US rejects gun control measures on assault rifles

[onewheeldave]

Out of interest, what is the reasoning?

 

Here's some-

 

 

As many in the US have intelligently pointed out- in a nation where it is legal to carry arms, and, where a portion of the population have undergone the necessary training to have a concealed carry permit, it is somewhat bizarre that the one place they cannot carry their gun, is in schools.

 

It also pretty much guarantees that any psycho wanting to kill a large number of people will choose a school, as schools are one of the very few places in the US where they know they will not run the risk of being stopped by a civilian with a firearm, and, the skill and ability to use it.

.......

 

Because they know that, when a psycho walks into a school carrying his illegally obtained assault rifle, there is likely to be a much better outcome if one/more of the teachers there have a concealed carry permit and a gun, enabling them to shoot the attacker.

 

As opposed to giving him a good 20 minutes where he can slaughter undefended children, before the SWAT teams turn up 20 minutes later.

 

 

basically giving good reasons why not allowing responsible people with concealed carry permits and a gun in places (schools) that are proven prime targets for those who like to carry out massacres, is a bad idea.

[SevenRivers]

How is an assault weapons ban enforced? How would the law know if an assault weapon was legally purchased before the ban or ilegally acquired after the ban.

Dont talk about confiscating every assault weapon You cannot confiscate property that was acquired legally, only property that was acquired ilegally and this is not Nazi Germany or Communist Russia.

 

To slightly change Bill Clinton's old election slogan "It's the economy Stupid" read

"It's universally enforced background checks Stupid"

 

In this country we banned handguns following a school massacre, even those that were legally held had to be handed in. I know a pistol owner who handed his in, said there were folk in tears at the police station when handing their weapons over.

[skinz]

In this country we banned handguns following a school massacre, even those that were legally held had to be handed in. I know a pistol owner who handed his in, said there were folk in tears at the police station when handing their weapons over.

 

 

That's VERY scary.

[Rupert_Baehr]

In this country we banned handguns following a school massacre, even those that were legally held had to be handed in. I know a pistol owner who handed his in, said there were folk in tears at the police station when handing their weapons over.

 

[The Queen in] Parliament is the Sovereign Lawmaker in the United Kingdom and can pass any law it sees fit to pass. If Parliament passes a law and says that the law will be retroactive it can do so.

 

The Powers of the United States Government are limited by the US Constitution. Ex post facto laws (retroactive legislation) are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.

 

If an individual State was to ban (or if the Federal government was to ban) the purchase and possession of assault weapons, then although it might be possible to prevent people from buying such a weapon from a given date, it would be very difficult indeed [because it would infringe the terms of Article 1. Section 9, Clause 3] to enact (and enforce) a law which said that a weapon which was legally owned yesterday is now owned illegally.

 

Many people on this forum seem to overlook the fact that the United States and the United Kingdom are two very different countries with similar (but different) legal systems.

 

The United Kingdom can pass ex post facto laws because The Queen in Parliament is the Sovereign Lawmaker. So after Dunblane, when people who had (up to that time) legally held full-bore pistols were required by law to hand them in, the law was a valid law.

 

The United States cannot pass ex post facto laws because it is forbidden by the constitution from doing so.

 

Two different countries. Two different legal systems.

[mikem8634]

 

It's very easy to dismiss those in the US who argue for the right to carry arms as being stupid, or, under the influence of some NRA driven conspiracy- but, the reality is that a lot of them are highly intelligent and well able to back up their views with good, solid reasoning.

 

 

Your original point above claimed that there was good, solid reasoning... to back up... the right to carry arms .

 

Here's some-

 

As many in the US have intelligently pointed out- in a nation where it is legal to carry arms, and, where a portion of the population have undergone the necessary training to have a concealed carry permit, it is somewhat bizarre that the one place they cannot carry their gun, is in schools.

 

It also pretty much guarantees that any psycho wanting to kill a large number of people will choose a school, as schools are one of the very few places in the US where they know they will not run the risk of being stopped by a civilian with a firearm, and, the skill and ability to use it.

.......

 

Because they know that, when a psycho walks into a school carrying his illegally obtained assault rifle, there is likely to be a much better outcome if one/more of the teachers there have a concealed carry permit and a gun, enabling them to shoot the attacker.

 

As opposed to giving him a good 20 minutes where he can slaughter undefended children, before the SWAT teams turn up 20 minutes later.

 

 

basically giving good reasons why not allowing responsible people with concealed carry permits and a gun in places (schools) that are proven prime targets for those who like to carry out massacres, is a bad idea.

 

That is all about the need to carry guns, not the right. I thought you were talking about the second amendment which is why I asked for the reasoning.

[JFKvsNixon]

Here's some-

 

 

 

 

basically giving good reasons why not allowing responsible people with concealed carry permits and a gun in places (schools) that are proven prime targets for those who like to carry out massacres, is a bad idea.

 

A concealed hand gun might not be much help against an assault rifle though, so I think that if we adapted your approach we'd have to arm the school quite heavily. Maybe machine gun nests and bunkers may be more appropriate?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Like Boothybabe said, you 'You conveniently left out the last bit that made it self explanatory', which was-

 

As many in the US have intelligently pointed out- in a nation where it is legal to carry arms, and, where a portion of the population have undergone the necessary training to have a concealed carry permit, it is somewhat bizarre that the one place they cannot carry their gun, is in schools.

 

It also pretty much guarantees that any psycho wanting to kill a large number of people will choose a school, as schools are one of the very few places in the US where they know they will not run the risk of being stopped by a civilian with a firearm, and, the skill and ability to use it.

 

It's very easy to dismiss those in the US who argue for the right to carry arms as being stupid, or, under the influence of some NRA driven conspiracy- but, the reality is that a lot of them are highly intelligent and well able to back up their views with good, solid reasoning.

 

And, they support the right to carry arms because they believe that, in the unique scenario of America (where guns are rife, and, will likely remain so whatever laws are brought in), supporting the right to bear arms is the best way to cut down future massacres.

 

Because they know that, when a psycho walks into a school carrying his illegally obtained assault rifle, there is likely to be a much better outcome if one/more of the teachers there have a concealed carry permit and a gun, enabling them to shoot the attacker.

 

As opposed to giving him a good 20 minutes where he can slaughter undefended children, before the SWAT teams turn up 20 minutes later.

 

What is this 'necessary training to have a concealed carry permit?' - In this state, AFAIK, there is no such 'necessary training'.

 

What makes you think that a teacher with a handgun is necessarily going to be more of an asset than a liability? - Anybody in front of the barrel of that handgun (in an arc extending 90' either side of straight ahead) is, arguably, at risk from that handgun.

 

There are a number of people who are professionally trained to use handguns. They have job titles such as 'Secret Service Agent' 'Policeman' and 'Soldier'.

 

When the President of the United States or another senior politician appear in public are they guarded by 'teachers with handguns'?

 

It appears that the school districts do not have sufficient money to pay for professional armed security guards. So they want to use armed teachers? How much are they going to spend training (and periodically re-qualifying) those teachers and how much are they going to pay them for their second job as soldiers?

 

If security in schools was the responsibility of the governor of each state then that worthy might like to consider using the State Army National Guard.

 

The State might have to recruit and train more personnel, but that would be possible. The School Districts still wouldn't have the money to pay for the Guardsmen but I don't see what would be unconstitutional about levying an annual registration fee of (say) $100 on each firearm. There are, supposedly, 270 million guns held privately in the US. $27 Billion should pay for the training and employment of more than one or two qualified National Guardsmen.

 

The law which required an annual registration fee might also include a penalty (or a set of penalties) for people who are found to be in possession of unregistered firearms in a public place. A penalty which included some serious prison time. That would make possession of firearms by criminals somewhat less attractive without denying law-abiding owners any of their constitutional rights.

 

Ex post facto law problems? - Not really. I doubt that many criminals have a concealed carry permit and the registration fees could be enforced by making the life of a concealed carry permit finite. And short.

[Harleyman]

In this country we banned handguns following a school massacre, even those that were legally held had to be handed in. I know a pistol owner who handed his in, said there were folk in tears at the police station when handing their weapons over.

 

Very touching I must say. Collective sense of guilt for the sins of the few.

I dont understand that kind of thinking. Were those who turned in their guns not completely certain that they might not be capable of doing the same thing themselves sometime in the future?

 

Maybe I ought to turn in my German Shepherd puppy to Animal Control because the Shepherd up the road bit the mail man two weeks ago and our pup might just do the same

[Anna Glypta]

The ban would be one on sales, currently owned guns would be legal.

It'd be a copy of the law that ran during the 90's.

 

Your point is valid tho, there are so many guns in circulation now that a ban might not be effective.

There are more guns than there are cars, there are more guns than there are people

 

In fact there are so many guns that criminal gangs EXPORT them across the border to Mexico to be used in gang violence

 

I suppose that is the point. There is no point banning anything that is so easy to smuggle across the borders. It simply means that only the criminals have them.

[Harleyman]

The ban would be one on sales, currently owned guns would be legal.

It'd be a copy of the law that ran during the 90's.

 

Your point is valid tho, there are so many guns in circulation now that a ban might not be effective.

There are more guns than there are cars, there are more guns than there are people

 

In fact there are so many guns that criminal gangs EXPORT them across the border to Mexico to be used in gang violence

 

These politicians such as Diane Feinstein of California may be well intentioned in pushing for a ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines but in reality the law would be unenforceable or rather unworkable. Still it's good PR for those getting involved.

I cannot see the police being able to deal with it. One owner of an assault weapon could have bought his when owning one was legal and would be able to produce a sales receipt, dated to prove it. The police would be powerless to confiscate it since the owner had not broken the law. Another owner could have acquired his after the start date of the ban and therefore he would have broken the law. A Mickey Mouse situation if ever there was one.

 

What's really needed and what many are calling for is a universal background check for every person who applies to purchase a gun of any kind. Up to now too many people buying guns have not had a background check done. This is the fault of local, county and state authorities who should have required this long ago