban knives, hammers, baseball bats, lead pipes and candle sticks.......hell, children choke on hot dogs all the time...some die.

The nullification process can put just about any "federal issue" into the hands of the state.......

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

WOW

There is no nullification process. Jackson answered that in 1832. Federal issues can not be put into the hands of the states. Read your Constitution. Its is the law of the land and supreme over all other laws.

"The only way a firearm "threatens life" is in the hands of a killer" completely false. Guns are inherently dangerous and that's why the NRA has been teaching gun safety for decades. No, the lethality of a machine gun is qualitatively different than knifes, hammers, baseball bats (which are irrelevent in this discussion). That makes them different. And certainly a hot dog is completely irrelevent. You can't compare an accident to intentional mass slaughter. Its a distraction not an answer.

"shall not be infringed" is out of context. Please read Scalia's opinion. He puts it into context and yes it can easily be misunderstood.

Mark Elliott's picture

"Guns are inherently

"Guns are inherently dangerous and that's why the NRA has been teaching gun safety for decades. "

Who are the NRA teaching gun safety to?? The guns?? Or the person?? If the guns themselves were the danger, wouldn't the NRA support a ban?? A gun isn't a danger without human intervention......it is HOW that human intervenes that creates the danger.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Mark, that's not worthy of anyone

Suggesting that guns are not inherently dangerous does even warrat a reply. Anyone who has dealt with guns knows the are inherently dangerous including the NRA. Treating guns as an inert piece of steel and wood is no even credible.
Since the Cincinnati meeting, I believe, in 1973 the NRA has had one motivation increasing the sale of guns and accessories. The will never support aban for any reason. But they do teach gun safety for a reason.

Mark Elliott's picture

They teach gun safety to

They teach gun safety to PEOPLE, much the same way our parents taught us not to run with scissors. We don't regulate scissors and those are inherently dangerous.......once someone picks them up and runs with them. We teach PEOPLE so PEOPLE don't make mistakes.

We teach our children how to drive cars safely as well.........walk safely, play sports safely.....the list goes on and on.

Bob Berry's picture

Wow

My first reaction: wow.

Sure, terror is created. I'm not saying it won't. There's nothing any of us can do to stop crazies from terrorizing people. It happens all over the world, in places with no gun control and places with heavy gun control. The crazies have the initiative.

But it doesn't matter if the good guys win and the damage the killer is neutralized? Zowie. I can't argue with that kind of irrationality. It does matter, to the highest importance!

If teachers are trained, that will do as a last line of defense. And I did say voluntary. I'll take a teacher who voluntarily receives training and permission to carry to stop a killer in the same building over a commando that's 10 minutes away, at the very best. History shows that the crazies will stop and surrender or commit suicide as soon as they meet a serious resistance.

Gun free zones are hunting preserves for killers.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

First,

"If teachers are trained, that will do as a last line of defense." I agree. And I think I said that.
"But it doesn't matter if the good guys win and the damage the killer is neutralized? Zowie." You are misreading my comment. It doesn't matter to the terror. Whether the good guys win or lose the terror is still there. Terror not just the carnage are a result that government has compelling reason to prevent mass shootings just on te basis of the terror.
So Wytt Earp was wrong to make Dodge City a gun-free zone 140 years ago. Gun free zones are not hunting preserves. That's just a PR talking point. An over reach.
We are not powerless to stop the crazies. We have reduced the drunk driving deaths. We can reduce the mass shootings. But stopping everyone, no. What matters is doing something the works over the long term.

Bob Berry's picture

Apologies and logic

If I mis-read you, you have my apologies.

Yes, Wyatt Earp was wrong to make gun-free zones. It didn't work then, and it doesn't work now.

More gun control = more crime. Chicago, Great Britain, Australia. Take your pick.

How many of the mass killings has America experienced in the last 10 years occurred outside a gun-free zone? Only one. Doesn't is seem likely that these mass murders are targeting areas where they know people won't shoot back? I know they don't think like us, but that doesn't make them stupid! PR talking point or not, it's still true, not an overreach.

RONALD RIML's picture

Crime in Australia, Great Britain???

Bob - get a clue and stop drinking the Kool-Aide.

Australia and Great Britain include misdemeanors in their violent crime statistics. We don't - only four types of felonies. That's why their's appear artificially higher. The U.S. is much more crime ridden.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

You think the crime rate using guns in the US

is in anyway comparable to Great Britian or Australia. Again crime isn't the issue. The issue is crimes committed with the use of guns. The murder plus suicide in the US last year was over 30,000. Great Britian 72 I think. Need to adjust for adult population. As I think about this I doubt that anyone can really work up valid comparisons. More I think about it you need to adjust for so many things. Because the real question is in planning a crime where the criminal has a choice of weaponry how frequently does he use a revolver, semi-automatic, automatic, knife,rock, or bomb. Doubt any statistic exist in the US.
Schools aren't always gun-free zones. Columbine had armed guards. Contrary to the NRA false ad about Obama's children. Their school does no have armed guards. But I heard over 20,000 schools do under the Clinton program.
I don't think the shooting back matters to them. Many commit suicide or suicide by police. These are people in a rage. They target their real or imaginary oppressors. Bullying has been mentioned in several of these shootings. They also tend to be male, young. So schools are a natural place to find the people who have hurt them. And I agree many are very smart. But emotions always win out over intelligence.

Mark Elliott's picture

John, the reference to crime

John, the reference to crime rates is due to the fact that every where guns were banned or strictly controlled, crime skyrocketed AFTER the control! That means, crazies are finding other ways to hurt, kill, and mame......as we have been saying all along. Yes, gun related crimes dropped in the UK after the gun ban.......all the ban did was remove the crime stats from the "gun" category and give them to everything else. The numbers overall went up.........

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

The numbers are not reliable

You have to know the context - the specifics of what those number mean. When I studied this issue in detail it became perfectly obvious that both sides were providing statistics that were misleading. Apparently they still do. US crime statistics are not reliable - they don't accurately represent the true situation. The conclusions of studies often over state or misstate what the number really respresent. I believe none of them unless they appear in peer reviewed scientific journals.
Your views are consistent with John Lott's arguments from years ago. His reasoning can not be trusted. He is one of the ldealogues. He does not publish peer reviewed studies at least as far as I know. His studies often answer a question with a conclusion not supported by his own facts.
If crazies find other ways to hurt and that's true doesn't it matter that way 1 kills/wounds dozens, way 2 kills one or two, way 3 wounds 1 or 2, way four leaves the crazy in jail. I think it does. And that's the current issue - to try to limit the number of incidents and in those incidents that do occur limit the butcher' bill.

Mark Elliott's picture

When you compare US numbers

When you compare US numbers to UK numbers...yes, not reliable, BUT when you compare UK numbers BEFORE the ban to UK numbers after the ban......both sets of numbers are just as reliable as the other.

I like the way you are saying the numbers are not reliable when they don't work in your favor...... Dianne Feinstein, who claims to be an expert seems to think she has all the accurate information in her own head. This is the same expert that, when talking of AWB at a recent press conference with an "AW" in her hand, had her finger on the trigger pointed towards the reporters...........and we are supposed to take her "data" as gospel?? I am willing to bet, unreliable or not, comparing the two countries is far...FAR..better than going by her word!

RONALD RIML's picture

You don't have the numbers, Mark. Just an 'Agenda'

And you're not considering the affect of implementing the British Crime Survey - where 'victims' (even children) can call in reports of crime rather than report them to Police. It 'Skyrocketed' the Numbers

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"It showed that 2.15 million crimes of theft and violence took place against children aged between 10 and 15 years old in 2009.
However, the figures were immediately criticised for exaggerating the scale of the problem after it emerged that these “crimes” included incidents such as toys being broken by older siblings or the theft of dinner money.

According to the study - an extension of the British Crime Survey which cost £370,000 to carry out - 24 per cent of children said they had been a victim of crime in the past 12 months, compared with just 6 per cent of adults. This means children are four times more likely to be a victim of “crime”, according to the study’s definition.

Of the 2.15 million offences, 1.7million were categorised as “violent crimes”, which means that last year three violent crimes were committed against children every minute.

These violent crimes included 166,000 cases of wounding and 448,000 instances assaults with minor injuries, as well as more than one million crimes which were categorised as “violence with no injury” offences. "

See - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7836584/2.15million...

Mark Elliott's picture

If standing up for my god

If standing up for my god given, constitutionally protected rights is an "agenda" then I'm guilty as charged! Shall not be infringed, shall not be questioned.........

RONALD RIML's picture

Mark - you're so full of crap it's gushing out your ears.

That's why you are so willing to propagate lies on this forum.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Sorry, doesn't wash

30 years ago there were scientifically valid studies that came to the only conclusion I buy so far - guns have social impact some positive and some negative how their balance is a value judgement and when they netted out maybe a little positive maybe a little negative but not enough to make guns a priority or give government a compelling interest in restricting them further. Newtown and the rest have changed that conclusion.
I do not support Dianne Feintein, who has never claimed to be an expert on this issue she was and is a victim, on this issue nor the AWB she has crafted.

RONALD RIML's picture

Contrary to the 'Propaganda'

Great Britain and Australia have nowhere near the crime rates that we in the U.S. do

It's all in how we handle our 'Violent Crime Statistics' - We don't count misdemeanors - only felony violent crimes. They count both.

England and Wales even have a program where citizens - including children - can directly report crime (my sister pushed me) to a 'Crime Survey' by telephone.

Comparison of Statistics

Mark Elliott's picture

Australia now has a new crime

Australia now has a new crime problem they didn't have before their ban......home invasions!

RONALD RIML's picture

Sorry - Australia has had 'Home Invasions' before 'Ban'

You'll have to make some other lie up.

Mark Elliott's picture

Didn't say they never had

Didn't say they never had them.....said they now have a PROBLEM!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv1CRLMTebo

RONALD RIML's picture

A Video. Big Deal. Got Evidence???

You are so full of B.S, Mark..... I posted the official Australian Crime Statistics Report. Extrapolate them

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Not the issue

The issue is 20 dead babies in Newtown shot many times each not PR talking points.

Mark Elliott's picture

Then why are the gun grabbers

Then why are the gun grabbers standing on the grave of those children to push this agenda. They have you believing an "assault weapon" was used when that assault weapon was left in the car. Adam Lanza used 4 handguns in this event......but the administration doesn't want you to know that. The story was only told briefly then hidden away......they are taking advantage of our emotions and many have fallen for it. Now we have a 2A battle on our hands.....based on false information, aka lies.

NBC Story -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdsqkKNIw4w

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

"why are the gun grabbers

"why are the gun grabbers standing on the grave of those children" - that's your obviously highly biased conclusion. The tener and tone of what you write makes that very clear.
There have been several news stories about where the rifle was. You haven't heard me talk about rifles. I've talked about semi-automatic weapons designed for detachable high-capacity magazines with high cyclical rates of fire - rifles, handguns, shotguns or any other means of sending a projectile to a human target. Because I've read many stories that say the rifle was not used and others that say it was. Again these are just stories. And it doesn't matter. How many bullets can be sent on their way in how short a period of time and the Constituton are the issue.

Mark Elliott's picture

Point is, if the

Point is, if the administration were being honest about this event we wouldn't be having any discussion about AWB. The fact that he continues to lie about it shows that HE is taking advantage of this situation to further his agenda based on lies......

It is totally laughable that you folks use "news stories" when they work in your favor....but brush them aside as "unreliable" when they don't.

The 2A was written to allow us to protect ourselves against our very own government should it become tyrannical...period. It was written right after having fought 2 years against a ...........wait for it............. tyrannical government that tried to disarm us! Madison wrote it and he then further defined it in the Federalist Papers.

This can only mean one thing, for it to be effective, we must have firearms capable of at least giving us an honest shot at defense. Period.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Care to provide a source for Madison's statement?

Madison did talk about tyrannical government in the Federalist Papers, but not the 2A it did not exist until 3 years later.
The tyrannical government Madison was speaking about was The British Monarch not American democracy. He was talking about a government where the colonists were not represented in parliment. You are in the America Congress. He was talking about an executive who could violate the rights of English men without an court that they could go to for redress. You can and the NRA has gone to court when it choose to. So this is no tyranny. That's crazy talk.
And the 2A has one and only one source to deny to government the power to confiscate firearms and nothing else. Any else you are making up.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

The Administration is being completely honest

Well as honest as any administration can be. What lies has he took - not one.
You hae come to te conclusion that because he disagrees with you that he must be lying. Sorry.
If he had an agenda ready and waiting for this kind of event, we would have brought it out immediately after the event. Instead, He tasked Biden. Biden came up with recommendations that were comphrensive, focused on mental illness most were ideas that had never been discussed before.
And while you go apes**t over AWB, which can't pass the Senate much less the house and if it did would be found unconstitution the news reports are that no one thinks it will pass s they think its a bargainin chip that will be dropped to get universal backgroud checks. Get with it.
News stories are what they are. They are not facts they are not scientific studies. They are stories which may or may not be true. You don't make policy based on stories. Hell, 90% of what's on the internet is false. Right now the internet is celebrating the T'eo hoax. And my reaction to the Austrialian Home Invasion point was based on a Report done by the Austrialian government it on their website. Still doesn't make it true, but its is a counterpoint.

RONALD RIML's picture

You are SO full of B.S.

The 2nd Amendment was written in the context of a 'Well-Regulated Militia'

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the Power: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

- Read that - Mark - when you and your Gun-Nut Buddies go all Paranoid about the imagined Tyranny of the Government - and decide to hold an Insurrection - Congress has the Constitutional power to Call Forth the Militia to Suppress your Asses.

And that's why the Militia has the right to be armed.

Read It and Weep!!

Mark Elliott's picture

The term "militia" can mean

The term "militia" can mean both, citizen militia AND government militia!

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

"People" meaning NOT the government.

James Madison wrote the second amendment and defined it further in the federalist papers.

In an effort to further dissuade fears over a national military force, Madison indicates that, at any point, the maximum force that can be brought to bear by the government to enforce its mandates is but a small fraction of the might of an armed citizenry:

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
"

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

the term was coined 20 years ago

Home invasion in Australia and elsewhere has no legal meaning. Some people in Australia term any case where someone is home when a person unlawfully enters the home. Others only use the term if the legal occupants are "terrorized". herefore there are no valid statistics on Home Invasion. It also means no one knows te number of occurrences before the ban or anytime else.

RONALD RIML's picture

"Home Invasion" is a Crime in Illinois

(720 ILCS 5/19-6) (was 720 ILCS 5/12-11)
Sec. 19-6. Home Invasion.

See: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+...

Mark Elliott's picture

Tell that to the victims. I

Tell that to the victims. I am willing to bet they won't give two turds......

So at minimum, a "home invasion" would be simply entering the home and at most "terrorizing"......therefore there must be many residents in Australia that had their home entered that didn't report it as an invasion. That would make the number actually higher than being reported........people entering their homes illegally has risen.

RONALD RIML's picture

So you just pull Crap out of your Anus to fit your Agenda

You have no experience nor credibility Mark. Only Lies, Damn Lies, and More of the Same.

At least have the common decency to refer to actual Australian Law Enforcement sites and statistics rather than your propaganda.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Hold on a minute

Some where deep down in Mark there is a kernel of truth. So much misinformation, misquotes, conpiracy theories, PR have been created just to mislead good people. They invented so many "Jefferson" quotes you would think he is a baptist minister who takes in AK-47 to church to protect himself from black flies. While we do have to identify the lies, We have to push Mark until he has nothing left but his true feeling. That would be valuable, but so far he's just a spokesman for the crazy wing of the crazy wing.

Mark Elliott's picture

So you want the Australia

So you want the Australia government (law enforcement) to give proof that their own gun ban and confiscation backfired?? Good luck with that!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv1CRLMTebo

RONALD RIML's picture

I don't want Australia to do anything.

I want you to quit lying about subjects you have no proof nor knowledge of.

Mark Elliott's picture

Boy, you're awful angry

Boy, you're awful angry tonight.....that can only mean one thing. You're having trouble coming up with logical responses.

RONALD RIML's picture

I simply realize that you are beyond reason.

I was trained and educated to present evidence that would pass the smell test in court.

I'm casting pearls before swine here.

Mark Elliott's picture

You, a liberal, want me to

You, a liberal, want me to quit lying??...tsk, tsk, tsk......YOU wanted official government sources. Australia's government isn't going to be forthright about their very own failure so soon......

RONALD RIML's picture

So tell us about your experiences in Australia, Mark -

and why you distrust them so much.

I found Australians very honest and forthcoming when I was there.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

It has no legal meaning. There are no reports.

No statistics. All you have are stories in the papers. Its just PR. No therefore is possible.

Mark Elliott's picture

So we are to use the "PR"

So we are to use the "PR" "stories in the papers" as gospel to risk losing our rights??

This whole AWB as a result of Newtown is a total farce! Obama is STILL claiming an AW was used.....he will never admit it isn't true. He will continue to use this tragic event to further his firearm agenda.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Pure bull

Had Newtown not happenned there would be no Obama Gun Agenda. Democrats had taken guns off the table in 2000. I lead the effort in Maine to convince the State Party that they were wrong on the issue. I won. We passed a platform that was consistent with the Maine Constitution, the US Constitution, and common sense. I visited every Country Democratic Party committee meeting and the response was thank God we can stop talking about the issue we finally have it right.
Obama and every person who lived through the aftermath of Newtown having seen little bodies torn apart by multiple gun shots was changed. Were you there?

Mark Elliott's picture

"Had Newtown not happenned

"Had Newtown not happenned there would be no Obama Gun Agenda"
This is not true! There is plenty of evidence that Obama has had this on his agenda for years. -> http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9614

"Democrats had taken guns off the table in 2000."
Maybe in Maine, but NOT national and I believe it was you that claimed this was a federal issue not a state issue, am I correct on that?? Here-> http://www.sunjournal.com/comment/114370#comment-114370

There is plenty of evidence that plenty of leading democrats have had this on their agenda for years!

"Obama and every person who lived through the aftermath of Newtown having seen little bodies torn apart by multiple gun shots was changed. Were you there?"
Obama wasn't there, neither were you or I..........and neither was the "assault rifle" that is the target of this "new" agenda that suddenly came to the front as a direct result of this tragedy, so you claim. We know the truth about the rifle now...yet, you folks are still targeting them. We could say it is a WMD that doesn't exist? You're still looking for it??

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Had what on there agenda for years?

Cathy McCarthy D-NY, Diane Feinstein D-Ca yes I'll agree with you that they have had an assault weapons ban in their back pockets. They did not have the plan developed by Joe Biden in their back pockets. These recommendation are much more comphrensive that any proposal coming out of the Brady Group (Republican you remember) or any other group.
Read this article critically. The Northern Colorado Gazetter article has no content. Its pure speculation. Obama has a gun czar? What's his real title. Has he prepared a report with proposed actions. If Crowley is the gun czar, why was Biden tasked with meeting people and reporting his recommendations. If he had been planning this all along where were the leaks of specific actions. The article is a lot of hot air 2 and 2 make 15.
Why should we be targetting them. The issue is the firearm's rate of fire. Whether pistols, automatics, Gatling Guns were used isn't the point. And I've said several times I do not support the AWB, its dumb, unconstritional, and can't work.
State parties can only try to influence the National debate. That's why the party adopted the platform. Our representatives could then take that to the DNC if the issue came up. As far as I know no one in the party brought it up to the party nationally after 2000. Some did as individuals but that's their right; they aren't the party. The Westboro Baptist Church was founded by a Democrat. Does that make me responsible for their provocative acts. No. Articles were written all over the political press concluding that the issue was dead for Democrats.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Good points.

I was aware of some of this. My opinion was that US statistics are so bad comparisons are meaningless.We also don't report all crime. Are they still estimating that 10% of rapes are reported? I don't think the FBI can compel a town to report accurately the crimes committed. What happens when the charges are plea bargained down? Lot of issues here.None of this is simple or obvious. All these silver bullet ideas just don't ring true.
People are trying to prove that we are powerless to reduce gun violence by saying you can't stop everyone, you can't stop every crazy out there. I don't believe it. Drunk driving laws reduced traffic deaths. Drug laws do save some lives. Felons can get guns because we have no laws to stop them. Law-abiding citizens can get guns in order to commit a crime (Newtown). We owe it to those kids to try. To measure if what we are doing is effective and if its not change it.Its not effective now.
I would like to hear someone explain why regulating semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines under the NFA would not work because it certainly has been effect in regards to machine guns.

Jim Cyr's picture

We hope it

is to do the right thing. " The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. " The problem is the " Mental Health System ". Who are you to determine what is collectible ? If I want a machine gun, that's my business, not some bureaucrat !

RONALD RIML's picture

So if you want your 'Nappy' you don't care what your mother says

I remember your type from my police career......

Mark Elliott's picture

It is partially the mental

It is partially the mental health system but I place more blame on our courts. Of the 80 average gun deaths per day in the US, 75-78 of them are committed by someone who was released from prison or was let go at hearing.......that maybe shouldn't have been.

RONALD RIML's picture

You are such a liar, Mark. Or just plain stupid. What is it???

There were 30,740 gun deaths - and average of 83.5/day in 2010.

Of that total, 19,392 - 63.1% were suicides.* 11,078 (36.4%) were homicide deaths; an average of 30.4/day.

So how do you calculate that "Of the 80 average gun deaths per day in the US, 75-78 of them are committed by someone who was released from prison or was let go at hearing"" It's mathematically impossible.

*http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Violence_Related_Injury_Deaths_2010-a.pdf

RONALD RIML's picture

Got the citing for that - or just your usual B.S.

Sure, Mark. Anything you say.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

The mental health system is a major problem

But a insane person with a butter knife is far less of a danger than one with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazines and cartridges whose bullets are designed to tumble upon entering a body and do the most damage possible. Society needs to be protected. That is a primary goal of government. Sane people go insane. Sane people sometimes become angry and out of control. Identifying those people is critical. Preventing them from buying these weapons is critical. But that has to be just a start. What about the now insane person who had purchased his weapons when sane.
The current system is unworkable and its enforcement has been largely prevented by the NRA. A citizen was arrested at the end of December for selling counterfeit NFL clothing. He had in his possession 18 so-called "assault" weapons, 40,000 cartridges, and large numbers of high capacity magazines. In 1989, he shot and killed a man in a traffic dispute. Sentenced to 10-25 years. Also found in his possession was literature from two neo-nazi groups and plans for killing jews. He, not Wayne LaPierre, should be the NRA poster boy.

Noel Foss's picture

Poster Boy?

By that standard, Adolf Hitler would be the ideal Poster Boy for the gun control movement.
The individual you're referring to is a criminal, who couldn't legally own the weapons he had anyway. So how would adding more laws have changed that fact? All that adding more restrictive legislation on specific weapons will do is make more of the average citizenry more restricted. People who would have broken the law before will still do it. Perhaps you should examine the statistics and facts that involve "Assault Weapons" and murder rates. They account for less than 1% of murders in the US. More people are killed with feet than are killed with AR-style firearms. And they're the most popular rifle design in America right now. What that tells me is that most of the people that own them are more responsible and law-abiding than the people that own bats. Or cars.
As far as high-capacity magazines are concerned, look at the shootings at Columbine High School, where the perpetrators simply carried more of the then-imposed 10 round magazines.
The reason that you're seeing this sudden push for gun control isn't because of facts or statistics, or even because it's right. It's because some people have it as an agenda to push for additional regulation on firearms. And now they're working on an emotional response from people that have opinions but not facts to try to further that agenda. They're making a crusade now because they know that it won't work later, because they won't have that emotional response to drown out the rational thinking.
My opinion? More firearms legislation will only restrict law-abiding citizenry. Same as it does for drunk driving or illegal drug users. By all means, prosecute for offenses committed under current laws, but don't go adding new ones just to make it LOOK like you're accomplishing something meaningful.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

You do.

You don't think drunk driving laws have reduced car accidents and deaths. Amazing? Now I think our drug laws are failures but only because the cost/benefit ratio is negative those laws have reduced the death rate, loss of productivity, and saved some families, but the costs in dollars, in priorities, in peoples lives are far too high to justify the program. But they have improved lives and that's easily demonstrable. But with gun laws that not so easily demonstrated because the NRA has lobbied and got laws to prevent the collection and retention of data. We do know that hundreds of thousands of people who have gone through background checks have not been allowed to by guns. Now if we could just arrest them.
When he walks into a gun show to buy a gun nothing tells anyone that he is breaking the law. He is invisible. By making him visible it will deter him or give us a chance to catch him.

Noel Foss's picture

I think you're misinterpreting my statement.

I was pointing out that having an outright ban on Drunk Driving hasn't stopped it from happening. A lot. Same for illegal drug use.
I don't have an objection to background checks; I think they're a reasonable expectation, and I think it'd be a good idea if gun shows had to set up a kiosk for people to go to and be called into NICS before they could make a purchase.
My argument centered around restrictions on specific weapons, and magazine capacities. IF you want proof that bans on these things is ineffective, just do some research. There's several studies out (including Dept. of Justice reports) that show that the previous AWB from 94-04 had a negligible effect on the murder rate. Of course, you can't read the "facts" provided by either the Brady Campaign OR the NRA, since both groups have obvious agendas.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

As I have written in several comments,

The AWB is unconstitutional on 2nd and sometimes 5th amendment grounds. It doesn't matter if it worked or not; its unconstitutional. I expect you are right that the Justice Dept put out a report saying that the AWB had little effect on the murder rate. Don't see why it would. But did it have an effect on the murder rate when the banned weapons were used. Probably also would say it was unchanged because its the availability of these weapons that would relate to their use. With 300 million guns in private hands perhaps half being semi-automatic with detachable magazines what the AWB if it was effect would have done is reduce the number of firearms not the murder rate. 10 years wasn't long enough to judge.
But the National Firearms Act of 1934 has regulated machine guns, silencers, short-barrelled shotguns for 78 years. That clearly has reduce the use of these weapons in crimes. I support including semi-automatic firearms with detachable magazines in the restricted weapons in that act. Regulate not ban.

GARY SAVARD's picture

The person you mention is a

The person you mention is a convicted felon, who by law could not legally have weapons in his possession. He did not obey existing laws. Most criminals don't which is why they are criminals. More laws will help? I don't think so.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

That's the whole point.

Unenforced laws have no effect. The NRA has worked hard over the last 40 years making certain that the BATF does not have the budget, the data, the leadership, and the laws to make it possible to enforce what laws we do have. So a felon like this one did not have to work hard to break the law without any fear of being caught. He didn't kill someone to get the guns. He just walked into a gun show or a private sale. He didn't have to break the law to purchase 40,000 rounds. Let's make it hard for them giving law enforcement the chance to identify him. Just a blanket dismissal because he's aready a criminal means nothing. If he had to go through a background check to buy the ammunition, the magazines, and the rifles that would have given law enforcement many more opportunities to catch him. Just because you are a criminal doesn't mean you have access to black market guns although I will grant you that it helps. You don't need to.

RONALD RIML's picture

It's also the business of those within range of your machine gun

If it's possible misused.

And I certainly don't rule THAT possibility out.

Bob Berry's picture

Really?

Is it also my neighbors business that I fertilize my fields and maintain my buildings? Because I have the chemicals and shrapnel to make a pretty awesome bomb if I had it in mind, one that would affect my neighbors.

Don't be frightened. I do not have it in mind. I am neither crazy nor evil (well, I DID think the Patriots were going to win, so perhaps I am a LITTLE crazy). Point is this: I have the tools. But I don't see it as my neighbor's business.

If I want rifles, that's not my neighbors business. If I want a Gatling gun (which would be awesome, btw), that is not my neighbors business. And if I want a machine gun, that is also not my neighbors business.

If I were to shoot unsafely in such a way that it endangers my neighbors, then that IS my neighbors business. Of course, that is already illegal, so why talk about that?

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Obviously, you have

a right to a Gatling Gun if you comply with the NFA which regulates them. Because they are regulated as a danger to society your neighbors, community, state, and country thinks it is their business.

Bob Berry's picture

Not quite...

The government thinks it's their business. But it's not my neighbor's business.

'course, we could continue this discussion about the NFA34. Technically, that was an infringement as well. No arms should be denied to law abiding citizens, arms being defined as firearms.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

It certainly is.

The government is just his agent.
Your libertarian attitude is well understood. I'm interested in policy, in government. You may consider yourself an insland untouched by all that, but I think you aren't. How can you defend your isolation on this issue with the Constitution which was a document collectively developed by the whole people of the United States over 224 years. The 2nd Amendment is there because of genius of James Madison, the editing and approval of Congress, and the adoption by the voters of the country. Its a collective act and they thought it was their business. That amendment only says that the government can not confiscate your firearms (5th amendment would prevent that in any case), not that they can't be regulated. The NFA has been found constitutional. Scalia's majority opinion in the Heller case agrees that the government can regulate fiearms.

RONALD RIML's picture

Govt can't confiscate Firearms???

Don't bet the farm. Police Evidence Lockers are full of them.........

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

That's not confiscation

The 2nd Amendment bars confiscation. I have a sense that would be very difficult to accomplish.

RONALD RIML's picture

Your sense errs.

Where do you find a bar to confiscation in the 2nd Amendment? That Amendment no more bars confiscation for illegal use of firearms than does the 1st Amendment bar legal actions for libel or slander.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Easily

The Scalia decision in Heller sees it. A US Attorney General (I believe that's what I heard) in New York has already filed a suit challenging the NY AWB under the 5th and 2nd Amendment.
I'll grant you I haven't seriously studied the 2nd Amendment in about 30 years. But when I did the intent was clear from Madison who said that the 12 Amendments that he submitted to Congress against the wishes of his party was intended to prohibit those abuses of the colonists by the British Government. Firearm confiscation (lexington and Concord) is what started the American Revolution and next to the Right of Conscience was right at the top of his list. But confiscation is all that is there. Scalia wrote in Heller that the right to self-protection is in the Second Amendment. I don't. Self-protection is a natural right preceeding the Constitution and based on our personal sovereignty (the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence although a poor formulation of it and not legally binding). Scalia also identifies it as a natural right. I hope he means that this natural right can be protected by the 2nd Amendment because all amendments including those for denying to government the power to restrict gun ownership because of hunting, protection from the indians, etc were defeated. They were defeated for technical reasons. But Madison never mentioned any in of those reasons in submitting the bill of rights except British abuses.
I agree illegal use of firearms is not protected by the 2nd Amendment and is not confiscation where the firearm is evidence of a crime.

Mark Elliott's picture

and the British are coming

and the British are coming yet again.......via Piers Morgan

https://twitter.com/BikinInMaine/status/291472114442190848/photo/1

Bob Berry's picture

Not an Island, but one of the We

I am libertarian in my leanings, true enough. But not an isolationist. True isolationism is not possible while being a true participant in American society.

Regarding the second amendment, it's this simple: we are the government. It's we the people, as noted in the Constitution's preamble. We are responsible for our government. Our founding fathers knew our ability to enforce our role had to be protected. When you infringe on our firearms, you are undercutting our ability to do our jobs as the government. I am one person in We the People, and I will stand to protect the constitution and it's current amendments.

So my concern with an AWB or the NFA34 is not fully about protecting myself, my family, or our school children. It's not fully about hunting, sports, or recreation. Though it is about those things too. And while I feel strongly about this issue, I'm no island. Rather, I love my country and want to protect our rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The eventual (and seemingly inevitable- why worry about the 5th if you don't worry about the 2nd?) loss of our rights to arms will lead to the loss of the rest. I'll fight that to the bitter end. Thus, I stand opposed to an AWB and to much of the NFA34.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

Poor formulation

We are not the government. The collective of all the people is not the governmnt. We delegated powers to the government to our representatives. The people have rights and some powers. The government has powers but no rights. Two very different things.
Protect the Constitution. Of course. I support and will defend the constitution and all of its amendments even the dumb ones. But some amendments conflict with others; some powers conflict with other powers. The Constitution is how to govern not what to do. Its structural framework of Government. Not a building or institution. The Constitution is also a "living" document (there I said it). Each new generation understand the Constitution differently. Ever person understands it differently. Its living because what each generation/person wants to do with that framework is different from each preceding generation/person did. The framwork is frozen in time (barring amedments), but the govenment derived from it i not.
Don't confuse natural rights (The rights that are inherently derived from our humanity - life, self-preservation, etc mentioned in the 9th amendment) from the small list of rights that are in the Bill of Rights (primarily statements of what government can not do derived from the abuses of the British Government - confiscation of firearms, trial by admiralty courts in Halifax, etc (That waas Madson's fear that we would think the Bill of Rights was all rights)). The 2nd Amendment does not refer to hunting, sports, recreation. Although amendments were proposed in the Ratifying Conventions that mentioned those reasons. All were defeated.
P.S. Also don't confuse the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. They are not linked or related. A theory of abuses by a Monarch in fulfilling his duties to his people; said abuses then justifying separation are not in anyway related to the compact made in our constitution between the free and sovereign people of the 13 states. The relationship between people within a republic with a written Constitution and guarantees of participation are wholely different to those between a people and their Monarch with no means of participation.
Lastly I apologize for using "isolation" It mislead you. I was talking of isolation in the sense of "its none of my neighbor's business " not isolationism.

Bob Berry's picture

We the People

I didn't confuse the declaration with the constitution. Where does We the People show up, in big bold letters? Look it up.

And "living document" is where we diverge. It says "shall not infringe." I take that to mean for all time, not until you feel otherwise.

Jonathan Albrecht's picture

life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Not in the Constitution.
I don't disagree with your understanding of "shall not infringe". But its an impossibility for each generation to understand any document as its authors did just by reading the document. The US has had several total culture changes - the Constitutional Period (1790-1815), the Second Great Awakening (1798-1840), Civil War (1850-1877), Closing the West (1865-1890), Triumph of Capitalism (1865-1914), Cold War (1946-1989). In these periods, the meaning of words changed, the meaning of the language changed, people relationships changed, how we do business changed. Any one who reaches adulthood today can not understand people from any of these periods prior to 1914 without intense study. An example is works of Jonathan Swift. I could read them today and not get 99% of what he meant to say in his books. He lived as a colonial in an aristocracy. I don't know the characters, their beliefs, their culture. I'd need an extensive commentary of his life and times to gain even a small appreciation of his works.
For example, Scalia's asumption that works written in the Constitutional period must be understood as the simple words were used at the time. That's an assumption that will not stand the test of time. Politicans are masters at saying one thing and meaning another. Its not a question of feeling. Its a question of culture and thinking. Its not whimsical; its history. In fact, reading the simple words today is very misleading. Example, compare the works of Jefferson and Lincoln. They held the same political and religious beliefs. Lincoln after the Second Great Awakening speaks almost exclusively in religious terms in his political speeches. Jefferson never. Both were atheists of one stripe or another.
Madison said that his amendments referred directly to British abuses in this case the confiscation of military stores i.e. guns in Boston, Lexington, and Concord. So that is what the admendment means. Although Scalia's analysis in Heller is very good. You should read it if you haven't already.

Mark Elliott's picture

Don't be fooled by the "list

Don't be fooled by the "list of titles" Mr. McCabe!

Steve  Dosh's picture

l o l - We are revolting .

l o l - We are revolting . Just ask the British :)

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...