Firearms oversight

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
bmforre
Snowbonk
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Firearms oversight

Post by bmforre » Wed May 26, 2021 11:27 pm

A.T.F. nominee Faces Senate Panel and Questions on Gun Control.
David Chipman, a two-decade veteran of the A.T.F. who serves as an adviser to a major gun control group, faced fierce criticism from Republicans during his confirmation hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Imagine!
Proposing as head of the agency responsible for oversight of (Alcohol, Tobacco) Firearms (and Explosives) someone who wants to control firearms access.
The Horror!

Good there are responsible politicians who'll guard Freedom:
“Many see putting a committed gun control proponent like David Chipman in charge of A.T.F. is like putting a tobacco executive in charge of the Department of Health and Human Services, or antifa in charge of the Portland Police Department,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the ranking member of the committee.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by dyqik » Thu May 27, 2021 12:46 am

Didn't the Republicans try to actually do the first one of those?

User avatar
bolo
Catbabel
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by bolo » Thu May 27, 2021 2:15 am

dyqik wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 12:46 am
Didn't the Republicans try to actually do the first one of those?
They put Rick Perry, who had said in the presidential campaign that he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy, in charge of the Department of Energy. Curiously, once he was in charge of it, he discovered that it did all sorts of important stuff and definitely shouldn't be abolished.

secret squirrel
Snowbonk
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by secret squirrel » Thu May 27, 2021 2:43 am

bolo wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 2:15 am
dyqik wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 12:46 am
Didn't the Republicans try to actually do the first one of those?
They put Rick Perry, who had said in the presidential campaign that he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy, in charge of the Department of Energy. Curiously, once he was in charge of it, he discovered that it did all sorts of important stuff and definitely shouldn't be abolished.
Isn't the Department of Energy responsible for things like overseeing/maintaining the nuclear arsenal?

Anyway, it's well established now that everything the American Right complains about is projection.

User avatar
bolo
Catbabel
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:17 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by bolo » Thu May 27, 2021 3:07 am

secret squirrel wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 2:43 am
Isn't the Department of Energy responsible for things like overseeing/maintaining the nuclear arsenal?
Among other things, yes. Although Perry appeared quite surprised to discover that.

User avatar
headshot
Catbabel
Posts: 633
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:40 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by headshot » Thu May 27, 2021 7:04 am

So if Chuck Grassley doesn’t want anti-fascists in charge of Portland Police Department, one must assume that he instead wants fascists in charge.

IvanV
Stargoon
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by IvanV » Thu May 27, 2021 8:52 am

bolo wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 2:15 am
dyqik wrote:
Thu May 27, 2021 12:46 am
Didn't the Republicans try to actually do the first one of those?
They put Rick Perry, who had said in the presidential campaign that he wanted to abolish the Department of Energy, in charge of the Department of Energy. Curiously, once he was in charge of it, he discovered that it did all sorts of important stuff and definitely shouldn't be abolished.
President Carter put Alfred Kahn, an eminent economist in favour of deregulating airlines, in charge of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the US airline fares regulator, in 1977. Kahn closed the CAB down in 1978. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_E._Kahn

I had the privilege of meeting and working with Kahn a few times, early in my career. He was happy to help the British take on the Americans in air transport trade talks, before the EU took that role over from the member states. He felt his home nation was unduly protective.

bmforre
Snowbonk
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by bmforre » Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:04 am

Every home should have one
A federal judge Friday night overturned California’s longtime ban on assault weapons, saying the state’s law was unconstitutional ..

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez said in the ruling.
Perfect tool for the home, indeed.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3373
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:23 am

bmforre wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:04 am
Every home should have one
A federal judge Friday night overturned California’s longtime ban on assault weapons, saying the state’s law was unconstitutional ..

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez said in the ruling.
Perfect tool for the home, indeed.
Completely inexplicable to me.

I hope it’s reversed on appeal.

Allo V Psycho
Snowbonk
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:08 am

bmforre wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 7:04 am
Every home should have one
A federal judge Friday night overturned California’s longtime ban on assault weapons, saying the state’s law was unconstitutional ..

“Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” Benitez said in the ruling.
Perfect tool for the home, indeed.
Absolutely! I use my AR-15 to file my nails and undo tiny screws, as I imagine most people do.

An the other hand, there is this. https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/1 ... 2216547328

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3373
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Woodchopper » Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:20 am

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 10:08 am
An the other hand, there is this. https://twitter.com/igorvolsky/status/1 ... 2216547328
Also worth noting the the M4 is the US armed forces primary infantry weapon and the standard model isn't equipped to fire in fully automatic mode (as full auto fire is inaccurate and uses up too much ammunition). Standard options are semi-automatic or a three round burst.

So the M4 available to the public is almost identical, except that one trigger pull will fire one round rather than three.

IvanV
Stargoon
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by IvanV » Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:48 pm

This extreme permissiveness in relation to firearms is a recent phenomenon in the US. It was always permissive, but the extremity of it is recent. It was not until 2008 that the court struck down any state law restricting the keeping and bearing of arms. From that point on, it seems as though the rider to the 2nd amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a verbal decoration that little constrains the rest of the sentence.

And now we have the extraordinary sight of states increasingly allowing you to carry a concealed weapon without any licence. And making it illegal for business proprieters, schools, etc, to separate people from their firearms at the door. Though with some exceptions such as aeroplanes, I presume.

monkey
Snowbonk
Posts: 592
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by monkey » Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:02 pm

IvanV wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:48 pm
This extreme permissiveness in relation to firearms is a recent phenomenon in the US. It was always permissive, but the extremity of it is recent. It was not until 2008 that the court struck down any state law restricting the keeping and bearing of arms. From that point on, it seems as though the rider to the 2nd amendment "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a verbal decoration that little constrains the rest of the sentence.

And now we have the extraordinary sight of states increasingly allowing you to carry a concealed weapon without any licence. And making it illegal for business proprieters, schools, etc, to separate people from their firearms at the door. Though with some exceptions such as aeroplanes, I presume.
It seems? That's what the Supreme Court's decided!

Allo V Psycho
Snowbonk
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:21 pm

I've just finished reading "The Second: Race and Guns in a fatally Divided America"
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-second-9781635574258/
Professor Ferguson argues that 'militia' was not so much a description of a body to repel invaders or even to inhibit over-powerful Government, but was a reference to the use of militias as patrols to suppress slave uprisings. It was included in the Bill of rights as a sop to the southern states, to ensure they joined the 'United States' with slavery unchallenged by anything in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It's quite convincing, and contains many horrifying incidents from American history that I wasn't aware of. It explains why the 'right to bear arms' doesn't seem all that meaningful when applied to Black people.
Available on Kindle.

IvanV
Stargoon
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 11:12 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by IvanV » Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:58 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 4:21 pm
I've just finished reading "The Second: Race and Guns in a fatally Divided America"
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-second-9781635574258/
Professor [Anderson] argues that 'militia' was not so much a description of a body to repel invaders or even to inhibit over-powerful Government, but was a reference to the use of militias as patrols to suppress slave uprisings...
Raises an interesting question of how we should interpret laws whose intention or wording is based on assumptions or situations that no longer apply, if it can't be easily modified.

If this is a clear intention of the original, then it would seem that the kind of conservative judge, such as Gorsuch, who say that they believe in interpreting laws precisely as they were originally intended, is in fact more flexible than that.

Millennie Al
Catbabel
Posts: 708
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:13 am

IvanV wrote:
Sun Jun 06, 2021 3:48 pm
And now we have the extraordinary sight of states increasingly allowing you to carry a concealed weapon without any licence. And making it illegal for business proprieters, schools, etc, to separate people from their firearms at the door. Though with some exceptions such as aeroplanes, I presume.
If you mention the first amendment ("you can say what you like") in conjunction with a private company (e.g. Facebook) you're told that it only regulates what the governmnet can do and cannot be used to control private companies. That includes allowing a company to fire an employee for something they said while at home and not working. Why does that not apply equally to the second amentment ("you can bear arms"), so that the government cannot stop you but private companies can restrict your right as much as they like? Including having a gun at home when not working?

Another strange point is arguments about some types of guns being designed to kill people rather than for sport. It seems perfectly clear that the second amendment refers to arms borne for the purpose of killing people and not sport. If there are any restrictions which should be easy to implement it's restrictions which ban sporting weapons. The only military value in them is the extent to which they encourage their holders to practise with their weapons to as to be then better at killing people.

I think the focus should be on recognising that the second amendment is obsolete and should be scrapped, rather than pointless arguments over which guns can be regulated and which are covered by it.

But at least a start could be made by noting that any "well regulated militia" must, by definition, be regulated, and that such regulations should at least cover correct use and storage of weapons. Many American deaths are caused by accidental shootings and those, at least, could be greatly reduced by regulations that self-defence obsessives should have no grounds to dispute.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

noggins
Clardic Fug
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by noggins » Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:15 pm

Has any cleverclogs tried to plead that the united states’ armed forces violate the second amendment?

User avatar
Martin Y
After Pie
Posts: 2014
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:08 pm

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Martin Y » Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:38 pm

noggins wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 12:15 pm
Has any cleverclogs tried to plead that the united states’ armed forces violate the second amendment?
Don't know but what might the suggested grounds be? The 2nd amendment is about securing a free state (i.e. each individual state), not a free United States, and the US military isn't the armed forces of any particular state.

noggins
Clardic Fug
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by noggins » Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:08 pm

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a federal army being created and used to impose absolutism.

Now either the militia isnt necessary, long overtaken by events, so the right to bear arms isnt constitutionally protected, or the military-industrial complex must be dismantled pronto due to its potential for tyranny.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3373
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:02 pm

noggins wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:08 pm
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a federal army being created and used to impose absolutism.

Now either the militia isnt necessary, long overtaken by events, so the right to bear arms isnt constitutionally protected, or the military-industrial complex must be dismantled pronto due to its potential for tyranny.
Article 1 Sections 12-14 explicitly give Congress the power to raise, direct and support federal armies and a navy. So the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t to prevent the creation of a federal army. There were people at the time who were suspicious of a standing army and preferred a militia made up of citizen soldiers.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by dyqik » Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:49 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:02 pm
noggins wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:08 pm
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a federal army being created and used to impose absolutism.

Now either the militia isnt necessary, long overtaken by events, so the right to bear arms isnt constitutionally protected, or the military-industrial complex must be dismantled pronto due to its potential for tyranny.
Article 1 Sections 12-14 explicitly give Congress the power to raise, direct and support federal armies and a navy. So the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t to prevent the creation of a federal army. There were people at the time who were suspicious of a standing army and preferred a militia made up of citizen soldiers.
You have to remember that the direct cause of the first shots of the American revolution at Concord and Lexington was a British Army raid to seize the militia stockpile of arms and ammunition.

Like the 3rd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment should probably be seen as a historical artefact of one of the causes of the Declaration of Independence as much as some high principle.

User avatar
Woodchopper
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3373
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Woodchopper » Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:03 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:49 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:02 pm
noggins wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 1:08 pm
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent a federal army being created and used to impose absolutism.

Now either the militia isnt necessary, long overtaken by events, so the right to bear arms isnt constitutionally protected, or the military-industrial complex must be dismantled pronto due to its potential for tyranny.
Article 1 Sections 12-14 explicitly give Congress the power to raise, direct and support federal armies and a navy. So the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t to prevent the creation of a federal army. There were people at the time who were suspicious of a standing army and preferred a militia made up of citizen soldiers.
You have to remember that the direct cause of the first shots of the American revolution at Concord and Lexington was a British Army raid to seize the militia stockpile of arms and ammunition.

Like the 3rd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment should probably be seen as a historical artefact of one of the causes of the Declaration of Independence as much as some high principle.
I wouldn't go that far. Article 1, Section 8 Clauses 15-16 deal with the raising and arming of a militia. So the US constitution explicitly envisages the creation of both. This isn't unusual. At the time Britain also had the ability to raise standing army and navy and territorial militias.

PS In the earlier post I should have written Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 12-14

User avatar
Boustrophedon
After Pie
Posts: 2026
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by Boustrophedon » Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:13 pm

The whole "assault rife" thing is smoke and mirrors, it gives plenty of scope for gunsturbators to argue with gun control fans about what exactly an assault rifle is and how ignorant the control fanboys are of firearms.

Of course it doesn't matter one hoot to a schoolkid shot in the face whether the offending gun was an assault rifle, a bolt action hunting rifle, a shotgun or just a pistol.

And there's the rub, most, 60% or so, of gun inflicted deaths are caused by pistols not rifles. That's the discussion the gun lobby don't want to have, they're happy arguing arcane definitions of "black gun", "assault rifle" and magazine capacity but really, really don't want to engage with the simple logic that would ban pistols first.

I gave up my 22 target pistol post Hungerford but pre Dunblane, I have never regretted giving it up. I love the freedom the lack of guns in society gives.
Remember it's only a coup if it's from the coup d'état region of France, otherwise it just sparkling white terrorism.

noggins
Clardic Fug
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:30 pm

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by noggins » Mon Jun 07, 2021 4:16 pm

dyqik wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:49 pm

Like the 3rd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment should probably be seen as a historical artefact of one of the causes of the Declaration of Independence as much as some high principle.
And their interpretation of the English Civil war and Cromwell looming in the background as well.

User avatar
dyqik
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3837
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Firearms oversight

Post by dyqik » Mon Jun 07, 2021 5:21 pm

Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 3:03 pm
dyqik wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:49 pm
Woodchopper wrote:
Mon Jun 07, 2021 2:02 pm


Article 1 Sections 12-14 explicitly give Congress the power to raise, direct and support federal armies and a navy. So the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t to prevent the creation of a federal army. There were people at the time who were suspicious of a standing army and preferred a militia made up of citizen soldiers.
You have to remember that the direct cause of the first shots of the American revolution at Concord and Lexington was a British Army raid to seize the militia stockpile of arms and ammunition.

Like the 3rd Amendment, the 2nd Amendment should probably be seen as a historical artefact of one of the causes of the Declaration of Independence as much as some high principle.
I wouldn't go that far. Article 1, Section 8 Clauses 15-16 deal with the raising and arming of a militia. So the US constitution explicitly envisages the creation of both. This isn't unusual. At the time Britain also had the ability to raise standing army and navy and territorial militias.

PS In the earlier post I should have written Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 12-14
There's a big difference between giving the government the power to do something, which is what Article 1 does, and the Bill of Rights, which denies powers to the government. You should read the Bill of Rights as the negative of Article 1.

Post Reply