"We have an opportunity to do the right thing and make some progress. It can only happen if Democrat demagogues will stop their grandstanding and actually work with Republicans. But I fear, like they’ve done in the past, Democrats will go for the pointless media circus, and fail to do anything useful."
To be fair to the Democrats, I'm not convinced that there are enough Republicans that will want to work with them on ANY relevant bill (including Red Flag laws) that will achieve a filibuster-proof majority. To work with the Democrats on ANY of this is to invite a primary challenge from their pro-gun flank. Given the amount of angst that I saw among gun fans the LAST time red flag laws came up in the state of New Mexico[1], I'm skeptical that 10+ Republican Senators want to jump into that pool of piranhas.
Focus is better spent at the State level where local concerned citizens may have a larger impact.
Note that I also think that Democrats' grandstanding proposals are similarly DOA for the same reasons (Senate filibuster). It's crystal clear that all of these are messaging bills that have zero chance at the federal level.
The problem with sticking to the state level is cross state straw purchases. NH Gov Chris Sununu vetoed his own legislature’s Red Flag law. Maybe enough pressure would do it but I think Dems could have enough GOP support to go for Red Flag in the Senate if they stopped pushing for the ban at the same time.
This is indeed the problem with local/State level regulations (like Chicago's): just leave Chicago or Illinois, and you can get what you want.
What I'd like to see is more GOP proposal of raising the age to purchase an AR: that's a good starting point for compromise, but I've only seen a handful actually bring this up.
Oh, and of course doing as you have done and recognizing that it needs be a Federal-level regulation or it won't work.
Legitimate firearms purchases must be made in the state of residence. Of course, there are loopholes like gifts or private sales across state lines that would not necessarily be closed by federal laws. State laws already cover what is legal ownership by residents. If states want controls to work, they must enforce their own laws and prosecute and incarcerate violators. Chicago's whining about Indiana is nothing but an excuse for lax management.
Yeah, you are correct. The rest of Illinois also suffers from lax state management. State officials take the easy way out and try to implement a nanny state which, to be effective, would require half the citizens to be employed as enforcement officers - maybe a bigger percentage if some are corrupt.
I sold an Army veteran friend a pistol for his wife after I knew they were permitted. He was a firearms instructor. I gave my son a Ruger LCR but required him to get a carry permit first. I gave my granddaughter an S&W Bodyguard when she graduated from college and after her dad taught her safe handling and after she got a carry permit. I feel this is what responsible people should do. I'm not opposed to reporting private sales and gifts, but we will always have criminals and irresponsible people who will ignore any reporting requirements. I feel such requirements are useless, but they might, in rare instances, result in the opportunity to prosecute two or more individuals instead of just the one who possesses a gun illegally.
A study of legal interpretations of the Second Amendment reveals that 180 years of 2A understanding was quashed within a decade and the new understanding espoused by so many 2A defenders is not consistent with history beyond the new interpretation introduced by the NRA in the early 70s. For example, in 1840 Aymette v. State, the opinion states,
"The Legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens, on the one hand, and the rulers on the other. And, although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet it does no follow that the Legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
To hold that the Legislature could pass no law upon this subject by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil of infinitely greater extent to society than would result from abandoning the right itself."
"We have an opportunity to do the right thing and make some progress. It can only happen if Democrat demagogues will stop their grandstanding and actually work with Republicans. But I fear, like they’ve done in the past, Democrats will go for the pointless media circus, and fail to do anything useful."
To be fair to the Democrats, I'm not convinced that there are enough Republicans that will want to work with them on ANY relevant bill (including Red Flag laws) that will achieve a filibuster-proof majority. To work with the Democrats on ANY of this is to invite a primary challenge from their pro-gun flank. Given the amount of angst that I saw among gun fans the LAST time red flag laws came up in the state of New Mexico[1], I'm skeptical that 10+ Republican Senators want to jump into that pool of piranhas.
Focus is better spent at the State level where local concerned citizens may have a larger impact.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/26/politics/new-mexico-governor-red-flag-gun-law/index.html
Note that I also think that Democrats' grandstanding proposals are similarly DOA for the same reasons (Senate filibuster). It's crystal clear that all of these are messaging bills that have zero chance at the federal level.
The problem with sticking to the state level is cross state straw purchases. NH Gov Chris Sununu vetoed his own legislature’s Red Flag law. Maybe enough pressure would do it but I think Dems could have enough GOP support to go for Red Flag in the Senate if they stopped pushing for the ban at the same time.
This is indeed the problem with local/State level regulations (like Chicago's): just leave Chicago or Illinois, and you can get what you want.
What I'd like to see is more GOP proposal of raising the age to purchase an AR: that's a good starting point for compromise, but I've only seen a handful actually bring this up.
Oh, and of course doing as you have done and recognizing that it needs be a Federal-level regulation or it won't work.
Legitimate firearms purchases must be made in the state of residence. Of course, there are loopholes like gifts or private sales across state lines that would not necessarily be closed by federal laws. State laws already cover what is legal ownership by residents. If states want controls to work, they must enforce their own laws and prosecute and incarcerate violators. Chicago's whining about Indiana is nothing but an excuse for lax management.
Leaving Chicago and going elsewhere in Illinois was an example I made as well: address that.
And how about private sales? Those aren't tracked, so there's the State level issue as well.
Yeah, you are correct. The rest of Illinois also suffers from lax state management. State officials take the easy way out and try to implement a nanny state which, to be effective, would require half the citizens to be employed as enforcement officers - maybe a bigger percentage if some are corrupt.
I sold an Army veteran friend a pistol for his wife after I knew they were permitted. He was a firearms instructor. I gave my son a Ruger LCR but required him to get a carry permit first. I gave my granddaughter an S&W Bodyguard when she graduated from college and after her dad taught her safe handling and after she got a carry permit. I feel this is what responsible people should do. I'm not opposed to reporting private sales and gifts, but we will always have criminals and irresponsible people who will ignore any reporting requirements. I feel such requirements are useless, but they might, in rare instances, result in the opportunity to prosecute two or more individuals instead of just the one who possesses a gun illegally.
https://mobile.twitter.com/brian_mistrot/status/1533148185467625472
A study of legal interpretations of the Second Amendment reveals that 180 years of 2A understanding was quashed within a decade and the new understanding espoused by so many 2A defenders is not consistent with history beyond the new interpretation introduced by the NRA in the early 70s. For example, in 1840 Aymette v. State, the opinion states,
"The Legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens, on the one hand, and the rulers on the other. And, although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet it does no follow that the Legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
To hold that the Legislature could pass no law upon this subject by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil of infinitely greater extent to society than would result from abandoning the right itself."