Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[Hunt]

"Making me pass a test to drive a car does not stop unlicensed drivers. It does not stop misuse of automobiles."

 

Making people pass a test to drive a car probably does reduce the misuse of automobiles, at least by licensed drivers. I have no doubt that the mandatory driver's education course I took in high school made me a safer driver. The same would certainly be true of mandatory safety training for would-be gun owners. Just as gruesome Ohio Highway Patrol photos helped me understand the risks of unsafe driving, would-be gun owners could be shown gruesome photos of kids who played with licensed guns that were not adequately secured.

If anybody who wanted to own a gun was required to take a brief safety course, and take a test comparable in difficulty to the driving test, who would be prevented from owning a gun? Only people who refused to take the course for whatever reason, and people whose level of competency should preclude them from having a gun in the first place. And, it would provide a level of basic safety education to the people who did obtain licenses. The course could include a section on how to reduce the likelihood that your gun will be stolen by criminals, too.

[Hunt]

For some more info on why states can't infringe your rights of free speech, but can take away your guns, see:

 

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

 

In a nutshell, the issue is which of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were "incorporated" in the Fourteenth Amendment. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, and in 1876 the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment was not incorporated. The Supreme Court has never revisited that decision (nor is it likely to do so).

[Prairie_Scouter]

LongHaul,

 

You're right that making everyone pass a test to drive a car doesn't stop the small number of unlicensed drivers from doing whatever mayhem they might, but it does help to ensure that the vast majority of drivers are properly trained. I think the same can be true of handguns. I don't see how requiring proof that a person can safely use and store a gun infringes on your ability to lawfully own and use a weapon, unless you, for example, are a person who doesn't know how to safely use and store a gun, in which case you are threat to the safety of the community you live in. I don't consider this "focusing" on taking away anyone's rights; it would just be one in any number of laws used to make sure that the general public is protected as someone else exercises their rights. That doesn't take away one iota from efforts by law enforcement to apprehend those who break the law.

 

Why, on the other hand, do you seem so intent on letting every Tom, Dick, and Harry own a weapon that they have no clue how to use? Doesn't that just give lawful gun "operators" a bad name? Doesn't it just play into the hands of those who would like to outlaw guns altogether (a group I am not a part of)? Licensed use would seem to be a very small price to pay to offset the negative public persona that guns currently have in the general public.

 

As far as the judicial system not protecting us from gun toting felons, I'd have to agree, but I'm not sure where the problem is, or how you fix it. Are the police ignoring existing gun laws? I don't know, but would be interested in the thoughts of others.

[LongHaul]

Prairie_Scouter

My reasoning is this; The issue isnt gun safety it is gun control. The gun safety angle comes into play trying to establish gun control. To me gun control is all in the X ring, we are discussing rights restrictions not control. Allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to go free before we execute one innocent person carries through to all aspects of freedom. This is about governmental control and how said government implements that control. I have harmed no one, leave me alone. Seek restraints on the ones doing harm. If Tom Dick or Harry misuse a firearm bust them, leave me alone.

Do I agree that before you buy a gun you should take a course in how to safely use, store, clean, and maintain that item, certainly, just dont make it mandatory. Again the issue isnt about making my family safer from me its about you making you and your family safer from somebody else entirely. If the debate was limited to only those cases of accidental discharge of a weapon, harm caused by discharge of a weapon in error (I thought my son was a burglar so I shot him), discharge of a weapon in anger (LongHaul is such a moron I had to shot him) I doubt there would be a debate at all. Its the little kid playing with her doll that gets hit because some gangbanger cant hit what they are aiming at, its that poor cashier thats working the extra job to put shoes on their kid that gets shot during the robbery, that are the issue and the people responsible for these acts are not going to be buying the gun from a licensed dealer and fulfilling the waiting period, and obtaining a gun owners ID first, or be required to pass a test. How would making me take a test solve the problem?You ask if it wouldn't be better to allow testing to appease the gun ban people. Am I willing to give up my freedom to appease someone who is so bias that they lump all gun owners, users, and criminals in one group? No, doesnt seem practical to me. I must resist any and all attacks on my freedoms from which ever front they come or however they are cloacked.

We love scenarios so much how about this one. I doubt that anyone of us would disagree that consuming alcohol while pregnant posses a risk to the fetus. So in the interest of child safety lets make every female of child bearing age take a pregnancy test before they are allowed to purchase, be served, or consume any amount or type of alcohol. Any takers? I doubt it. Infringement of basic freedom. I see the gun issue in the same light.

LongHaul (This message has been edited by LongHaul)

[Hunt]

Longhaul, I just don't see the distinction between guns and cars in most of the arguments you are making. We are all "lumped in" with the bad drivers when we are forced to take mandatory driving classes and pass a test. The only difference I can see is that most of us aren't afraid that those reasonable restrictions are the secret beginnings of a plot to take away our right to drive at all.

 

I should also add that most of these arguments are based on a "freedom" or "right" that simply doesn't exist in our law. Your freedom to carry a gun goes only as far your ability to convince your state legislature to allow you to do it. As a result, you have to persuade the majority why they would be better off with things the way you'd like them to be.

[Kahuna]

Hunt says: >>Your freedom to carry a gun goes only as far your ability to convince your state legislature to allow you to do it. As a result, you have to persuade the majority why they would be better off with things the way you'd like them to be.

[LongHaul]

Hunt,

     I dont know what distinction your looking for, I was using autos as an example. Raising the minimum for liability insurance wouldnt have any effect on uninsured drivers. You want to raise the requirements for those who follow the law because of things those who break the law do. Yes this is about freedoms and rights. I am not trying to convince you to allow me to do anything I cant do today, its you (collectively not Hunt personally) that are trying to convince me that everyone would be better off if I agreed to give up a freedom I now have. I am now free to own a gun with out having to take a test and I have the right to retain that freedom. The gun control/gun ban group are trying to sway people into voting their way using convoluted arguments. As long as guns exist criminals will have them. I dont have to convince anyone to allow me to own a gun, what I have to do is keep the gun control/gun ban faction from scarring enough politicians into fearing re-election that they will take away my rights and freedoms in order to keep their jobs. Taking away my gun, taking away rights I currently enjoy, requiring actions on my part what ever they may be is not going to have any effect on gun related crime.

     As to your comment about my referring to some secret beginnings to take my rights away, just look very closely at the Patriots Act. I live by a waterway we used to be able to launch and dock boats as long as we could convince the slip owner to stay open. Now the slips must close at a specified time for National Security. Read the act closely and you tell me that it isnt intended to give the Federal Government more control over private citizens. I went to get a cell phone, which I already owned and had upgraded, reactivated because my son got pushed in a pool with his on his belt. I was told that the Federal Government now requires all cell phones to have GPS locating capabilities. My old one didnt so I couldnt get it re activated. The reasoning was so that they could find me incase I called 911 and could not talk. Guess where the provision can be found? Yeah the Patriot Act, what has this got to do with finding me if I call 911, nothing, its so they can locate my phone if they want to find me. The attitude seems to be that it is perfectly alright for those in power to do anything we as citizens cant stop them from doing. That is not the America I learned about in school, and not the ideals I teach my scouts.

LongHaul

[Hunt]

"I am now free to own a gun with out having to take a test and I have the right to retain that freedom."

 

My point is that you have no such right, beyond the general right to do anything that isn't currently against the law. It's like your right to build a hog-rendering plant on your property. You have the right to do that, unless there's a law that says you can't. The legislature can pass a law banning hog-rendering plants in residential areas, taking away your right to build one. (I should clarify the above by saying that you may have a right to own a gun under some STATE constitutions; you just don't have a right to own a gun under the federal constititution if the state wants to deny you that right.)

 

As for the GPS in your cell phone--I share your concern, but I would point out that the people who want to put the GPS in your phone--the ones who pushed the Patriot Act--are not the same people who want to take your gun away.

[Prairie_Scouter]

LongHaul,

 

I see your point, I really do. And I can see why you'd feel that way. It could be that my thinking is swayed by having grown up in the inner city of Chicago. Saw guns, never saw them used for good. Hear about moronic accidents all the time. It's not the law abiding and responsible gun owners that I worry about, really. They could probably pass a use and safety test without a problem. I don't think that that applies to the vast majority of gun owners, tho, although the numbers are just my guess.

 

Just seems to me that requiring some sort of safety training shouldn't be seen as an imposition, but a GOOD thing for all concerned.

 

Looking at the prices of many weapons I see online, it occurs to me that a person could put a really top notch security system in their home for an equal, or lesser, amount of money. So, it becomes sort of a comparison in my mind. Am I better off putting up defensive systems to keep the bad guys out in the first place, or have weapons to defend myself instead? And why use a killing weapon, when you can get an equally effective stopping effect with a high quality pepper spray cannistor? Could be effective range, I suppose. Interesting comparison, tho. What do you guys think?

 

And, I asked a question a few posts back about BSA stance on weapons in Scout units. If guns are such a good safety measure, why don't Scout leaders carry guns on outings? I think the only response I saw was something to the effect of "BSA is a private organization that can make its own rules". So, what is that saying? BSA is wrong and it'd be a good idea for leaders to carry weapons?

[packsaddle]

Kahuna, concealed carry is left to individual states for the most part. I observe some variation but most, if not all, require both classroom and range training. And the permit expires, usually after five years or so, so renewal is required. In some states this is fairly expensive as well, paying for the permit and paying the trainer.

 

Prairie_Scouter, your suggestion about the security system is quite rational. The problem is, the gunslinging crowd would be deprived of their fantasies of being able to kill intruders and they would have to resort to other means of compensating for their 'shortcomings', so-to-speak...say, big powerful trucks.

[Kahuna]

packsaddle says: >>Kahuna, concealed carry is left to individual states for the most part. I observe some variation but most, if not all, require both classroom and range training. And the permit expires, usually after five years or so, so renewal is required. In some states this is fairly expensive as well, paying for the permit and paying the trainer.

[packsaddle]

Sorry Kahuna, when the mini-rapture was over and they realized their mistake and sent me back, in the intervening time I must have missed that earlier post.

[Kahuna]

That's okay, packsaddle, I tend to zone out sometimes too.

[LongHaul]

Hunt,

      I think some of the misunderstandings we are having are my doing. One of the first things I was taught about discussions of this type is that one must first define terms. I failed to do that and now we are going around over what is a right and what is not. Especially in light of the fact that we are talking about Constitutional guarantees and liberties these terms need clarification. You are looking at rights as being things specifically granted by the written law. I am looking at rights as being those things the founding fathers said we were born with but that were not granted them under the law or by the King who ruled them. IMO and I know the courts see this different but Im trying to explain how I was using the term right(s), the 2nd Amendment guarantees me the right to bear arms and that right is being denied me by the State and the courts. I still have the right I just cant exercise it. The 2nd amendment clearly refers to free State which the well regulated militia was required to insure. Again semantics, unfortunately Jefferson, Madison and the boys couldnt foresee todays society or they might have worded things different.

     I may not do any better with this line of discussion but Ill try. I feel I should be able to have a reasonable expectation, looking at our government in the as it was designed light not the how it really is light, that the law makers will not infringe on my right(?) without just cause. That is to say if they are going to pass a law limiting or infringing on me they should be expected to show how that limitation or infringement will accomplish the end they are trying to achieve by enforcing it. Telling me I cant build a hog processing plant on my land but allowing my neighbor to continue operating his hog processing plant on his is wrong. Telling me I must submit to a test to own a firearm, or pay higher taxes on ammunition, or register my weapons, has no impact on gun violence or crime. We have a problem in this country. Too many criminals are not being made to take responsibility for their actions. Guns are being used to commit crime but its not politically desirable to propose tougher treatment of the actual offender so we will get tougher on the law abiding citizenry. Why? Because the law abiding citizenry by definition will comply and I can, as a politician say that I am doing something on crime/gun violence etc.

 Prairie Scouter,

     You said you grew up in the inner city of Chicago. What do you remember of the community reaction every time the Chicago Police, County Sheriffs, State Police, or whoever tried to do a gun sweep, a drug crack down, a gang curtailment loitering enforcement campaign? Was the community behind the police and law enforcement in trying to make things safer? How about when the little girl sitting on her porch got shot by the drive by, who did that community want to go after gang members, criminals that use guns, or gun owners? I know how I remember growing up in Chicago, how do you remember it?

 LongHaul

[Prairie_Scouter]

I think that are two different goals that need to be met. There are 2 components to the population of gun owners, legal owners and illegal owners. They also result in 2 different kinds of gun injuries, for the most part, and that is, accidental injuries, and purposeful injuries. Mandatory safety training would be aimed at lawful owners in an effort to decrease accidental injuries, and decrease the number of guns stolen and later used in crimes. Existing laws that punish gun users in the execution of a crime are probably already sufficient, but need to be fully enforced.

 

Growing up in Chicago.....

Remember, this was 40-50 years ago, and I can only speak to my neighborhood. Owning a gun was something that people out on the farms did to hunt out in the country. Only "bad guys" had guns in the city, or that was the perception. Criminals certainly weren't armed as well as the police at that time. You didn't hear stories of some little kid finding their dad's gun under a pillow and shooting their friend with it. Early efforts to do "gun sweeps" had some effect, to be sure, but the understanding was that for every gun taken from a criminal, there were probably 20 more hidden somewhere. These sweeps were generally done after some visible rise in criminal gun use, and so the public was, of course, enthusiastic in their support. It was during this time, I think, the discussions began on the topic of having more severe penalties for crimes committeed with a gun. More public support. Gang fights were "fights" in those days; very few people were killed in those fights, although they certainly got banged up pretty good. "Drive by shootings" didn't exist. People, by and large, wanted to get handguns out of the hands of criminals. By the early 70's, there was a visible increase in news stories about accidental shootings, ie, little Joey finds a gun in the house, shoots himself or his little brother. "Gun proliferation" stories started to show up more often. Public perception began to be (at least according to some news coverage) that there were lots and lots and lots of guns around, and nobody was really policing the situation in regards to safety or anything else. From the 70's to the 80's, increased use of guns in criminal activities, and the perception that by having guns in your home, you could somehow protect yourself. Gang fights turn into gang shootings, with people sitting innocently on their porches getting shot in the crossfire. By this time, there was probably a general feeling that were just too many guns around, period, with efforts beginning to limit their availability to everyone. 25 years later, nothing much has changed, except that there's probably many more guns available. That's how I remember seeing it from my old neighborhood, anyway.

 

In the end, I think you have to cover both ends. You need to get guns out of the hands of criminals, and also make sure that law abiding citizens aren't putting their neighbors at risk because they don't know how to handle their weapons.