Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Fairwinds]

Semantics. Can one “regulate” free speech, without restricting it?

time, place and manner can restrict how speech is done (no bullhorns at midnight on your street), but not the content. and courts are suspicious of TPM regs that are aimed at suppressing the right itself. that’s what the gun grabbers want to do, regulate the right out of existence. they say they want to propose “reasonable” regulations, but what they’ll do is practically end the right to own a gun, if they have their way, and they won’t.

notice how obamacare regs were written after the obamacare law was passed? that’s exactly what will happen here. you won’t know how the law is put into effect until long after its in effect.

F/

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Semantics. Can one “regulate” free speech, without restricting it?

Try yelling fire in a crowded theater, or bomb on your next flight. Regulations prevent such action, or have consequences for doing so.

 

[styrgwillidar]

What law do we have that was established to work, and actually does work completely, that was proven to work in advance?

Obviously, no law could be proven in advance. However, we already have seen how gun laws work-- Chicago, DC prior to Heller and their restrictions being overthrown. The national assault weapon ban was determined by the FBI to have had no effect on crime.

We also have seen how more liberalized concealed carry laws have led to reductions in crime. The gun crime in DC dropped after Heller, although still higher than average.

We have seen how more restrictive gun laws in the United Kingdom and Australia have resulted in increased violent crime. Yes, pnewton, their homicide rate is less than the US, but it was less than the US before those laws were passed. The gun laws didn’t reduce the violent crime there despite the good intentions, it resulted in higher crime, including higher gun crime.

We also have seen how gun registries have led to confiscation, then oppression, then genocide/slaughter.

So, why do things that result in more violence, not less? If the Bishop’s point and moral teaching is that we should strive to reduce violence, than we should not just accept any gun restriction as legitimate which doesn’t actually achieve that goal.

Some things make sense, if they’re not tied to things that are non-sensical and counter-productive-

• Better/more thorough background checks.
• Better care for the mentally ill.
• Perhaps better education for those buying weapons? At least have to watch a video on basic safety and state laws? Not a pass fail test but at least something to spark a realization in a casual/impulsive buyer unfamiliar with firearms that it’s a very serious matter. (I probably posted earlier, after the Rodney King riots in LA, every gun store was sold out with the guns all in the 15 day waiting hold. Every clerk had horror stories about folks with absolutely no knowledge wanting a .44 Magnum; or some other hand-cannon)
• CA mandates that every weapon be sold with a trigger lock to promote safe storage. I think that’s actually a pretty reasonable law.
• Shall issue CCW
• Elimination of gun-free zones

 

[scipio337]

Try yelling fire in a crowded theater, or bomb on your next flight. Regulations prevent such action, or have consequences for doing so.

Exactly. We are restricted from yelling fire in a crowded theater, or making bomb jokes at an airport.

In those cases, we have a compelling government interest, the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (time, place and manner, as noted before), and done in the least restrictive means (yelling about GMF in front of the theater not restricted if property permitted).

In those cases, strict scrutiny review makes those restirctions of free speech acceptable.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Exactly. We are restricted from yelling fire in a crowded theater, or making bomb jokes at an airport.

In those cases, we have a compelling government interest, the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (time, place and manner, as noted before), and done in the least restrictive means (yelling about GMF in front of the theater not restricted if property permitted).

In those cases, strict scrutiny review makes those restirctions of free speech acceptable.

The same can be said for background checks of all firearm purchases.

 

[Fairwinds]

Exactly. We are restricted from yelling fire in a crowded theater, or making bomb jokes at an airport.

In those cases, we have a compelling government interest, the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest (time, place and manner, as noted before), and done in the least restrictive means (yelling about GMF in front of the theater not restricted if property permitted).

In those cases, strict scrutiny review makes those restirctions of free speech acceptable.

hence, the government can place heavy restrictions on ownership of automatic rifles to the point where its a near ban, but can’t regulate into nonexistence the private ownership of handguns.

 

[scipio337]

The same can be said for background checks of all firearm purchases.

I wouldn’t call making loaning a gun to a friend when not physically at a gun range or “before” they go on a hunting trip a felony “narrowly tailored” or “least restrictive”, would you?

 

[Lapey]

I really don’t think our bishops are so out of touch as to not know the incidents that brought about the statement. With that said, there has not been one bishop that has made a clarification, one way or the other. If one cannot take silence as support, it would be just as wrong to say the silence is in disagreement. We are not guided through silence.

To be fair to the bishop’s statement, mental health issues were a part of the statement. Also, while this was in response of a single tragic incident, the problem has been evident in more than a single incident. As the men of the Church have referenced, the easy access to guns is a contributing factor to the problem.

This is the part of the equation you are forgetting, the bishops job is not making public statements so you or the press know how they feel. I work with my bishop quite often and have a good relationship with him and I would venture to say if you were to ask him personally face to face he would tell you…well frankly, nothing. Then go on with life. More gun control will not stop Sandyhook. What will is arming people in the schools with proper training. Either trained law enforcement and/or military or admins and teachers.

As far as the mental health issue, if our current administration would make as much hay about mental illness, which the other side of the isle agrees, as he does with gun control, which the other side as we know objects, we would be on our way to fixing some of the mental health issues facing this nation.

Barrack Obama’s agenda has nothing to do with agreement, only separation. He is a divide and conquer president straight out of Saul Alinsky’s writings.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

This is the part of the equation you are forgetting, the bishops job is not making public statements so you or the press know how they feel. I work with my bishop quite often and have a good relationship with him and I would venture to say if you were to ask him personally face to face he would tell you…well frankly, nothing. Then go on with life. More gun control will not stop Sandyhook. What will is arming people in the schools with proper training. Either trained law enforcement and/or military or admins and teachers.

As far as the mental health issue, if our current administration would make as much hay about mental illness, which the other side of the isle agrees, as he does with gun control, which the other side as we know objects, we would be on our way to fixing some of the mental health issues facing this nation.

Barrack Obama’s agenda has nothing to do with agreement, only separation. He is a divide and conquer president straight out of Saul Alinsky’s writings.

Thank you, Deacon.

I bolded the important part of your statement.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I wouldn’t call making loaning a gun to a friend when not physically at a gun range or “before” they go on a hunting trip a felony “narrowly tailored” or “least restrictive”, would you?

Are you willing to assume the responsibility for any actions another takes with your gun? I, personally, would not loan a gun to someone I was not accompanying.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is the part of the equation you are forgetting, the bishops job is not making public statements so you or the press know how they feel. I work with my bishop quite often and have a good relationship with him and I would venture to say if you were to ask him personally face to face he would tell you…well frankly, nothing. Then go on with life. More gun control will not stop Sandyhook. What will is arming people in the schools with proper training. Either trained law enforcement and/or military or admins and teachers.

As far as the mental health issue, if our current administration would make as much hay about mental illness, which the other side of the isle agrees, as he does with gun control, which the other side as we know objects, we would be on our way to fixing some of the mental health issues facing this nation.

Barrack Obama’s agenda has nothing to do with agreement, only separation. He is a divide and conquer president straight out of Saul Alinsky’s writings.

I am going to repeat another post of mine.

These committees that most recently communicated guidance referred to the Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

Is this the opinions of a few? It is the same language used in “USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy.” The only differences, I saw, was the inclusion of ‘assault weapons,’ as part of it’s terminology.

In the Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice document, it states:

The text for Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice originated from the Committee on Domestic Policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their November 2000 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.

It’s the same guidance, at different times and in the face of different tragedies. Why would a bishop speak on a repeat of something the full body of bishops have already agreed to? They have spoken on this subject.

The rest of your post goes into political discussions. The bishops are not offering guidance on political, but moral. Even with that said, Cardian Dolan said he found common ground with the president, and the Vatican Chief Spokesperson stated an agreement with the president on gun controls. None of which prevented them from addressing a need to look at mental illnesses.

 

[Lapey]

I am going to repeat another post of mine.

These committees that most recently communicated guidance referred to the Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

Is this the opinions of a few? It is the same language used in “USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy.” The only differences, I saw, was the inclusion of ‘assault weapons,’ as part of it’s terminology.

In the Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice document, it states:

It’s the same guidance, at different times and in the face of different tragedies. Why would a bishop speak on a repeat of something the full body of bishops have already agreed to? They have spoken on this subject.

The rest of your post goes into political discussions. The bishops are not offering guidance on political, but moral. Even with that said, Cardian Dolan said he found common ground with the president, and the Vatican Chief Spokesperson stated an agreement with the president on gun controls. None of which prevented them from addressing a need to look at mental illnesses.

You can post and think whatever you like, but this does not change reality. Later PS 1, peace.

 

[scipio337]

Are you willing to assume the responsibility for any actions another takes with your gun? I, personally, would not loan a gun to someone I was not accompanying.

Most states make the owner liable for any crime committed with that firearm if loaned to someone restricted from gun ownership, and some (Conneticut) even have “criminally negligent storage laws” for crimes committed with poorly stored firearms (has been the law there since 1997)

That would mean I need to accompany my 17 year old stepson to go dove hunting, since he’s not legally eligible to own the firearm on his own. Again, not “narrowly tailored” or “least restrictive”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You can post and think whatever you like, but this does not change reality. Later PS 1, peace.

Reality was posted and clear. “It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their November 2000 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.”

Later brother.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If they draft a statement and vote on it at the next conference, then they can count on your support?

BTW, which bishop(s) have opposed any background checks or any more stringent gun laws? Just asking.

No to the first question.

If the bishops issue a moral instruction applicable to all according to canon law; i.e. an instructive resolution approved by all of the bishops or, alternatively, pursuant to Vatican mandate with a 2/3 vote, then it would be obligatory on me. There really wouldn’t be anything more to know. Anything short of that is not. Certainly, if my own bishop issued a moral instruction that all within the diocese had a moral obligation to support some specific gun legislation, that would be obligatory on me as well. One would wonder, though, whether the Vatican would want detailed political directives issued by bishops when there is not a question of inherent evil involved in the action or inaction.

I very much doubt either of those things will happen, precisely because the Church itself makes a distinction between binding moral imperatives and matters of prudential judgment on which people may, in good conscience, differ with any particular churchman’s opinion.

As to the second question, I have no idea what any particular bishop would oppose in any specific gun proposal, and doubt very much there would even be a consensus on any particular legislative proposal. When it comes to the distinction whether any particular bishop favors background checks and whether any bishop favors mandatory background checks in a person-to-person transaction, I believe most bishops would disfavor even stating an opinion because they could not possibly know all the pros and cons of it, any more than they would know whether having highway speeds limited to 65 or 70 is an important moral issue in some way. If the government itself, with all of its resources, doesn’t know how many people are killed if John is free to sell or give his rifle to Joe without a background check, then I’m sure most bishops would not presume to base a moral instruction on a total speculation like that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Reality was posted and clear. “It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their November 2000 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.”

Later brother.

It called for “sensible regulation” of automatic weapons (which are so heavily regulated only criminals have them in any quantity) and handguns. What “sensible regulation” is, is not surprisingly left to the prudential judgment of individuals.

Now, you can argue about what you think is “sensible regulation” or is not, based on that. But you can’t attribute your own opinions about what’s “sensible” to the bishops of the U.S. generally, and you certainly can’t purport to impose your own opinions about what’s “sensible” on other Catholics based on your own judgment about it, let alone what’s moral.

It might be added that the body of the bishops in 2000 is not the same as it is in 2013.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It called for “sensible regulation” of automatic weapons (which are so heavily regulated only criminals have them in any quantity) and handguns. What “sensible regulation” is, is not surprisingly left to the prudential judgment of individuals.

Now, you can argue about what you think is “sensible regulation” or is not, based on that. But you can’t attribute your own opinions about what’s “sensible” to the bishops of the U.S. generally, and you certainly can’t purport to impose your own opinions about what’s “sensible” on other Catholics based on your own judgment about it, let alone what’s moral.

It might be added that the body of the bishops in 2000 is not the same as it is in 2013.

As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of
handguns.36

Where are the ‘new’ bishops that do not agree with the calling according to the documents on the USCCB? It really seems to be grasping at straws to maintain a personal view. Does something change without the full body of bishops?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Where are the ‘new’ bishops that do not agree with the calling according to the documents on the USCCB? It really seems to be grasping at straws to maintain a personal view. Does something change without the full body of bishops?

The new bishops? Well, you don’t see them all signing up in support of Blaire, do you?

As to your last sentence, it’s the other way around, as has been pointed out repeatedly. NOTHING changes without either the full body of bishops supporting a resolution unanimously or 2/3 supporting it pursuant to a Vatican mandate. That’s canon law. Blaire’s letter has neither. It’s just his opinion about what legislation generally ought to do, and is not a moral mandate obligatory on Catholics.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The new bishops? Well, you don’t see them all signing up in support of Blaire, do you?

As to your last sentence, it’s the other way around, as has been pointed out repeatedly. NOTHING changes without either the full body of bishops supporting a resolution unanimously or 2/3 supporting it pursuant to a Vatican mandate. That’s canon law. Blaire’s letter has neither. It’s just his opinion about what legislation generally ought to do, and is not a moral mandate obligatory on Catholics.

The full body of bishops approved the publication of “Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” Blaire, and the other committees chairmen, and the president of the USCCB Cardinal Dolan, reiterated the calls in that document. That document is more defined than the most recent calls, and states the same views. Now, you point out that there are ‘new’ bishops. Wouldn’t rescinding a document on behalf of the full body also require a full body of the bishops?

 

[Tomdstone]

More gun control will not stop Sandyhook. What will is arming people in the schools with proper training.

No. Gun control works very well in Germany today. And giving people more guns in schools only increases the risk of more violence and student deaths.