Skip to main content

View Diary: End the Flow of Illegal Guns (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This sounds like a mess (4+ / 0-)

    To me, it sounds like you are trying to give the states stronger rights concerning gun laws, overriding federal regulations in the process.  This sounds a little too "states rights" to me.  There should be a federal standard.  A gun that is legal in Virginia should be legal in D.C.  A gun that is illegal in NYC should be illegal in Dallas.  We need one unambiguous standard enforced consistently on a federal level.

    •  Disagree. Different strokes for different folks (0+ / 0-)

      etc. Doubtful you would feel this way if a state wasn't allowed to have as strict regulations as another.

      I see what you did there.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 12:55:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Constitution must be universally applied (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, theboz, fuzzyguy, PavePusher

        It doesn't really work that way.  My Constitutional rights should not vary if I move across a state line.  That's the entire point of having a Federal Government instead of 50 separate countries.

        And I dont' want to speak for theboz, but I do feel that one state shouldn't be able to have more strict or less strict regulations than another.

        Put another way, if Wisconsin has weak gun laws and Illinois has strong gun laws, considering that they share a long uninforced border with a lot of cross trafic, how do you realistically expect the guns to stay on the WI side of the border.

        One nation, one border enforcement agency, one set of rules.  Inside the US, all are equal.

        •  Well I can see a minimum or maximum standard (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          but as long as the minimum standard of that right exists, I'm OK with certain restrictions being in place depending on locality.

          For instance, I do buy into the idea that perhaps folks in the plains and western states or communities have less onerous restrictions on caliber, ammunition, etc.

          I see what you did there.

          by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 01:29:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So western/plains children are less important? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            If we need caliber and ammunition controls to prevent mass school shootings on the East coast, but don't need those same controls in the plains, then are you saying that children in a school in Kansas will be less dead then the kids back east?

            Also, given that the police don't stop and search people while they're driving from the plains to elsewhere, what keeps those high caliber weapons and high capacity magazines where you want them to stay?

            Look, Sandy Hook isn't in a large urban area.  That community probably wouldn't be a high restriction area anyway.  So what would you actually have accomplished with bans effective only in urban areas, except to discriminate against people based solely on where they live?

            Or to put it in terms you may understand, who is more likely to live in western / plains states, and who is more likely to live in large urban areas?  Congratulations, you just denied Constitutional rights to millions of minorities while granting them to whites.

            •  U mad Norm? (0+ / 0-)

              I said as long as a line that's established isn't crossed, different regulations are OK.

              I see what you did there.

              by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 02:30:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So meaningless, feel good regulations then? (3+ / 0-)

                You seem to have balked at the idea of discriminating against urban minorities and walked back to equality.  Good.

                The line not to cross is telling one American that he has different rights than another American.  What if the rest of us are not OK with being granted only the "minimal" rights you think we should have.  And again, discriminated based only on where we live?

                If a gun or magaizne is too dangerous for one, it's too dangerous for all, including the police.  Why don't we just work from there?

                •  Because I don't think that's true. (0+ / 0-)
                  If a gun or magaizne is too dangerous for one, it's too dangerous for all, including the police.
                  As long as EVERYONE has a right to, say, hunting weapons and a 6-round revolver, are their rights being violated if someone else gains the privilege of owning an AR-15 in Wyoming?

                  I see what you did there.

                  by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 03:20:30 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes, I would say my rights are violated (2+ / 0-)

                    First, what is the purpose of saying an AR-15 is legal in rural Wyoming but not rural Illinois?  We have coyotes and cougars too. If they need an AR-15, so do I. For that matter, if the police need an AR-15, so do I.
                    If the purpose of banning the AR-15 outside of Wyoming is to prevent mass shootings, what will you say when the next mass shooting is in Wyoming?  Why don't they deserve the same safety measures?

                    Second, show where in the Constitution it says that rights apply to residents of one state but not another. You know it doesn't work that way. A gun is not a structure or a huge live animal that is subject to zoning laws. There is no basis to discriminate based on place of residency. Simply put, if Wyoming residents need an AR-15 for self defense, then so do I.

                    Third, if you want to ban the AR-15, you can. If you ban it from everyone, including the police. They don't need it to shoot unarmed civilians...  I mean for self defense either.  One nation, under one set of rights. That's the only way it can be.

        •  Deterrence (0+ / 0-)

          When the guns are sold across the border, and the out-of-the-trunk seller is offered a lighter sentence for informing on the crooked bricks-and-mortar dealer in the next state, that's one crooked dealer fewer, and an incentive for the rest to be more careful.

          •  Crooked means violating the law (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            Nothing you posted stops working if the laws are uniform across the nation. One dealer following the law can still rat out one who isn't.

            But as a matter of principal, we shouldn't write our laws with the aim of encouraging citizens to turn each other in. People stop trusting each other. Then the really bad shit starts happening.

        •  Norm - I don't agree (0+ / 0-)

          Regarding local and state gun control laws I can see where laws that are appropriate for Buffalo, Wyoming would not be the best for New York City.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 10:46:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What other rights do NYC residents not get? (0+ / 0-)

            What if it's decided that free speech is just fine in Buffalo or Wyoming, but because Occupy protests cause too much trouble and upset the rich too much, it's decided that the 1st Amendment no longer applies in New York City.  In the name of public safety of course.

            Would you go along with that?

            What if crime in NYC reached a point where the police said 4th Amendment protections were getting in the way.  Warrents are fine for Buffalo and Wyoming, but in NYC, the cops can strip search anyone they like, at any time without a warrant.  To better protect the children, of course.

            Would you go along with that?

            Removal of civil rights based only on location is discrimination and unconstitutional.  One set of laws.  If a gun is too dangerous for NYC to allow anyone to own it, it's too dangerous for anywhere in America.

            Or to put it another way, if a gun is legal in one corner of America, it will spread, one way or another to all corners.  If you want to keep dangerous guns out of NYC, you need to keep them out of Wyoming also.

            •  Norm - First I don't know the laws in WY (0+ / 0-)

              but if WY had an open carry, or must issue law, I could understand why that would be OK for Buffalo, but not for NYC. States, counties and cities should have some discretion on this issue.

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:54:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Concealed carry is different than ownership (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I will agree that different states or locations could have different carry laws for having the gun out in public.  But not different ownership laws.  Local handgun bans have already been struck down as unconstitutional.  If a person can have gun A in their Wyoming cabin, they can have it in their NYC condo.  If you want to ban gun A in NYC, then ban it nationwide.

                But really, states, counties and cities should have as little discretion to violate the Constitution as possible. Ideally, zero.

                •  Norm - I think we are in agreement (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Norm in Chicago

                  Certainly under Heller everyone has a right of ownership and while federal, state and local legislatures have broad discretion regarding gun control laws they cannot make laws that inhibit the fundamental right to gun ownership.

                  "let's talk about that"

                  by VClib on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 11:11:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  It would be a disaster if taken to an extreme (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norm in Chicago, fuzzyguy

        I see nothing good happening if we live in a nation where California can seize all guns in their border and Texas can sell bazookas from vending machines.  While I may not agree with everyone here on what the limit should be, I hope we can all see the value of implementing standard gun control laws since it is a constitutional issue.  Also, there seems to be too many school shootings in the suburbs, and no mass shootings at inner city schools.  That topic is the one that most interests me because nobody seems to really have a plan to deal with that.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site