[analogbear]

So, today on the subway I saw a poster that said there is now a mandatory 3 and a half year prison term for posessing an illegal (read: unregistered) gun within the city limits of New York.

So, although the first part of the 2nd Amendment's "arms" clause has to do with a "well regulated militia" (taken in modern terms to be the nat'l guard), the second part, separated by a comma, is ...[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Making the registration of a gun mandatory (and make no mistake, there is littlw chance you will be allowed to bear arms in NYC...at best you will get to keep it unloaded in your house) or there is a mandatory penalty, sure seems like a variety of infringement.


Thoughts?

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

You interpretation of the first part is correct, the remaining text, as I remember history, was to keep British soldiers from taking arms from citizens to prvent a military build up.
In today's society, registered guns are somewhat necessary. But everything has it's loopholes. In VA, I believe lawmakers call it the "seven day cooldown period" to buy a gun, but I am not required to register unless if am carrying concealed... a whole other can of beuracratic bull. Ironically, if I don't want the ATF to now I have a gun, I can go to the TradingPost and buy from a private individual. But, as aways, debates on politics and religion can't not be put in any one favor.
If you want to read, go to:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but it's probably all doctored propaganda.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

You interpretation of the first part is correct, the remaining text, as I remember history, was to keep British soldiers from taking arms from citizens to prvent a military build up.
In today's society, registered guns are somewhat necessary. But everything has it's loopholes. In VA, I believe lawmakers call it the "seven day cooldown period" to buy a gun, but I am not required to register unless if am carrying concealed... a whole other can of beuracratic bull. Ironically, if I don't want the ATF to now I have a gun, I can go to the TradingPost and buy from a private individual. But, as aways, debates on politics and religion can't not be put in any one favor.
If you want to read, go to:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
but it's probably all doctored propaganda.

Dude, I am a lawyer, but thanks.

I understand the law about it, including how commerce clause power allows the federal gov't to require certain atf issues and how federalism allows some states to allow concealed carry, others not, and the rationally related to a government interest standard for assessing the constitutionality of these issues...

I just wanted some lay-opinion and principled debate. I see telling a person they must register "or else" as an infringement. And, the way the current NY statute is written, it ain't just handguns...Shotguns and rifles can qualify too.

Thoughts?

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Dude, I am a lawyer, but thanks.

Thoughts?

I figured from previous post. I just had to throw something out there to make you say it out loud. Tag, you it111

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

I figured from previous post. I just had to throw something out there to make you say it out loud. Tag, you it111

You Dick! OK, ya got me. But really, what are your thoughts? As I describe it, do you think that is an infringement?

[sinfuldragon]

Yes, I also think that telling someone that they can't get a gun because of a felony is an infringement.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

I guess in a way, no... What if you didn't have to register your motor vehicle or maintain a valid driver's permit. There are a lot of people out there that should not have such things. But where do you draw the line. Sinfuldragon said in his post it's an infringement that felons can't own guns. Do you really want past, present, or future murders, rapists, carjackers, blah blah blah to own firearms. I don't. I was an NRA member for a long time, that still doesn't mean I wan everybody having that right to own. There's also people out there that should not be allowed to own cars, motorcycles, steak knives, or even breed. But where do we draw the line on imposing ourselves on other's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Like I said before, political and religious debates suck.... nobody wins... Just look at the Middle East.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by sinfuldragon

Yes, I also think that telling someone that they can't get a gun because of a felony is an infringement.

I agree, if the presumption is that the punishment represents some closure to the issue, and that the felon has been rehabilitated...A ****ing pipe dream, but the assumption, nonetheless.

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

I guess in a way, no... What if you didn't have to register your motor vehicle or maintain a valid driver's permit. There are a lot of people out there that should not have such things. But where do you draw the line. Sinfuldragon said in his post it's an infringement that felons can't own guns. Do you really want past, present, or future murders, rapists, carjackers, blah blah blah to own firearms. I don't. I was an NRA member for a long time, that still doesn't mean I wan everybody having that right to own. There's also people out there that should not be allowed to own cars, motorcycles, steak knives, or even breed. But where do we draw the line on imposing ourselves on other's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Like I said before, political and religious debates suck.... nobody wins... Just look at the Middle East.

Well, I might require licensure to breed, own guns, and drive a car. I also have no problem with getting a "gun" permit that allows you to own and carry a gun. I don't think you should have to register each gun. You don't have to get a new operator permit for each car, and frankly, guns are more private than cars, so I see no need to register each gun with the gov't. I guess if it was a mere formality for de minimis cash, I wouldn't mind so much, but here in the city it is a pain in the ass. Also, I own an apartment in the city, and a house in connecticut...But it is a felony for me to bring a gun I purchased in CT into NYC without "registering it" here.

[jaim]

Man, what has happened to this forum? A topic like this would have had a lot of replies by now. Did all the conservatives leave the board?
I have a problem with having to register a gun since that is the way governments in parts of the world have been able to take target gun removal from its citizens. I can understand a city or area having a registration program for guns brought into its area. The punishment for not registering a gun with NYC does seem to be a bit harsh. A fine would be more appropriate. Now if you use the unregistered gun in committing a crime then a stiff jail sentence would be appropriate.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

....I don't think you should have to register each gun. You don't have to get a new operator permit for each car....

You are right, but you do have to register every car/motorcycle that you buy(Equally as deadly in the wrong hands)

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

You are right, but you do have to register every car/motorcycle that you buy(Equally as deadly in the wrong hands)

Satisically, cars are MORE deadly, t that is why I emphasized the more privae natre of guns. I wouldn't park a gun on the sreet...

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by jaim

Man, what has happened to this forum? A topic like this would have had a lot of replies by now. Did all the conservatives leave the board?
I have a problem with having to register a gun since that is the way governments in parts of the world have been able to take target gun removal from its citizens. I can understand a city or area having a registration program for guns brought into its area. The punishment for not registering a gun with NYC does seem to be a bit harsh. A fine would be more appropriate. Now if you use the unregistered gun in committing a crime then a stiff jail sentence would be appropriate.

No, they just don't like arguing with me because I will constantly point out inconsistencies, or shift relevance, both hampering their ability to make a feeble point...

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Satisically, cars are MORE deadly, t that is why I emphasized the more privae natre of guns. I wouldn't park a gun on the sreet...

By comparison, as for what purpose would you purchase your firearm; how and where would you park it.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by A.F.T.C.T.T.G.

By comparison, as for what purpose would you purchase your firearm; how and where would you park it.

yeah, I don't know. I would like to be able to carry it, so there I might tolerate a simple "registration" of it, but if I was "parking" it in my house? Hell no. Ain't noboby's business...Plus, as a former Ranger, I should be allowed to have any non-nuke weapon-Scratch that....I should be able to, ala scandinavian countries, keep an assault rifle and pistol from my military service. If I have to give up the grenade launcher, so be it.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by analogbear

yeah, I don't know. I would like to be able to carry it, so there I might tolerate a simple "registration" of it, but if I was "parking" it in my house? Hell no. Ain't noboby's business...Plus, as a former Ranger, I should be allowed to have any non-nuke weapon-Scratch that....I should be able to, ala scandinavian countries, keep an assault rifle and pistol from my military service. If I have to give up the grenade launcher, so be it.

You avoided the questions, counselor... (forgive me, Law and Order is on)

[steingar]

I don't know anyone in a militia, thus I know no one who is entitled to gun ownership by the 2nd ammendment. Gun ownership is a privilege, much like the operation of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Local and Federal govermental agencies can extend this privilege to anyone they deem qualified. In a perfect world the permit ot possess firearms would come with mandatory safety trianing in responsible firearm practises.

The argument that cars kill more people than guns is asinine. Far more people drive cars to work every day than actively handle firearms.

[A.F.T.C.T.T.G.]

Originally Posted by steingar

I don't know anyone in a militia, thus I know no one who is entitled to gun ownership by the 2nd ammendment. Gun ownership is a privilege, much like the operation of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Local and Federal govermental agencies can extend this privilege to anyone they deem qualified. In a perfect world the permit ot possess firearms would come with mandatory safety trianing in responsible firearm practises.

The argument that cars kill more people than guns is asinine. Far more people drive cars to work every day than actively handle firearms.

Depends on your geographic location. There a couple of guns pulled out of school lockers every week. Hell, Dick Cheney couldn't even keep his sh$# together.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by steingar

I don't know anyone in a militia, thus I know no one who is entitled to gun ownership by the 2nd ammendment. Gun ownership is a privilege, much like the operation of a motor vehicle or aircraft. Local and Federal govermental agencies can extend this privilege to anyone they deem qualified. In a perfect world the permit ot possess firearms would come with mandatory safety trianing in responsible firearm practises.

The argument that cars kill more people than guns is asinine. Far more people drive cars to work every day than actively handle firearms.

Just in sheer numbers, you are wrong with that. More people are killed by cars than guns every year (that doesn't include all killings, of course some are with knives). Sure, more people have cars, so statistical significance regarding vehicle/gun misuse, maybe there there is an issue, but in raw numbers? No way, cars kill more.

Because of the punctuation, there is some doubt in both the legal and lay circles about what the militia requirement really means, but I hear your point.
At the time, the "militias" were irregular groups of volunteer hunters, farmers, servants, and merchants, not any kind of regular soldiers or militia in the modern sense, and beholden to the states first, hence the modern analog of the National Guard...So, if you know anyone in the nat'l Guard, you know a member of a militia, who has the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun ownership is, as stated in the constitution, a right directly tied to basic principles of liberty from oppression...It might be limited to one degree or another, but that doesn't morph a right into a mere privilege. That is why the felon-thing is so disturbing to me (not that I would like to arm charlie manson or david berkowitz...)...Motor vehicle stuff, as it is the successor to the horse and buggy, is only barely a privilege, so I am not at all sure if we can justify all the regulation, although I do ACCEPT it without complaint.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Because of the punctuation, there is some doubt in both the legal and lay circles about what the militia requirement really means, but I hear your point.
At the time, the "militias" were irregular groups of volunteer hunters, farmers, servants, and merchants, not any kind of regular soldiers or militia in the modern sense, and beholden to the states first, hence the modern analog of the National Guard...So, if you know anyone in the nat'l Guard, you know a member of a militia, who has the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun ownership is, as stated in the constitution, a right directly tied to basic principles of liberty from oppression...It might be limited to one degree or another, but that doesn't morph a right into a mere privilege. That is why the felon-thing is so disturbing to me (not that I would like to arm charlie manson or david berkowitz...)...Motor vehicle stuff, as it is the successor to the horse and buggy, is only barely a privilege, so I am not at all sure if we can justify all the regulation, although I do ACCEPT it without complaint.

Thanks for the explanation on the Second Amendment
I do think that the NYC weapon requirements are an infringement. I don't see that registration of firearms is necessarily beneficial.
As far as the felons go, I understand your point about that they should be rehabilitated if the are reintroduced to society. But I think there are consequences that follow actions. For instance if you murder someone, you may be sorry for your action, serve your time, ask for and receive forgiveness, and never do it again, but the person will still be dead. I believe if you are convicted of a felony you should lose some rights. This is a portion of the detriment to committing those crimes, IMO.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

But I think there are consequences that follow actions. For instance if you murder someone, you may be sorry for your action, serve your time, ask for and receive forgiveness, and never do it again, but the person will still be dead. I believe if you are convicted of a felony you should lose some rights. This is a portion of the detriment to committing those crimes, IMO.

Exactly right. Your opinion actually touches on a major point of division within the prisoners' rights baliwick: what rights should you lose while in prison, what types of re-learning how to live in a civilized society should accompany the punishment part of prison, and what loss of rights permanently should follow a release from prison.

Although there is a fundamental division between punishment and rehabilitation, there is certainly no reason that a prison sentence can't be divided into thirds, with 2/3 punishment, and one third a focused rehab. There are no real rehabilitation (that is, re-learning how to live in a civilized society) programs in prison. There is job training only at a very minor level, no federal requirement to educate (and the fact is a better-educated population commits fewer crimes) and there are no reentry programs to speak of. The modern focus is to punish for the majority of the sentence, assuming that the felon will realize his wrong and ask for forgiveness at the end ignores the necessity of needing a non-repeat offender whan it's over. There are only a few higher ed programs, and when faced with the economic realities, most Americans get pissed off when we ask to use tax dollars to pay for a free education for prisoners, when an average student who commits no crime and has no money has to take out tons of student loans.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by analogbear

No, they just don't like arguing with me because I will constantly point out inconsistencies, or shift relevance, both hampering their ability to make a feeble point...

Actually, you are wrong on BOTH counts.
MANY people HAVE left this site, to find a better one. And your narcissism and incorrect, presumptuos, "intellectual superiority" is both assuming and hilariously incorrect.
Multiple people have layed the smack down on you on more than one occasion.
You have never "hampered any feeble point" that I have seen, rather the opposite holds true.
In fact, I doubt you are even a lawyer at any level. Law shool dropout, maybe. Other than the egotistical attitude where you think you know all, yet show to know none you have no other characteristics of an attorney.
Coming back today and deciding to look at your closed-minded, single viewpoints made these past couple months prove we need a system where a certain level of intellect should be achieved before being allowed to vote.
I'll leave you to your verbal masterbation with your left wing nut friends now.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Actually, you are wrong on BOTH counts.
MANY people HAVE left this site, to find a better one. And your narcissism and incorrect, presumptuos, "intellectual superiority" is both assuming and hilariously incorrect.
Multiple people have layed the smack down on you on more than one occasion.
You have never "hampered any feeble point" that I have seen, rather the opposite holds true.
In fact, I doubt you are even a lawyer at any level. Law shool dropout, maybe. Other than the egotistical attitude where you think you know all, yet show to know none you have no other characteristics of an attorney.
Coming back today and deciding to look at your closed-minded, single viewpoints made these past couple months prove we need a system where a certain level of intellect should be achieved before being allowed to vote.
I'll leave you to your verbal masterbation with your left wing nut friends now.

Get back to me when you can spell, you moron.