Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation

[JonNC]

Here is a small excerpt from the link below (few readers read the links):

Of course we can definitely trust conclusions from www.gunowners.org, right???

Yes, as much as we should trust the conclusions of any source.

 

[JonNC]

1cthlctrth:

Yes, I agree that it would be a good idea to keep guns away from those who are convicted on domestic violence charges. Good point.

How about people subject to restraining orders because of domestic violence? Should they be prohibited from possessing or carrying firearms (at least during the term of the restraining order)?

And what level of conviction? Felonies only, or misdemeanors (of domestic violence) as well?

What level do we use to restrict other constitutionally protected individual rights? That should be a guiding principle.
What protections would be put in place to prevent the abuse of restraining orders intended solely to punish the accused?
What protections would be in place to
prevent zealous anti-gun rights officials from abusing said laws?

 

[Inisfallen]

Ask a question, get nothing but questions in response.

You have no obligation to take a position on the questions I posted, of course, nor does 1C, but I was curious.

Never mind.

 

[JonNC]

1cthlctrth:

• Guns are safer than many things we use every day. For example, nobody would say we should ban automobiles.

No, nobody says that. You’re right about that.

Interesting analogy, though. People do say we should regulate the right to drive. One needs a license.

And people do say we should ban, for example, drunk or otherwise intoxicated driving. Or driving too fast. Or incompetently (i.e., weaving, etc.) And we do say that people who have driven drunk should lose their licenses, for a period of time or forever.

And we do prohibit driving a car that has not passed a safety inspection (and an emissions inspection, as far as I know, at least in most states).

And we do ban driving certain kinds of motor vehicles on public roads.

Interesting that none of these are at the federal level. Also note that we do have restrictions on firearms ownership by age in most jurisdictions, and the rescinding of the privilege to driving is based on the individual’s behavior, not the car.

Finally, the difference between cars and firearms is firearms are a constitutionally protected individual right that “shall not be infringed”.

 

[Inisfallen]

Interesting that none of these are at the federal level.

There’s an enormous body of federal law regulating motor vehicles and their use.

Not to mention roads.

We do indeed regulate motor vehicles and transportation at the federal level.

We do, however, leave the issuance of driver’s licenses to the states, for the most part.

 

[JonNC]

Ask a question, get nothing but questions in response.

You have no obligation to take a position on the questions I posted, of course, nor does 1C, but I was curious.

Never mind.

I did answer your question, in that I laid out important principles and considerations. Did you to except simple yes/no ?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Interesting that none of these are at the federal level.

There’s an enormous body of federal law regulating motor vehicles and their use.

Not to mention roads.

We do indeed regulate motor vehicles and transportation at the federal level.

We do, however, leave the issuance of driver’s licenses to the states, for the most part.

Again, little of what you mentioned in your post comes under federal jurisdiction. But whether we are speaking of state or federal jurisdiction, the constitutionally protected individual right cannot be infringed. There is no presumption of an individual right to drive on public roads.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Finally, the difference between cars and firearms is firearms are a constitutionally protected individual right that “shall not be infringed”.

That is a difference, but since no one is proposing an outright ban of automobiles, this difference is irrelevant. And the reason it is not being proposed is that it is deemed sage enough given the benefits. The same cannot be said of guns.

 

[Inisfallen]

Did you to except simple yes/no ?

Expect? No.

Hope for a clear answer? Yes.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Finally, the difference between cars and firearms is firearms are a constitutionally protected individual right that “shall not be infringed”.

That is a difference, but since no one is proposing an outright ban of automobiles, this difference is irrelevant. And the reason it is not being proposed is that it is deemed sage enough given the benefits. The same cannot be said of guns.

It seems, then, that the argument is that there should not be guns in the hands of private citizens because of the “lack of benefits “.
Is that correct?

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Did you to except simple yes/no ?

Expect? No.

Hope for a clear answer? Yes.

If you expect a clear and concise answer, ask a question that is not plagued with vagueness.

 

[JonNC]

1cthlctrth:

Yes, I agree that it would be a good idea to keep guns away from those who are convicted on domestic violence charges. Good point.

How about people subject to restraining orders because of domestic violence? Should they be prohibited from possessing or carrying firearms (at least during the term of the restraining order)?

And what level of conviction? Felonies only, or misdemeanors (of domestic violence) as well?

Since you thought I left the question unanswered, here again is the basic principle.
You asked at what level of conviction. Ask the question about any constitutionally protected individual right.
If you come to the 2nd as if it is a right inferior to other protected rights, that is a premise I reject. The right to arms is equal to speech, due process, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, to name just a few.
My earlier response included a references to protections against officials who might abuse a statute precisely because there are officials who are hostile to this right.
Without these kinds of protections, our mutual goal of keeping arms out of the hands of those who are a threat is difficult to accomplish.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

Finally, the difference between cars and firearms is firearms are a constitutionally protected individual right that “shall not be infringed”.

That is a difference, but since no one is proposing an outright ban of automobiles, this difference is irrelevant. And the reason it is not being proposed is that it is deemed sage enough given the benefits. The same cannot be said of guns.

It seems, then, that the argument is that there should not be guns in the hands of private citizens because of the “lack of benefits “.
Is that correct?

Not at all. The argument is that guns should be regulated so that in some circumstances, where the dangers outweigh the benefits, guns should not be in the hands of some private citizens. You want to make it an all-or-nothing thing, and it just isn’t.

 

[JonNC]

Not at all. The argument is that guns should be regulated so that in some circumstances, where the dangers outweigh the benefits, guns should not be in the hands of some private citizens. You want to make it an all-or-nothing thing, and it just isn’t.

Agreed. Now, how do we do that without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of law abiding civilians ?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Not at all. The argument is that guns should be regulated so that in some circumstances, where the dangers outweigh the benefits, guns should not be in the hands of some private citizens. You want to make it an all-or-nothing thing, and it just isn’t.

Agreed. Now, how do we do that without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of law abiding civilians ?

Carefully.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Not at all. The argument is that guns should be regulated so that in some circumstances, where the dangers outweigh the benefits, guns should not be in the hands of some private citizens. You want to make it an all-or-nothing thing, and it just isn’t.

Agreed. Now, how do we do that without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of law abiding civilians ?

Carefully.

That’s vague. More precise, recognizing that the right to arms in imbedded in the individual right of self defense, not only from other individuals, but also government, we have to do it in a way that does not provide a future tyrant the tools to confiscate. The recent comments by Swalwell are an example of why any kind of registry is off the table.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Not at all. The argument is that guns should be regulated so that in some circumstances, where the dangers outweigh the benefits, guns should not be in the hands of some private citizens. You want to make it an all-or-nothing thing, and it just isn’t.

Agreed. Now, how do we do that without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of law abiding civilians ?

Carefully.

That’s vague. More precise, recognizing that the right to arms in imbedded in the individual right of self defense, not only from other individuals, but also government, we have to do it in a way that does not provide a future tyrant the tools to confiscate. The recent comments by Swalwell are an example of why any kind of registry is off the table.

I think it can be done “carefully” without admitting to all the “musts” in your list. Actually, they are quite vague too. How, exactly, does one recognize the right to arms as embedded in the individual right to self-defense? And I do not agree that a registry is off the table. The Constitution does not prohibit it.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Not at all. The argument is that guns should be regulated so that in some circumstances, where the dangers outweigh the benefits, guns should not be in the hands of some private citizens. You want to make it an all-or-nothing thing, and it just isn’t.

Agreed. Now, how do we do that without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of law abiding civilians ?

Carefully.

That’s vague. More precise, recognizing that the right to arms in imbedded in the individual right of self defense, not only from other individuals, but also government, we have to do it in a way that does not provide a future tyrant the tools to confiscate. The recent comments by Swalwell are an example of why any kind of registry is off the table.

I think it can be done “carefully” without admitting to all the “musts” in your list. Actually, they are quite vague too. How, exactly, does one recognize the right to arms as embedded in the individual right to self-defense? And I do not agree that a registry is off the table. The Constitution does not prohibit it.

Registry is off the table because governments use it as a prerequisite for confiscation. That’s why. But when talking about the constitution, the question should always be, “does the constitution provide government with that power. The constitution is an expansive protection of individual rights and a narrow and specific limit on government power. Looking for loopholes to expand government power is a great danger to individual rights. A registry is an excellent example of this.
The right to arms is embedded in the right to self defense going back to the Magna Carta and before.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

JonNC:

LeafByNiggle:

Not at all. The argument is that guns should be regulated so that in some circumstances, where the dangers outweigh the benefits, guns should not be in the hands of some private citizens. You want to make it an all-or-nothing thing, and it just isn’t.

Agreed. Now, how do we do that without infringing on the rights of tens of millions of law abiding civilians ?

Carefully.

That’s vague. More precise, recognizing that the right to arms in imbedded in the individual right of self defense, not only from other individuals, but also government, we have to do it in a way that does not provide a future tyrant the tools to confiscate. The recent comments by Swalwell are an example of why any kind of registry is off the table.

I think it can be done “carefully” without admitting to all the “musts” in your list. Actually, they are quite vague too. How, exactly, does one recognize the right to arms as embedded in the individual right to self-defense? And I do not agree that a registry is off the table. The Constitution does not prohibit it.

Registry is off the table because governments use it as a prerequisite for confiscation.

Not a sufficient reason.

That’s why. But when talking about the constitution, the question should always be, “does the constitution provide government with that power.

That’s a question for the courts, and they have not ruled against such a registry.

The right to arms is embedded in the right to self defense going back to the Magna Carta and before.

The Magna Carta is not an official or legally binding document in the United States.

 

[JonNC]

Registry is off the table because governments use it as a prerequisite for confiscation.

Not a sufficient reason.

That’s why. But when talking about the constitution, the question should always be, “does the constitution provide government with that power.

That’s a question for the courts, and they have not ruled against such a registry.

The right to arms is embedded in the right to self defense going back to the Magna Carta and before.

The Magna Carta is not an official or legally binding document in the United States.
[/quote]

That reason is sufficient enough to vigorously oppose it, which I believe anyone who believes in the right should do. If we are mutually looking for ways to prevent those who should not have guns from getting them, a registry is and cannot be a mutually agreed upon idea.

First, it is a question for the legislative, which thus far has been intelligent enough to not approach that attempt at tyranny.

You asked how it is embedded in the individual right to self defense. That individual right was recognized in the Magna Carta and before. Governments don’t create rights. They recognize, protect, and sadly enough, often oppress them.
[/QUOTE]