Re: "Assault" rifle prices since Newtown
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: redneckbmxer24</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JGrelle</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: redneckbmxer24</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As to requiring gun safes I absolutely support it. I don't think they should be allowed to peak inside but I would have no problem allowing LE to see my safe. No pictures, no writing down info, but you can look at it.
I know a lot of gun owners, even for living in the liberal are that I do. I only know a few people that have gun safes besides myself. A number of these friends have AR's, some of them own several, and most of them don't even try to hide them in the house. I think it's absolutely stupid to not at least have a basic RSC and make an attempt at not allowing your guns to be stolen. Even a cheap metal cabinet would prevent a fair amount of thefts.
The bubbas are some of the worst. I can't tell you how many peoples houses I've been in that have a wood gun cabinet with a glass door. Most of the time these cabinets are sitting in their living room right next to a window on the main floor that can be easily seen from the driveway or street at night when the lights are on. I personally know one dumbass with this exact setup that had his guns stolen. His cabinet could be seen from the street. Somebody broke in mid day and broke the glass on the cabinet with the same rock they broke the window to enter the house with.
I don't think requiring an adequate storage container is too much to ask especially considering the other options. In fact I support it. I don't think they should require everybody to have a TL rated safe but at minimum a well secured metal cabinet or even a job box designed for tools would do wonders.</div></div>
How arrogant & naive can you possibly be? You have no problem with more govt regulation & more burdens on law abiding gun owners, you may as well bow down to your master & lick their boots? When does it stop?
The gun grabbers surely aren't going to stop till we are completely disarmed, give an inch they will take a mile!
Wake the fuck up! </div></div>
Did I hit a nerve?
Requiring adequate gun storage is not too much to ask. It's a responsibility gun owners should take upon themselves but most don't. Look at how many stolen guns are used in crimes. It's a solution to the real problem unlike any sort of a ban. If somebody is too cheap to spend a few hundred bucks to keep their guns under reasonable control when they're not home then fuck em. In this day an age simply locking your door and setting an alarm is not a way to deny access to firearms, it should be buts it's not. You shouldn't have to deny access but that's the world we live in and I don't see it changing unless some serious shit goes down.
People who think keeping their guns locked up when not in use (shooting them or carrying them) is too much to ask are the only ones that are naive. </div></div>
I'm glad you are such a wealthy individual and can afford a gun safe(s) The 2nd Amendment applies to poor people as well, who have a constitutional right to own firearms for personal defense, even if its a $200 handgun, which apparently, you would have them buy a safe to keep it in, that once the government gets involved will be a multi thousand dollar item.
You also apparently didn’t hear about the Heller decision rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States, which specifically addressed the requirement that the guns be "disassembled" or secured with a "gun lock" which the majority held, would render the gun useless for self defense and thus infringes on the individuals constitutional right.
So, one can presume since you don’t agree with the majority decision of the court, you must agree with the minority that held the 2nd Amendment only applies to a states’ rights to have a militia and that there is no individual right to own a firearm for any purpose. So, since you are not part of a state militia, you can kiss ALL of your guns goodbye.
Don’t you understand that the battle here is all or nothing.
Would a gun safe requirement have stopped Columbine, where the guns were acquired through a “straw purchaser”? NO. Would they have stopped the shooting a the movie theater in Aurora Colorado, where a mentally challenged person, who had no criminal record legally purchased all the weapons, NO, he would have just got them out of the safe. What about the Gabriel Gifford’s shooting in AZ, again, NO, because the gun was legally purchased and used by the mentally defective purchaser, or what about the Virginia Tech shooting, again, NO, because another mental case was able to legally purchase the guns. And what about Newtown? Maybe if his mom had them locked up and he didn’t know where the key was, or waited until she had them out of the safe…
I was just talking to a friend tonight that feels no one should own an “assault rifle” because they are not used for “hunting” so, should we ban them because he doesn’t feel the need. Registration, fingerprinting, photos, approval by local law enforcement, keep them locked up and disassembled and separate from the ammunition, which must be kept in a separate safe and limiting the number of rounds of ammunition one can have “who needs 1,000 rounds” all sound reasonable don’t they. Once you start infringing on a constitutional right with “reasonable sounding solutions” (to some anyway) where do you stop?
Here is a summary of the SCOTUS Majority Opinion:
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. <span style="text-decoration: underline"><span style="font-weight: bold">Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.</span></span> Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[
