CT and FBFI on gun control
- 17 views
It’s unlikely that anything short of a constitutional amendment reversing the 2nd amendment would make much of a difference, and then “making much of a difference” would come at a great cost.
A couple of relevant facts in the debate: for a couple of months earlier this year, London’s murder rate exceeded NY’s — large majority of the killings performed with knives. The most recent school shooting in Santa Fe — a .38 revolver and a shotgun. Quite a few of recent shootings (maybe a majority) were performed with already illegally-owned guns.
There’s no legislative fix for human nature… and passing a law only mitigates at all if it’s a law that (a) hits where it needs to and (b) can be enforced effectively.
There are some relatively good new gun measures in the works, but these are not going to eliminate murder or reduce the death rate enough to be very satisfying.
What our society can’t seem to figure out and accept at this point: not everything has a legislative solution.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Observations and what perhaps all can agree:
Observation: Seems like a wasted blog post / article by the FBFI. What?! Can’t even agree that gun violence is bad!
On gun violence:
- When I was in spinal cord rehab 30 years ago - I met perhaps half a dozen victims of gun violence (spinal cord and brain injuries). It’s not pretty at all. One Steven McDonald / since passed
- On the morning of April 1st my nephew’s ex wife was shot in the head by her boyfriend - her name is Amanda. Someone I know! [she survived but severely messed up]
- Can’t we all agree that humans have value and that “God hates gun violence!”
On [from CT] “We American Christians have a biblical call to reduce firearm deaths in our land.”
- There’s some (quite a bit actually) scope creep from the Great Commission!
- But “Blessed are the peacemakers” Matthew 5:9
On ” we also see a need to regulate the purchase and use of guns.”
- Agreed but there’s quite a bit of regulation already in place
- I’ve bought a gun as an adult and have seen it 1st hand!
On “keep guns in general out of the hands of unstable personalities” [agreed - more could be done here. The Parkland shooter and the Texas church shooter should have been gated by existing laws … they slipped through and ‘the system’ failed the victims]
Where I diverge from CT:
- “Christians should work to ban weapons whose main purpose is to kill a lot of people very quickly”
- They are getting to the so-called “assault weapons” (a misnomer)
- Any gun can kill many people quickly (well not a musket or a Derringer)
Jim. The Christianity Today article was just a repost for informational purposes. We were not trying to make any statement about gun violence. We were just noting that we will not be making any statement for or against gun control which was the conclusion of the Christianity Today article. We have already had full length blog posts declaring our abhorrence of violence in all its forms.
As a Brit I had to learn about the 2nd Amendment after I came here. I have been the victim of gun violence, but I think Galli’s remarks are dumb. 1. There are already good strict gun laws in existence. 2. Someone set on killing isn’t going to bother with those laws. 3. Many a shooter has been stopped or deterred by law-abiding citizens with guns. 4. The averages he gives are bumped up because of certain cities’ murder rates - and those cities (e.g. Chicago) have the strictest gun laws in the country (see # 2). 5. God hates knife violence and baseball bat violence etc.
Dr. Paul Henebury
I am Founder of Telos Ministries, and Senior Pastor at Agape Bible Church in N. Ca.
7 year old picks up loaded gun and shoots self
http://www.startribune.com/plymouth-police-11-year-old-held-gun-moments…
Police said four children ages 7 to 11 were playing without an adult at the home when Keyaris, indoors by himself, found the weapon in a box with a new hoverboard.
The search warrant affidavit, filed in Hennepin County District Court, seeks a judge’s permission to collect DNA from the mother’s friend in an effort to tie the Minneapolis man to any fingerprints left on the weapon.
Investigators also have collected DNA from Keyaris’ mother and the 11-year-old, “who reported handling the gun moments before the incident occurred,” the document read.
The court filing also noted that officers a half-full box of .357-caliber ammunition was located in a diaper bag and was the same caliber as the gun Keyaris found one afternoon at Commonbond Communities’ Vicksburg Commons, a townhouse complex on Shenandoah Lane N.
“Evidence found at the scene suggests that the handgun had been negligently stored, causing endangerment to a child,” the document read.
Keyaris’ mother arrived home shortly after the shooting, according to Police Chief Mike Goldstein. She told police she was unaware the gun was in the box and that it was not hers. She said she believed it was brought there by her friend, who failed to show up for a meeting with his parole officer earlier in the day of the shooting stemming from a 2016 felony drunken driving conviction.
The friend was jailed Sunday in connection at the request of state corrections authorities. Conditions of the man’s parole include not possessing possess firearms or ammunition.
The mother’s friend has a long criminal history in Minnesota that includes six convictions for drunken driving, at least a dozen for driving without a valid license, three for drug possession, and one each for fleeing police and assault.
Jim, the story to which you refer is not gun violence, it is gun negligence. Don’t get the two confused. Just like a parent leaving tide-pods on the counter, or leaving the gate open to the swimming pool. Stupid, negligent, preventable, but not gun violence. Don’t get the two confused.
I don’t really know how anyone could be against all forms of gun control. But it might be better to call some of these regulations “buyer control” or something like that. The laws that try to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons have merits that seem obvious to me. I think it makes sense to extend that to convicted of violent animal abuse (there is a very very strong correlation between people who kill pets and people who eventually kill humans), those with certain forms of serious mental illness. And the efforts of some states to enact various kinds of temporary emergency restraining orders/extreme risk protection orders in reference to firearms make sense to me as well.
Two caveats though:
- There are tradeoffs for all of these regulations: they can be abused and may limit the rights of innocent people sometimes
- There is no way to legislatively prevent all gun violence short of ditching the 2nd amendment and implementing a nationwide “war on guns” to get rid of them all and stop any from entering the country. (Even then, we all know how well the “war on drugs” went!)
So the constant hue and cry to solve this problem with more legislation (or just “do something!!!”) is pretty silly. At best, we can only mitigate the problem a little by that route.
(By the way, the reason the NRA’s beloved Reciprocity Act is a bad idea is that it would make a mess of many state’s efforts to keep guns out of the hands of violent crazies… in addition to directly undermining federalism. Conservatives can’t credibly trumpet state’s rights when it suits them then turn around and attack state’s rights when it doesn’t.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/25/firearms-industry-needs-part-gun-sa…
We need to do more to safeguard our communities. We know the Santa Fe murderer was underage and prohibited from purchasing firearms. To commit his horrific crimes, he stole the type of guns that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans own. He illegally carried the firearms into a designated gun-free zone and horrifically murdered several of his classmates and a teacher.
No single piece of legislation can address the underlying societal issues that might encourage a teenager to commit such an unspeakable act of violence. Our society must discuss mental health resources, juvenile crime, enhanced school security, and training for educators willing to take responsibility for protecting themselves and their students.
We must discuss the role of the media and the effects gratuitous on-screen violence has on young viewers. We must discuss stiffer penalties for those who steal and commit crimes with firearms. We must have an honest discussion about our responsibilities to our children as parents. We must discuss gun owners’ responsibilities that come with the exercise of our Second Amendment rights.
Members of the firearms industry believe in effective solutions that will help make our communities safer. Our industry is focused on working to prevent the unauthorized access to firearms by children, criminals, the dangerously mentally ill and others who cannot be trusted to handle firearms in a safe and responsible manner. We believe that preventing unauthorized access to firearms of any kind at any time can help prevent accidents and deter thefts, suicides, and the criminal misuse of firearms.
Run on behalf of the firearms industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Own It? Respect It. Secure It initiative was built on our industry’s long-standing commitment to safety and developed to encourage firearm safety and responsible storage. It also amplifies the firearm safety message of our ongoing Project ChildSafe campaign, which has distributed more than 37 million free firearm safety kits, including gun locks, through partnerships with more than 15,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states.
We recognize safely storing firearms is only one part of the solution to this vexing problem. The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding and responsible. We know they love their children and their communities and want safe schools.
I read all replys to this articles with great interest. Yours has a great deal of content that I find interesting. I was born and raised in PA and since 2005 we’ve lived in New Jersey. My Dad was a gunsmith for years and our family handloaded thousnads of rifle, handgun, and shotgun shells each year, back in the day. CUP’s or copper units of pressure, which is is a measurement used in the ammunition industry to determine the chamber pressure created by a cartridge load. Originally, a precisely formed copper slug was placed in a fixture over the chamber. When the cartridge was fired, the amount of crushing measured on the slug allowed engineers to determine the pressure.
When a factory load is duplicated by the handloader, the CUP’s are well know. Handloading manuals give loads with less velocity than factory as well as the maximum velocity while showing the amount of CUP’s. Believe it or not, a cartridge loaded to lower than recommended velocity sometimes caused the amount of CUP’s to excede what is safe in a given firearm.
I said that to ask, where did you get sub-sonic rounds for a .38 ? Is it possible that you are refering to some old black powder cartridges such as the 38-40, 38 S & W, or even the .38 Short Colt ? I’ve never heard of a modern smokeless .38 round being that slow as to not break the sound barrier. But, we live and learn.
Thank you for your patience in reading this - I’ve been out of all thing firearms since coming to NJ and I’ve fallen way behind in what is out there.
Bob Rogish
[Aaron Blumer](By the way, the reason the NRA’s beloved Reciprocity Act is a bad idea is that it would make a mess of many state’s efforts to keep guns out of the hands of violent crazies… in addition to directly undermining federalism. Conservatives can’t credibly trumpet state’s rights when it suits them then turn around and attack state’s rights when it doesn’t.)
I don’t know if it would apply to the Reciprocity Act or not, but it’s valid to argue that the 10th Amendment disallows states from taking powers prohibited to them by the Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment disallows infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I’d agree that there’s room for disagreement on some of the interpretations of that (like CC reciprocity), but considering the possibility that such an act could fall under the 2nd rather than the 10th is hardly an outright attack on federalism under the Constitution as written.
Dave Barnhart
Actually powers not given to the Federal Gov. are reserved to the states. What should happen, if there are state laws in violation of the 2nd Amend, citizens in those states should take the law to court as unconstitutional. So, assuming the state laws in question are not unconstitutional, the Fed. Gov. should not regulate constitutional gun regulation in the states. Where there is ambiguity about constitutionality, the States should be free to set their own rules until the ambiguity is resolved.
(I’m pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that several state’s gun laws do not violate 2nd Amend…. things like background checks, waiting periods, mental health checks, and the like…. the kinds of things that Reciprocity Act would effectively nullify, because it would effectively make the lowest standard in the union the standard for all states.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer]Actually powers not given to the Federal Gov. are reserved to the states. What should happen, if there are state laws in violation of the 2nd Amend, citizens in those states should take the law to court as unconstitutional. So, assuming the state laws in question are not unconstitutional, the Fed. Gov. should not regulate constitutional gun regulation in the states. Where there is ambiguity about constitutionality, the States should be free to set their own rules until the ambiguity is resolved.
(I’m pretty sure SCOTUS has already ruled that several state’s gun laws do not violate 2nd Amend…. things like background checks, waiting periods, mental health checks, and the like…. the kinds of things that Reciprocity Act would effectively nullify, because it would effectively make the lowest standard in the union the standard for all states.)
Right, and the constitution lays out that states cannot infringe on the right to bear arms (whatever “infringe” and “arms” are determined to mean by the Supreme Court). You are, of course, correct that some state and local restrictions have been decided to not be in violation of “infringement.” However, under the SCOTUS Heller decision, which determined that some local laws did, in fact, “infringe,” it has been determined that there is an individual right to bear arms, not just keep them, and not only does that apply nationwide, it has opened the door to a possible CC reciprocity law.
Of course, if national CC reciprocity is passed, there will certainly be challenges to it by the states that don’t want that (and I’m sure there will be an anti-federalism argument used), so it will presumably head to the Supreme Court after going through one of the circuit courts most likely to be friendly to the states wanting restrictions. SCOTUS has been reticent so far to decide a gun case with more than very limited ramifications (they may be trying to avoid a large-scale decision one way or another), but a decision on a CC reciprocity law would necessarily have nationwide import. I have no idea what would come out of such a decision, but even if CC reciprocity were determined to be constitutional, there may end up being some national level of standard for carry that is higher than the “lowest common denominator,” which, depending on how it applies, might be an undesired outcome in states with very lax regulations. Either way, since the constitution itself reserves the right to bear arms to the people, not the States, I can’t see that attempting to pass a nationwide CC law (which would clarify a right already enshrined in the Constitution) as in violation of federalism just by its existence, even if it’s approached from a direction opposite to that you would see as proper (i.e. the people in the states challenging the constitutionality of local laws first, which is, I believe, what resulted in Heller).
Because of the existence of the 2nd Amendment, I would see this as qualitatively different from a national law, that say, prevented the removal of Confederate statues, which would be in clear violation of federalism. I’ll agree that certain parts of this are arguable (i.e., no mention of “concealed” in 2nd amendment, or what are reasonable restrictions that states can enact), but that’s my point — let’s argue what’s valid and hash it out, rather than claiming national CC is absolutely anti-federalism.
Dave Barnhart
This is true…
“there may end up being some national level of standard for carry that is higher than the “lowest common denominator,”
In the meantime, though, there’s going to be a whole lot of chaos.
To me, it’s not so much about ability to carry as about what the process should be for being judged fit to carry. States have very different ways of doing that, but under RA, if you get CC in a state with low/no standards, you also get CC in a state that tries to filter out high-risk individuals. I just think it’s not the right way to protect right to carry.
Might be better to go for a law that just says something like “all 50 states must permit CC according to standards they develop by X date.” Then you strengthen constitutional carry but leave states room to work out the particulars. But yes, that would still leave people qualified in some states but not qualified in others. I’m OK with that.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Bob, at sea level the speed of sound is about 1,125 fps. A typical .38 special round has a muzzle velocity of only about 800fps. Well below the speed of sound. .38 Spl +P is only pushing 1,000 fps.
.357 magnum with a 125 grain bullet is about 1,450 fps, well above the speed of sound. .357 Sig which is mentioned above runs from 1,250 fps up to 1,600 fps.
I have been an avid reloader for many years loading about 10,000 rounds per year.
I grew up in NJ but moved to Georgia (via BJU) in 1978. I do not travel to or through NJ anymore as a personal political statement. I also try not to purchase any supplies or products from NJ vendors in my business.
Discussion