Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

It seems that with(what I'll call the big 3) Heller, McDonald and Caetano no state restriction will stand up to the scrutiny of the court.
It also seems that the aforementioned weapon is illegal in Ma., Oh., and Calif.
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

time will tell if the 14th
"... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ..."
kicks states' ass again

......................
if memory serves
back in the days of AuH2O for president
The republicans liked to consider themselves states' righters

..............
my, how things change
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
"Those rights not specified in the Constitution are reserved by the individual States." Paraphrased.
Click to expand...
Or people. Significantly - since States did not usually, at the time, limit gun ownership. The militia owned cannon, if their local rich guy was willing to foot the bill.

One of the arguments against the Bill of Rights - a major issue, at the time - was that enumerating some rights would have the effect of denigrating others that should be (and were at the time) taken for granted. The recognized danger was that a central government would try to twist the language for loopholes, and interpret absence of explicit mention as permission to override.

Prescient, those guys.
 
sculptor said:
It seems that with(what I'll call the big 3) Heller, McDonald and Caetano no state restriction will stand up to the scrutiny of the court.
It also seems that the aforementioned weapon is illegal in Ma., Oh., and Calif.
Click to expand...
um scalia specificlly stated in i believe heller that regulation was allowed.do you even bother to fucking read the decisions?
 
pjdude1219 said:
um scalia specificlly stated in i believe heller that regulation was allowed.do you even bother to fucking read the decisions?
Click to expand...

yeh, I read it.
Did you?
Did you notice that he opened the door to revisiting the machine gun ban?
Scalia ain't gonna write anymore opinions...............
How about Neil M. Gorsuch, is he a Kennedy clone? If not, where will they differ?

Are you willing to guess as to the subject matter of the next grant of certiorari concerning the 2nd?
 
iceaura said:
Can't do "he said she said" without saying anything.
And then there's the witnesses, evidence - - it's almost as if investigating crimes were something the police do.
Click to expand...
Good luck trying to prosecute all the illegal universal background transfers that never end up in criminal hands.
And good luck with witnesses and evidence to a criminal transfer. It's almost as if criminals know the law and seek to avoid getting caught, including not knowing the name of their gun supplier.
The police have no problem making concepts such as "questioning witnesses" and "gathering evidence" concrete.
Click to expand...
But you seem to.
sculptor said:
Via Heller & Caetano: Is this legal?
Remington 870 Tac-14 12 Gauge Firearm 5 Rounds 14” Barrel Raptor Pistol Grip

https://www.targetsportsusa.com/remington-870-tac-14-12-gauge-shotgun-81230-p-76972.aspx
Click to expand...
The barrel and overall length make it a non-NFA item (legal without special taxes and registration) in most free states.
Doubly so under both Heller and Caetano.
 
Vociferous said:
Good luck trying to prosecute all the illegal universal background transfers that never end up in criminal hands.
Click to expand...
Or are not involved in accidents, thefts, etc.
Not an issue.
That would be like trying to prosecute people for saving the remains of their Vicodin prescriptions in case of emergencies. No blood, no foul.
Vociferous said:
And good luck with witnesses and evidence to a criminal transfer.
Click to expand...
That's not a problem - most such transfers are witnessed, certainly by the recipient.
Vociferous said:
It's almost as if criminals know the law and seek to avoid getting caught, including not knowing the name of their gun supplier.
Click to expand...
Just like with drugs, untaxed booze and tobacco, smuggled consumer goods, etc. Lots of folks are doing time for breaking the law, in the US.
Vociferous said:
The barrel and overall length make it a non-NFA item (legal without special taxes and registration) in most free states.
Doubly so under both Heller and Caetano.
Click to expand...
Short barrel lengths for shotguns are forbidden by law in many States. No 2nd Amendment problems - Court precedent.
In my State the law was poorly written, forbidding the sale of shortbarrel shotguns and also the modification of barrel length by the owner. The intent was to forbid the shortening of the barrel, but the wording also appeared to forbid the lengthening of the barrel (even to a legal length for sale) - so guys hunting crows in populated areas who wanted to use very long barrels to reduce the disturbing noise found themselves in legal limbo. Last I heard the sheriffs involved promised to not arrest, and the DAs promised to not charge or prosecute, pending clarification.

That is an example of the kinds of laws we'll be stuck with, if knowledgable people don't take over the gun control efforts.
 
Last edited:
iceaura said:
Or are not involved in accidents, thefts, etc.
Not an issue.
That would be like trying to prosecute people for saving the remains of their Vicodin prescriptions in case of emergencies. No blood, no foul.
Click to expand...
Then we agree. No enforceable universal background checks.
That's not a problem - most such transfers are witnessed, certainly by the recipient.
Click to expand...
A recipient such laws would incentivize keeping his true identity to himself.
Just like with drugs, untaxed booze and tobacco, smuggled consumer goods, etc. Lots of folks are doing time for breaking the law, in the US.
Click to expand...
Most of those require time and cost prohibitive stings.
You're so worried about the cost and time of arming teachers, but you don't care about the added strain on law enforcement, which could only lengthen response times.
The barrel and overall length make it a non-NFA item (legal without special taxes and registration) in most free states.
Doubly so under both Heller and Caetano.
Click to expand...
Short barrel lengths for shotguns are forbidden by law in many States. No 2nd Amendment problems - Court precedent.
In my State the law was poorly written, forbidding the sale of shortbarrel shotguns and also the modification of barrel length by the owner. The intent was to forbid the shortening of the barrel, but the wording also appeared to forbid the lengthening of the barrel (even to a legal length for sale) - so guys hunting crows in populated areas who wanted to use very long barrels to reduce the disturbing noise found themselves in legal limbo. Last I heard the sheriffs involved promised to not arrest, and the DAs promised to not charge or prosecute, pending clarification.

That is an example of the kinds of laws we'll be stuck with, if knowledgable people don't take over the gun control efforts.
Click to expand...
That's the point. In most states, the barrel and overall length of that shotgun exceed the legal minimums, hence it is not classified as a short-barreled shotgun. It's not only in your state that actual short-barreled rifles and shotguns are highly regulated, it's also federal law under the NFA.
In free states, knowledgeable people are already in charge, and any new federal restrictions have to get past them first. New Constitutional amendments require 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus ratification by 2/3 of the states. You might want to look at all the red on a US map.
 
Vociferous said:
Most of those require time and cost prohibitive stings.
You're so worried about the cost and time of arming teachers, but you don't care about the added strain on law enforcement, which could only lengthen response times.
Click to expand...
Never knew you were so pro-crime. Interesting.
 
Vociferous said:
Then we agree. No enforceable universal background checks.
Click to expand...
Of course they are enforceable, as other such laws are - and they are a significant deterrent to supplying the criminal and the unreliable with guns. (We see that in the efforts made to avoid them).
Vociferous said:
Most of those require time and cost prohibitive stings.
You're so worried about the cost and time of arming teachers, but you don't care about the added strain on law enforcement, which could only lengthen response times
Click to expand...
I do think the cost and trouble and time of public security against armed criminal assault is properly borne by law enforcement. Teachers inculcate knowledge in classrooms full of children, law enforcement deters and apprehends criminals running amok with high powered firearms, that seems to me a reasonable division of labor.
Vociferous said:
In free states, knowledgeable people are already in charge, and any new federal restrictions have to get past them first
Click to expand...
So the knowledgable are going to be obstacles, and refuse to contribute to the necessary regulations.
Ok. Then they can stop whining about the inconveniences and errors built into them, inevitable whenever the poorly informed regulate an arena.
If you guys don't help write the new laws, you aren't going to like them.
 
Just to help clarify things, here's a link to a 14" barrel pump action, legal to ship to your FFL in all but 4 states. A quote from the site:

Classified as fully-compliant by Federal BATFE, this model requires no Tax Stamp for transfers, where permitted.
Click to expand...

Mossberg Shockwave.

I think most of the negative commentary in this thread is due to ignorance, not malice. Maybe...
 
An illustration of the incoming situation, from a Reagan judge citing Scalia's decision for precedent, (and nodding to States Rights along the way, although that is of little moment), April 6 of 2018:
“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear Arms,’ ” Young wrote in a 47-page ruling. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens. These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.”
Click to expand...

The 2nd Amendment is not what's been preventing gun control in the US, and it's not going to prevent gun control in the US. State, Federal, County, or City. And that's something "both sides" can either take notice of, or get blindsided by.
 
Last edited:
True. If the Constitution had nothing that could be manipulated into appearing to support guns it would be totally disregarded by the NRA. The gunners state that they would stage an insurrection if their guns are legally threatened by an Constitutional amendment is clear proof of that.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
... they would stage an insurrection if their guns are legally threatened by an Constitutional amendment ...
Click to expand...

And, curiously enough, if they would honor the authors of the bill of rights, that is exactly what they should do.
.........................
"Gimme yer guns"-----------"you give me yours first..."
.................................
But, not me, I'm too old, to fat and too damned lazy for that kind of action anymore.
 
sculptor said:
And, curiously enough, if they would honor the authors of the bill of rights, that is exactly what they should do.
.........................
"Gimme yer guns"-----------"you give me yours first..."
.................................
But, not me, I'm too old, to fat and too damned lazy for that kind of action anymore.
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn't, they'd honor the gun makers. If the Constitution is legally changed then the founders wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
... . If the Constitution is legally changed then the founders wouldn't have a problem with it.
Click to expand...

"Congress shall make no law..."
I suppose you are correct..........if the criterion were met...
The framers of the bill of rights also denied congress the sole right to amend the constitution.
so, yeh
Agree
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top