Professional Soldiers ® - State, local and jurisdictional-level actions related to gun-control (Post-Newtown)

Professional Soldiers ® (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Soapbox (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=93)

- - State, local and jurisdictional-level actions related to gun-control (Post-Newtown) (http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40453)

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 483953)

Missouri takes a stand.

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ro/HB0170I.PDF

Good for them....

I can tell you that a lot of Fed LEOs are not in favor of DCs possible actions. We are buying new toys fust like the general population.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 483946)

IMO, for Americans to, on the one hand, sing the praises of the framers and then ignore the central reality that they dealt with throughout their public lives is an open invitation to not be taken seriously by anyone with a library card.

Question: Do you honestly believe that the other "side" in this principal topic under discussion has honestly & fairly exhibited understanding of the scholarship that drives citations of framers by the adversaries they also demonize? If so, can you direct me to evidence in the public record indicating their understanding of an inalienable right at the highest policy-making levels of leadership, versus the apparent starting point that the Second Amendment grants some level of permission and is, therefore, malleable? Pretty sure we've both got library cards, so if you don't want to take the question, fine.

Quote:

I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted, and, on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. - Hamilton's #84

Can they move to their results-based side and engage on things that might actually get a desired result, rather than affirming that Obama Care covers something that has the words "mental health" in it and chartering another vast sum to the CDC for yet another study that will prove what they (and Clinton) have no interest in hearing?

There's a pretty clear line being drawn in the sand. There are statistics available which put the pro-gun numbers waaaay higher than the controllers.

I look forward to the issue being forced into open legislation.

More reasonable-ness

Here's an indication of the NY Dem's understanding of reasonable starting points in the "conversation".... so they should be applauded for their reasonable position because it was necessary to push back so hard on such draconian things and result in the "big compromise" on behalf of NY firearm owners?

Cherry-picked? You bet. Only 56 states to go.

This letter was signed by all but one of Utah's sheriffs.

http://www.utahsheriffs.org/USA-Home...t%20Letter.pdf

Utah to the north, the Navajo Nation to the south, and governed by Arizona's laws.
Definitely picked the right place to live.

The bill from Wyoming:

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2013/Introduced/HB0104.pdf

The dominoes are falling...

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen (Post 483999)

Texas: http://www.house.state.tx.us/news/me...bill_code=2825

Fom Toth in Texas:

"We can no longer depend on the Federal Government and this Administration to uphold a Constitution that they no longer believe in. The liberties of the People of Texas and the sovereignty of our State are too important to just let the Federal Government take them away. The overreach of the federal administrations executive orders that are do not align with the Constitution, are not very popular here in Texas," said Representative Toth.

Snip

Good stuff, GC. :lifter

Great that the States are stepping up.

What I am waiting to see is if the States have the intestinal fortitude to step away from Federal dollars. Everyone realizes that the administration is going to hold them hostage through grant funding requirements and the traditional venues of the highway monies...etc.

Good luck folks. Hold hard, stay the course!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ret10Echo (Post 484004)

States collect most of the revenue and transfer it to the Feds. Why don't they just decide to hold onto it. Put it into escrow, exceptin' the necessary payments required for Federal mandates.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MR2 (Post 484008)

States collect most of the revenue and transfer it to the Feds. Why don't they just decide to hold onto it. Put it into escrow, exceptin' the necessary payments required for Federal mandates.

If the states did so they could always claim Fed taxes are unlawful as well and hang onto those as well. This should provide a bit of a buffer. Otherwise the individual states could cut aid programs until the feds gave in.

I honestly believe if the states pushed back hard enough through bills like we see noted above Congress and the president would give in for fear of another civil war/succession.

Crip

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 483946)

I believe that you are misreading my posts on this topic...My point has been (and remains) that in addition to saying no to more gun control, opponents of gun control might profit from bringing other ideas to the table, that is, ideas aimed at reducing gun violence but without more gun control.

You're correct, I was. Thanks for the clarification

Quote:

For example, there are vibrant debates emanating from Pr0n Valley about what types of acts can and cannot be depicted in pornographic media.

I think you're not looking hard enough.

Quote:

As media become increasingly digital there are also debates about ownership and usage of software, movies, sound recordings, games, books, and libraries.

I think the "free" you're discussing here is not the same as the "freedom" generally understood.

Quote:

Have you ever been stopped and frisked because you fit a profile?

Not that it contributes directly to the discussion, but yes, every single time I've flown on an airplane over the last 16 years I've been hand frisked because I fit a specific profile. Most of the time, I also have to have my carry-on re-scanned, and I have to explain its contents with TSA officials, all of which adds at least 15 minutes to every one of my trips through airport security.

Quote:

Have you been the focus of a display of overwhelming force because your skin is a different color from everyone else walking in a residential area?

Yup, but I usually try not to frequent those parts of town unless I have specific business there.

Quote:

In municipalities like Los Angeles and Santa Monica, the issue of eminent domain is increasingly controversial. Local governments have forced out residents for the sake of the "public good." That is, people are being turned out of houses that their family has owned for decades with all parties understanding that, given the conditions of the housing market, will translate into downward social mobility.

Not that I agree with that use, but I believe the 5th Amendment doesn't prevent the use of eminent domain without overwhelming public need, it just requires the government to "justly" (lots of wiggle room there) compensate the owner.

Quote:

How many posts in how many threads on this BB have some suggested that a trial is not necessary? Do such expressions, as understandable as they may be, bolster the conceptualization of the BoR? Or do such comments feed into a wider dynamic in which the jury pool is increasingly compromised by a saturation of information that should not be disclosed until it comes to light as part of the legal process?

Well, since I haven't heard much on the recent developments of mind control, I'd say that being able to adjust a trial's venue, combined with the process of jury selection are the best methods we currently have to try to mitigate jury prejudice. Unless, of course, you're suggesting adding more restrictions on free speech and press to prevent jury prejudice in the first place.

Quote:

Here's an example of the latter. Almost every laptop computer has a "Kensington security slot." Would it be possible to develop similar solutions that could be used on portable personal electronic devices (laptops, tablets, smartphones) as well as fire arms? As a lock could be used on a range of everyday products, there would be no way of knowing if a consumer were locking up a ThinkPad or a firearm.

I'm not sure if you're advocating here for locking up a gun in a public place and then leaving it unattended, or if this would be an at-home solution. If its the former, I don't think its wise to leave a weapon unattended in public unless forced to do so (usually due to OC/CC restrictions), and then it should be behind multiple access barriers (locked in a metal container, which is locked to something bolted to a vehicle frame, which is locked inside a trunk or passenger cabin). If its the latter, the gun should be secured by something a bit more substantial than a thin cable lock, or very well-hidden, if the owner isn't home.

Quote:

If this concept is not technologically feasible, does that mean that one could not find ones that are? Would bringing such solutions to market help bolster the argument that the private sector is more adept, efficient, and responsive than the federal government when it comes to addressing the demands of the market?

That's a good point, but I think that the "market" (if we define that term traditionally, as in the folks that are doing or are considering doing the buying) is happy with the status quo. Its the non-market folks that would be appeased by such solutions.

Quote:

One closing point. It is my view that Second Amendement advocates who talk about the original intent of the framers do themselves a profound disservice by decoupling the debate over gun control from other debates centering around the BoR. To me, a political and intellectual line of argumentation that holds the entire BoR as an irreducible whole will allow for broader coalitions that might be more effective politically. Also, this approach will, I believe, prove more sustainable historiographically.

We are in full agreement here.

Quote:

It is anyone's guess if a left of center feminist bisexual pornographer from San Francisco who wants to stream video of herself performing a number of lurid acts...

Now why did you have to bring Sen. Feinstein speaking on CSPAN into this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sigaba (Post 483946)

It is anyone's guess if a left of center feminist bisexual pornographer from San Francisco who wants to stream video of herself performing a number of lurid acts can make common cause with a politically conservative heterosexual guy from the Bible Belt.

This sort of thing happens all the time.
It usually results in the collapse of the televangelist's ministry.
:D