(no subject)

[drewkitty]

From change.gov "Urban Policy"

>>• Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

In other words, create that national gun registry which is the first step to confiscation. Also gift the rest of the country with the
California ability of peace officers and dispatchers to look up whether you own a firearm or not.

>> Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals.

Note "common sense" to disguise the fact that these are new restrictions and laws.

>> They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.

Again, the "gun show loophole" is to require that all firearms transactions be tracked by the government, another technique for confiscation

As for childproof guns, why not childproof blowtorches and chainsaws? This is a thin excuse for banning as many firearms as possible..

>> They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

It was allowed to expire because it didn't have any effect on crime. So why resurrect the corpse?

Don't be fooled by platitudes. This is a laundry list of the gun ban movement, which has little to do with urban policy and everything to do with further erosion of your 2nd Amendment rights.

Comments

Unintended Consequence

[polymathwannabe.livejournal.com]

If owning a gun is a crime, then only criminals will own guns?

IDK about the childproofing thing though. If you're going to disagree with that, then I think you need a stronger argument than 'why not childproof other things'. That can potentially be used for *any* safety regulation. Why require seat belts in cars, but not on school buses? Why regulate OTC medications, but not herbal supplements? The answer is usually "Well, you have to start somewhere..." Which returns us to the question of "Do you want to start going down that path at all?"

A stronger argument against the childproofing regulation might be something like the fact that it is attached to even more undesirable legislation.

Anyway, I imagine the problem with young children accessing guns is likely an issue of the guns' owners keeping them in their homes unsecured and/or loaded. Older kids (like 10+) can just get them on the street anyway.

Question:
Might a US requirement for guns to be childproof result in more illegal (un-childproof) imports?

Re: Unintended Consequence

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

The problem is that "childproofing" a gun is a lot more difficult than it sounds. If a person with weak hands (i.e. the elderly) can fire it, so can a child. There is also the issue of needing to fire after being injured, again ties back to grip strength. Even a crisp trigger pull and strong slide are no bar to an accident with a child. (The kid can pull on the firearm when the trigger is hooked on an object.)

There are valuable safety features such as loaded chamber indicators, grip safeties, multi-stage triggers and so on. Some people swear by these (I do), others swear at them. Should they really be required by law? Even though they improve safety, they certainly don't make the firearm "childproof."

California already has a very strict safe storage law. If my firearm is taken to school by a child, or used by a child to injure themselves or someone else, I have committed a felony. This is how it should be.

Note however that the focus in Obama's policy statement is on the guns and not the owners. Owner education and gun safety laws are the way to tackle this problem; a software problem, not a hardware problem.

You can't childproof chain saws and blowtorches. I think you might appreciate the difficulties of the latter. As for chain saws, certainly some safety features are a Really Good Idea . . . but except in forestry and farm settings, no one under sixteen has any business using a chain saw. They are inherently dangerous by the nature of their function.

In California we have a "safe guns list" that requires the manufacturer to submit multiple guns for destruction testing, and pay for the test (several thousand dollars). This keeps a lot of otherwise safe handguns from being imported into California, raising gun prices. Note that higher handgun prices simply keep guns out of the hands of the law-abiding poor. Criminals pay whatever they have to for an illegal handgun, or steal one instead. I see no benefit to making this a nationwide practice.

Re: Unintended Consequence

[polymathwannabe.livejournal.com]

"Owner education and gun safety laws are the way to tackle this problem"
Agreed - Most Definitely!

I don't believe that anything can be *entirely* 'childproof' anyway. At best, somethings may be 'child resistant'.

[(Anonymous)]

Hi there I am so excited I found your webpage, I really found you by mistake, while I was browsing on Aol for something else, Regardless I am here now and would just like to say kudos for a incredible post and a all round entertaining blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to go through it all at the moment but I have book-marked it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read more, Please do keep up the fantastic work.

[(Anonymous)]

The core of your writing while appearing reasonable in the beginning, did not settle very well with me after some time. Someplace within the paragraphs you were able to make me a believer unfortunately just for a very short while. I still have got a problem with your leaps in logic and you would do well to help fill in those breaks. In the event that you can accomplish that, I could certainly end up being amazed.

[(Anonymous)]

My partner and I stumbled over here by a different website and thought I may as well check things out. I like what I see so now i am following you. Look forward to going over your web page yet again.

[weepingmoon.livejournal.com]

This is a complicated issue. While, I think things need to be done about gun violence and the ability for felons to get guns, I also know that little that the government does prevents people from doing what they want to do. Also I do believe that non-violent offenders are different that violent ones. People that go to jail from growing weed are hardly dangerous. But on the other hand someone’s physiological sate needs to be taken into account. I am differently for tougher standards for gun owners, background checks and safety courses. On the other hand, harsher restrictions always seem bring more black market activity. Perhaps though my ambivalence comes from physiological trauma involving guns, not just Angela, but “mother” threatening me with a gun and threatening to kill herself. Suffice to say SOMETHING needs to be done, but I don’t think any solution would solve it all.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

California has virtually all of the Obama wish list right now. We have "closed the gun loophole" (unless one makes criminal friends in Nevada), we have an assault weapons ban, ten day waiting period, assault weapons ban, 10 round magazine cap, one handgun per thirty days purchase limit, criminal background checks, Handgun Safety Certificate training and test requirement, the whole enchilada.

No effect on gun crime in California. Only a little effect on accidents.

I'd prefer to not to see this regime imposed nationwide. Someday California may come to its collective senses.

Anyone who threatens someone with a gun (except in lawful self defense or defense of others) should go to jail and lose their gun rights. This is the current law. So much as "brandishing" a firearm ("displaying in a rude or threatening manner") loses your gun rights for five years. Again, this is how it should be.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

I don't know about blowtorches, but aren't chainsaws already relatively childproof? That is, hard enough to start that a child would be fairly unlikely to be able to? Might be they've gotten easier since I was around them much.

[polymathwannabe.livejournal.com]

Electric chainsaws are pretty easy to start and fairly light weight.

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Yup. There are grip safeties on nearly every chainsaw I've laid hands on. These however can be duct-taped down, or trapped in clothing.

[polymathwannabe.livejournal.com]

Yes - mine has a grip safety :)
Still, just the thought of chainsaws falling into the hands of little minions should be enough to scare anyone into locking theirs up properly...

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

Exactly my attitude towards firearms.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

Ah; I was only familiar with the pull-start kind. And have rather unpleasant memories or a lawnmower with a dying pull-start, which probably color my sense of the difficulty of the mechanism.

[gridlore.livejournal.com]

Since 1903, the government in most states has been able to confiscate our cars.

Has it happened? No.

Sorry, but I agree with giving the cops the tools they need to get illegal weapons off the streets. I agree with safeguards. And I have yet to hear one good damn reason why a private citizen *needs* an AK-47. You can get a perfectly good M-1 or a similar semi-automatic for a good price. We won WWII with that one, you may recall.

http://tinyurl.com/6xgk6v

Hell, the Federal Government will practically give you a M1 Garand!

http://www.odcmp.com/

Of course, I can also quote the entire Second Amendment. Including the bits about a "well-regulated militia."

[drewkitty.livejournal.com]

As a soldier, you appreciate the fact that the dreaded assault weapon is nothing more than an ordinary rifle wearing black plastic. The AK is inferior to the M1 in almost every respect.

>> And I have yet to hear one good damn reason why a private citizen *needs* an AK-47.

Why should the AK be banned when the Colt (M-16, etc) variants are lawful? Or why should the AK and Colt be banned when the M1 is legal?

I am not talking about automatic weapons. Many states ban them (including California) and there is heavy regulation by the Federal government and a substantial tax. Then again, David Koresh (of Waco fame) had a Class 1 FFL.

Does the presence or absence of a pistol grip or detachable magazine make that much difference? Even in California where we enjoy an assault weapons ban, I can have an assault rifle with bayonet as long as it has a fixed magazine and no pistol grip. Conversely, I can have an assault rifle with detachable magazine as long as it does not have a pistol grip. Add a pistol grip, and the magazine had better be affixed in a way that requires tools to remove.

The safeguards, both with respect to assault weapons and with handguns, in California are considerable. Other states are much more lax. Little to no effect on crime either way. Is there a pressing reason this needs to be a Federal issue?

As for confiscations, Google "asset forfeiture." It happens, and there is no recourse.

I've read People v. Heller in great detail, and agree with the Court's holding. Many of the state Constitutions are even more explicit: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Heller established a great number of reasons why a private citizen needs a rifle, and why it is a public good to have programs such as ODCMP.

Does the Federal government have the Constitutional right to pass reasonable firearms regulations, including a nationwide registry? Under Heller, certainly. Do I think it's a good idea? No way.

The nation does not need New York City and Chicago style gun laws, where only the politically connected and the criminals have guns.

Thanks for commenting.