Skip to main content

View Diary: There IS an end run around the 2nd Amendment. Let's do it and #EndTheSlaughter. (309 comments)

Comment Preferences

      •  i saw my dentist yesterday (24+ / 0-)

        her dad hunted. her sons hunt. she has fond memories of eating elk and duck and venison sandwiches, as a schoolgirl, while her classmates were eating packaged meats. i'm not a meat eater, but i can appreciate that. people who hunt their own meat are off-grid and out of supermarkets for their protein, and i appreciate that. as i said to her- hunters don't generally use assault rifles.

        The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

        by Laurence Lewis on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:54:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Assault rifles bacisally suck as hunting guns (18+ / 0-)

          Unless you're hunting humans that is.  That's what they're made for.

          On the idea itself, it's a novel concept, and sounded promising until you hit the part about reloaders (and as someone else above pointed out muzzle loaders).  Not only would the competition shooters scream blue murder (since almost all serious match shooters load their own) but you would create a whole new revenue stream for those who deal in illegal goods of various sorts.  Now I wouldn't squawk if the "War on Drugs" found a new target, but you'd essentially be reprising that whole debacle.  And a HUGE black market would open up offshore, not to mention here at home.  And that's not even accounting for the number of reloaders already in circulation (good luck getting them back) and the ones that would fly off the store shelves as the legislation was being debated.

          Which would take a while, because a national registry is one of the points the NRA and its adherents are absolutely unwilling to budge on.

          Before you can get ANYTHING accomplished, however, we are going to have to overhaul Congress and/or mitigate the influence of the gun lobby.  And honestly, the gun lobby is probably only second to the oil and gas lobby in its power.  So at this point, that's probably the primary goal to set.  Because that is the obstacle to anything meaningful happening.

          Maybe the way to proceed is to take a page from Dave Brat's playbook in VA07.  If he can unseat a deeply entrenched incumbent who outspent him 40:1, it teaches that having the bigger war chest is NOT a guarantee of victory.  WE have the ability to take the big money out of elections by making it ineffective.  And that's with no Constitutional Amendment, no reversal of a SCOTUS decision and no approval needed from any governmental agency.  If we get the message across that fellating the big campaign donors isn't going to make you a lock for that seat in Congress, maybe the electeds will start paying attention to the people who REALLY hold their jobs in hand.

          Nah.  That's just crazy talk.

          I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

          by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 11:31:46 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But, if they just control the ammo.. (12+ / 0-)

            respectable hunters and marksmen could still get a license and still make their own rounds with the casings for rifle cartridges still identified and tracked.

            This would also reduce pipe bombs limiting people from purchasing large quantities of black powder.

            "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

            by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:24:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, yes they could. (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Choco8, Rogneid, Cedwyn, BlackSheep1, G2geek

              Which might actually make things even cloudier when a casing goes missing and is reloaded by someone not licensed and used for more nefarious purposes.  Not to mention that every bit of brass ever sold would have to be controlled in perpetuity, from the time it is manufactured until the time it is destroyed/recycled.  Imagine if you will, having to account for every casing you fired on a hunting trip for fear that some illegal reloader would pick up one you dropped, reload it and use it to shoot someone, leaving it at the scene to put the authorities on your scent.  Or, worse yet, you don't account for all your brass and someone does reload a shell with your name on it, shoot somebody with said round and it comes back to you.

              The logistics are a little staggering in my view.  Just sayin'.

              I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

              by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:43:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wow. Motivation for slobs (9+ / 0-)

                to pick up their shells.

                Personal soapbox; I don't get why all hunters don't pick up their empties and cart out their trash.  Their pastime depends on quality environment for wildlife; why not take some responsibility for it?

                •  Don't Hunt, Do You? (5+ / 0-)

                  Depending on the weapon the empty casing can be thrown 20 feet or more, in the woods or grass, and you have a shot animal to deal with as your first priority.

                  And there are few things more environmentally benign than an empty cartridge case.

                  Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

                  by The Baculum King on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:01:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  A good point as well. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Rogneid, mmacdDE, G2geek

                    Mine wasn't about not being able to find the empty shells, it was that who would bother even if it were practical?

                    Even if the casing didn't go all that far (I've never actually seen one fly 20 feet, but I'll take your word for it), finding something like a .22 cartridge in woodland terrain or tall grass can be difficult enough if it falls right at your feet.  A brass deflector might keep it from going over the horizon, but you still have to find it.

                    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

                    by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:13:07 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, lots of plastic shotgun casings wash up (0+ / 0-)

                    here on the Chesapeake.

                    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

                    by dadadata on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 03:38:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Yes I do. (0+ / 0-)

                    I see hunting as communal.  We share in the resource and we share responsibility for the environment and for the way we are perceived by the public.  I pick up my empties and a lot of other peoples' empties and trash.

                    I don't know about "environmentally benign."  The things are brightly-colored and don't do anything to help our image with non-hunters.

                •  Because... (7+ / 0-)

                  #freedomz! and... #MurricaFuckYeah! and... #Benghazi!

                  Although I know some pretty slobbish Democrats too, so I guess that's one area where there IS bipartisan cooperation.

                  I think this phenomenon is classically referred to as "the tragedy of the commons" or something like that.  I tried comparing leaving crap all over the woods to a deer taking a giant dump in their living rooms.  (Didn't work.)

                  As for the logistical problem, my experience with firearms is mainly military, but we never went to a range without policing up our brass at the end of the exercise.  And it was accounted for down to the last round.  This experience is exactly why I question the practicability of a system of serially controlling ammo sold in the private sector.  We weren't on the honor system; if you didn't produce the same number of spend or unspent shells you were issued, you didn't leave the range.  There's no way to enforce that in the wider world that I can think of.

                  I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

                  by mojo11 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:06:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well, the potential for someone to pick up your... (6+ / 0-)

                    shell casing with basically your name on it might be strong incentive to police your area...

                    For one thing, the odds on a serial killer out patrolling the woods looking for a shell casing to load and kill someone with is a bit of a stretch... They would have to have the same caliber weapon and presumably do this for awhile to collect up enough ammo to actually go on a shooting spree.  Then, when they find your name on a bullet and come question you, they would probably appreciate the information you provide regarding where the shell casing was lost, when and anyone you may have seen in the area.  After you were cleared of the act (presumably you would have an alibi and probably no motive to kill) you would probably police your area even more carefully.

                    The point is, there are solutions if there was a political will to enact them.  maybe not all of these suggestions but any step in the right direction would be a start.

                    "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                    by Buckeye Nut Schell on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:17:31 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  I worked military firing ranges (0+ / 0-)

                    we accounted for the brass down to the round.
                    It then went to a metal recycler off-base to be melted down.

                    I learnt double-entry book-keeping on that job.

                    LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                    by BlackSheep1 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 05:48:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      BlackSheep1

                      Now take away the range safety officers and the threat of extra duty (or worse) if a casing wasn't accounted for and imagine trying to have that kind of accountability in the larger world.

                      I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

                      by mojo11 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:31:28 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Na ga ha pun, as Atrios says (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        political mutt

                        Can't get that kind of discipline on cop ranges now.
                        Imagine people paying for range time reacting to being told they can't shoot without policing all their brass?

                        (I had a hell of a time recently getting somebody to give me time to pick up mine -- the next "paying customer" wanted to start shooting already.)

                        LBJ, Van Cliburn, Ike, Wendy Davis, Lady Bird, Ann Richards, Barbara Jordan, Molly Ivins, Sully Sullenburger, Drew Brees: Texas is NO Bush League!

                        by BlackSheep1 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:46:24 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  That's not necessary (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                science nerd, Rogneid, Joy of Fishes

                I love the idea of controlling ammo instead of guns, but tell me why re-loaders are even an issue. Most people who have invested enough in the gun world to get the proper tools and paperwork to be a reloader are safety conscious responsible hunters and target shooters.

                I'm thinking controlling ammo so its not something you can buy easier than a gun. maybe then we cut deaths and maiming injuries by 90 % and allow its a good start.

                "la vida no vale nada un lugar solita" "The Limits of Control Jim Jarmusch

                by rktect on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 02:38:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Hate to tell you....but this idea.... (0+ / 0-)

              was part of a Chris Rock routine....

              Charge 5 grand per bullet.  Then when you see someone lying in the street full of lead you say, "Da..n....he musta really been bad to get capped like THAT!!!"

              Said it before, and will say it again:  NOTHING is going to change.  We've watched guns kill more people, children, presidents, young and old, innocent and guilty, accidentally, on purpose, Congress people, entire classes of kindergarten kids, airports, movie theaters, schools, universities, hospitals...

              NOTHING will change because NONE of this merits the loss of one person's right to own a gun free of any restrictions.

              God bless America!

              Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

              by dweb8231 on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 04:18:30 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The problem is that it HAS changed... (0+ / 0-)

                It hasn't always been like this.  In fact, it has just been in the last twenty years that Texas granted concealed carry permits.  Even in the "Wild, Wild West" days that the NRA so proudly congers up images of, there were gun restriction (see the actual story behind the O.K. Corral)

                Gun laws have been eroding at an alarming pace and the gun fetish enthusiasts continue to propogate false information leading people to believe the opposite.

                "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

                by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Jun 13, 2014 at 06:55:55 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  A muzzle-loading gun is about the last thing (7+ / 0-)

            any prospective mass killer would use, if he had a lick of sense.  He'd be doing well to get off five shots a minute.  

            We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

            by david78209 on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 12:48:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You're right, the Gun Lobby is powerful, but it (3+ / 0-)

            shouldn't be.

            They represent only about 4 Million NRA members.

            That's only a bit more than 1% of the American population.

            The Left is fighting back against the 1% who own the money, because 1% being able to dictate to the 99% doesn't seem Just or Right to the vast majority of us.

            Replace the Wealthy with the NRA members, doesn't that still hold true?

            I believe it does.

            Yes, they give the fucking Congress a shit-ton of money, but the people of the 7th Congressional District of Virginia just proved to all of us that THAT MONEY CAN BE BEATEN.

            Today, in 2014. In a southern state.

            We can do this, if enough of us are willing to just do a little bit. Call and email and sign petitions to our Congressional representatives. Every week. Week after week. Start telling them we won't vote for them in November if they don't DO SOMETHING before the election. Week after week. On social media.

            Be a part of the solution. Do something so that Congress is forced to do something, too.

            Because it'll only happen if we do.


            "I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization"

            by Angie in WA State on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 04:25:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Well done, and interesting, but... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dancing Frog, Angie in WA State
              Do you notice what the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee a person a Right to?
              The ammunition those weapons require to kill a human being.
              Actually, if you look at the case Herrington v. District of Columbia, you will see the reasoning that at least one court, the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals, used in regard to a similar question - could ammunition be banned.

              As a part of the court's decision, they looked at this part of the ban:

              No person shall possess ammunition in the District of Columbia unless: …
                  (3) He is the holder of the valid registration certificate for a firearm of the same gauge or caliber as the ammunition he possesses; except, that no such person shall possess restricted pistol bullets; …
              Since, in legal terms, this is related to your proposal, it is important to consider the court's reasoning, as this will almost certainly be the framework of challenge to the regulations and restrictions you are proposing:
              [F]rom the [Supreme] Court’s reasoning [in Heller], it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” By the same token, given the obvious connection between handgun ammunition and the right protected by the Second Amendment, we are hard-pressed to see how a flat ban on the possession of such ammunition in the home could survive heightened scrutiny of any kind. We therefore conclude that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to possess ammunition in the home that is coextensive with the right to possess a usable handgun there. The government has not taken issue with that conclusion….
              The primary premise that must be watched here is that, if a restriction or regulation would be considered a violation of the 2nd Amendment when it is applied to a firearm, then by the logic presented in this decision, it would also be a violation of the 2nd Amendment if it applied to ammunition required for those guns.

              The particular aspects of your proposal that I believe are most problematic are:

              Require that anyone who purchases ammunition take a one time class in ammunition safety and legal use, then a yearly refresher course.

              Require a federally issued photo ID and proof of insurance, to purchase ammunition.

              The first of these is mostly problematic because of phrasing - If I purchase ammunition once, will I need to continue refresher classes for the rest of my life, only if I want to purchase more ammunition, as long as I have ammunition in my possession, or ?  I am, however, not certain that mandatory training and annual refreshers would pass muster for ownership of guns in a 2nd amendment context. If it could not be used as a requirement for gun ownership, then it probably can't be required for ammunition ownership either.

              The second has problems in the areas of states rights (States are, broadly speaking, the arbiter of firearm rights within their state), and the requirement to purchase insurance has already been ruled unconstitutional in the context of Obamacare - they could implement a taxfor not having insurance, but not require the purchase of insurance.  Additionally, there is no universal Federal Photo ID short of a passport, and a passport is not required of US citizens within the United States.

              One more section is also questionable:

              Ban the sale of home shell re-loaders and the sale of empty shells & casings to allow such home-based manufacture of ammunition of any type.
              Question for discussion: Could the Federal Government ban a person's right to build or repair their own firearm?

              It has already been ruled in the 9th Circuit court that a ban on homemade machine guns is within Congress' rights under the Commerce Clause, since home manufactured guns could significantly affect intesstate commerce in machine guns. (See United States v. Stewart).

              This decision could potentially be extended to banning making new ammunition at home, although I think one would be hard pressed to make the case that home made ammunition, if made according to regulations (i.e. using taggant infused explosive and pre-micromarked casings) would significantly affect the interstate market for ammunition.  However, even if this was ruled constitutional, I think you could only eliminate the sales of new casings.

              Why? Consider the question: Could the US ban a person from (for example) buying a new firing pin for a rifle so they could repair their own rifle under the 2nd Amendment?  If the answer is No (and I think there would be a strong case for this decision), then the corollary would be that you could not ban reloading your own ammunition.  If this is the case, then you probably could not ban reloaders, although you could license them, and require the reloader to add its own identifying mark to the shell.  If the first decision goes in favor of banning the sale of casings under the Commerce Clause, I do not think that considering the 2nd Amendment and its current legal interpretation, you could ban reloaders, bullets, or explosives for the rebuilding of your own ammunition.

              Addendum:
              On further consideration of my above points, I believe this recommendation:

              Ban the possession of any ammunition which has been produced in such a fashion and attach a 5 year federal prison sentence for violators found guilty of possessing it.
              may also be ruled unconstitutional, but I am not certain of this.  Unanswered questions include commercially produced ammunition made prior to the new laws, as well as previously purchased supplies and machines for producing this ammunition.  

              The latter is, IMO, more likely than the former to be constitutional to ban, but in both cases the government would almost certainly have to recompense the owners of the ammunition or materials - otherwise this could easily be ruled an unconstitutional taking of a person's property.

              Your other proposals - taggants, micromarks (preferably on both the inside and outside of the casing, since a mark only on the outside could easily be defeated through simple sandpaper), stringent punishments for failure to follow the laws and regulations, etc. seem reasonable.  I would also add that bullets themselves should have some form of taggant within them, not just the explosive involved.

              Thanks for considering this.
              L.V.

              -------------------------
              "[T]his is playing the long game, but it's about time we start playing the long game."
              kos
              ^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

              by Laughing Vergil on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 10:20:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for that. Another question. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Angie in WA State

                Where in the constitution or settled law is the freedom of choice to what arms one can bear or keep enshrined. If the government can regulate and prevent the purchase of machine guns and heavier weapons, couldn't they also regulate and prevent the purchase of handguns and assault rifles or all guns for that matter provided they allowed some arms, like a matchlock or a pike to be sold.

        •  guns (6+ / 0-)

          Aren't necessary for hunting.

          They're more efficient, but not necessary.

          Crossbones and traps work just fine.

        •  Hunters are needed (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MikePhoenix, Joy of Fishes, G2geek

          to keep the deer population in control. Deer have no natural predators on most of the U.S.

        •  Three rounds non-detachable magazine for all ci... (0+ / 0-)

          Three rounds non-detachable magazine for all civilian weapons.

          Yeah, I know. Unrealistic. Then let the slaughter continue!

      •  Who will become criminals (0+ / 0-)

        if something like this passes.

        I get the idea but the diary bans home manufacture of ammo.

        I think the proposal could lead to trace-ability but it's not stopping any determined killer.

        The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

        by ctexrep on Thu Jun 12, 2014 at 07:35:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site