9mm

Dailypress.com:

Gov. Terry McAuliffe announced a package of proposed gun control measures Monday, saying Virginia should reinstate its one-handgun-a-month rule and tighten restrictions on who can carry a gun to target domestic abusers.

He also called for new background check requirements on private gun sales at gun shows.

The bulk of McAuliffe’s proposals are sure to bring criticism from gun advocates, and a spokesman for Speaker of the House William Howell criticized the governor’s proposals shortly after their announcement.

But the governor, speaking one day after the anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings, said his proposals are common sense measures to help keep Virginians safe.

Virginia’s law limiting handgun purchases to one a month was rolled back in 2012, during Gov. Bob McDonnell’s term. McAuliffe said Monday that the limit is needed to prevent dangerous people from stockpiling or trafficking weapons.

McAuliffe’s background check proposal is a fairly narrow version of proposals that have come up a number of times around the country, and at the federal level, in recent years. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to perform background checks on purchasers, but there’s no such requirement for person-to-person sales.

That means people can sell guns to family members, friends or strangers without checking to see if they have a criminal record. This is commonly called the gun-show loophole, and McAuliffe’s proposal would require universal background checks “for all purchases at gun shows.”

The legislation wouldn’t deal with person-to-person sales outside of gun shows, McAuliffe spokeswoman Rachel Thomas said in an email. Second Amendment advocates have derided broader background check proposals in the past, saying they put too much onus on private owners.

A separate proposal would make it illegal for gun shows to advertise that background checks aren’t required there. They’re allowed to do so now, “creating an easy environment to solicit business from individuals legally prohibited from buying firearms,” the governor’s office said in a news release.

I am sure that no one who is a regular frequent flyer on this blog  thinks that this blog is going to criticize the governor for his move to rein in some of the  free-wheeling unregulated gun culture in this state.  They are correct.  I am not.  However, I am also not choosing this issue to fall on my sword over.

What I do see is a need to do all possible to stop gun trafficking.  It has been an on-going problem, especially to states like New York and New Jersey where it is far more difficult to get one’s hands on sidearms.   The statistics used to be alarming.  I also know that the gun rights advocates will probably come along with their own set of statistics, saying it doesn’t happen–no gun trafficking outside the state.

I also know a little bit about the mind set of the 2A folks.  They see any attempt to regulate gun sales or use as whittling away of their rights.  They are probably forced, like the pro-choice people, into even defending laws and regulations they would oppose, were times different.  They probably feel they have to nip any restrictions in the bud.  Once the camel sticks his nose under the tent, he takes over the tent.  I have totally sympathy for the 2A people with this mind set.  That is exactly how Pro-choice people feel, and rightly so.  That is exactly what will happen.

What I would like to hear is how McAuliffe’s suggestions place an undue burden on gun owners.  I want to hear why gun shows should be able to advertise that there are no background checks and I also want to know what assurances we have that gun traffickers aren’t buying up Virginia guns and taking the north to sell on the black market.

Most of us on this blog are gun owners.  Some of us are activists.  I am not.  I don’t mind having limitations on guns.  Please folks, no car analogies.  Let’s look at intent.  Cars aren’t built to fire shot or bullets.  I hope we can all agree that guns are a defense weapon from the start.  Pretty much guns really have one objective.

I also am not so sure why felons have gun restrictions.  Those who want guns can buy them or steal them regardless of our laws.  Those who want to play by the rules and do the  right thing  are the ones who are restricted.  That makes no sense to me.  Additionally, are we worried about criminals or are we worried about nut cases who want to go out in a blaze of glory?  Do we really have control of either?

Ok, your turn…..

 

47 Thoughts to “McAuliffe attempts to beef up gun restrictions”

  1. Steve Thomas

    ” I also know that the gun rights advocates will probably come along with their own set of statistics, saying it doesn’t happen–no gun trafficking outside the state.”

    Actually, it does happen. However, according to the FBI, almost all of the trafficked guns were found to have been stolen, or “straw purchased”, and not acquired via an private sale at a gunshow. Also, there is some misinformation being spread by the media, regarding hand-gun sales to out-of-staters, who then traffic them outside of the state. Whether licensed or unlicensed, it is illegal to sell or otherwise transfer a handgun to a Virginia Non-resident. Handgun transfers to out-of-state buyers are federally regulated (interstate commerce), regardless of whether or not the transfer occurs in Virginia. The handgun transfer must occur in the buyer’s home state, and it must first be delivered to a Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer.

    Also, there are no “un-licensed” gun shows. There are no shows that advertise this way, either This is pure caca. The VSP are at every single gun-show in the commonwealth. The ATF are at many as well. The vast majority of dealers are FFL dealers. What you might see is a guy walking around with a long-gun slung on his shoulder, with a “for sale” sign. You might see a small table set up with a few guns on it, where a collector is selling part of his collection. The VSP and ATF know before the doors open, which exhibitors are FFL, and the few that aren’t. They watch those that aren’t, VERY closely, looking for an illegal transfer, looking to make sure that the seller is doing those things required by law, such as verifying state of residence. I have even seen licensed dealers refuse to sell long-guns to out-of-staters, which is perfectly legal.

    One-gun-a-month…we had this for years, and it was repealed. Criminals don’t buy guns in gun-stores, or from other FFL dealers. Law-abiding people do, and this would only impact the law abiding. Since this was repealed a few years ago, gun-related crimes have not risen, even as gun-sales have risen. So, if I would like to purchase 2 guns at a gun-show, or at a store, I would be prohibited, under the governor’s proposal. Why?

    The worst of the proposal is revocation of CHP, if a parent is behind on child-support? Really? Which other constitutionally guaranteed rights should we restrict, if someone is behind? The right to vote? Freedom of speech? Right to privacy? Bail and speedy trial? Due process? Remain silent?

    Understand that this is purely political, payback for all of the money Bloomberg dumped into his campaign, and an effort to get more for the 2015 GA races. Nothing that the Governor proposed would have any impact on reducing crime, and the studies fully support this. Also, he has zero chance of getting this passed.

  2. Thank you for your input.

    How about at gun shows with private sales–can a Virginian sell to someone from New Jersey?

    How about shout out to the blog mistress for being fair and balanced?

    Ho ho ho

  3. Mom

    @Moon-howler
    Does fair and balance extend to Don R. and Milt?

    Ho ho NO

    1. I have already said, in writing, that Don is one of our “sacred cows.” Guilty. I am not fair and balanced. However, Milt is not. I think I am fair and balanced about Milt. I just like to keep things about policy not about the person, in most cases.

      Now, someone like Utz, now he no longer works for the county, have at it. People that free willie in public get no protection from me. Freeing Willie does become about the person. That has nothing to do with policy and everything to do with person and character.

      I don’t know a single person on our school board or BoCS who has exposed themselves.

  4. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    I was surprised to see this, having read your comment about not wanting to discuss it.
    It is against state law to sell to someone that is not a resident of the state. If you sell a handgun to someone without confirming residence, it CAN come back on you if said customer comes to the attention of law enforcement. Now…proving that you sold it to him….can be hard.

    Personally, I’m happy with Virginia’s laws as they stand, even though I see no point in the restriction.

    @Steve Thomas
    Very well said and very thorough.

  5. Starry flights

    I support the governor’s efforts, especially background checks at gun shows

  6. Steve Thomas

    @Moon-howler
    How about at gun shows with private sales–can a Virginian sell to someone from New Jersey?

    A private-sale of a long-gun to an non-resident is perfectly legal, but as I said previously, even FFL dealers are reluctant to sell to out-of-staters, who would have to go through a back-ground check.

    Private sales make up a teenie-tiny fraction of all gun-show transactions. They are observed by undercover VSP and ATF agents. If someone wants to privately sell a pistol, you can bet they check residency, as even an FFL dealer can’t sell a hand-gun to a non-VA resident, at a VA show.

    Look at it this way; when was the last time a “spree shooter” used an illegally obtained firearm? When’s the last time a spree-shooter used a firearm they purchased from a private dealer at a gun-show? Street thugs don’t go to gun shows either. They buy stolen weapons, or they steal them themselves, or they have a non-prohibited person “straw purchase”, which is a crime. Any sale through an FFL goes through a back-ground check. Private dealers who sell at gunshows understand they are being watched. If a dealer wanted to engage in illegal activity, they wouldn’t do it at a gun show. I’ve never seen a private dealer with more than 10 firearms on their table, and most of those are antiques or collectibles, not modern AR’s and pistols. If one did have a large selection, they would get a visit at their table from undercover LEO’s.

    Thanks for being balanced on this.

    1. The gun sale that continues to haunt me is the guns sold to Cho in the VA Tech Massacre. I know it was perfectly legal. I don’t know what could be done to have stopped that as far as gun sales go. It just shouldn’t have happened.

  7. Steve Thomas

    Starry flights :I support the governor’s efforts, especially background checks at gun shows

    Why does this not surprise me in the least, that you support the governor, and your obtuse reasoning…Background checks occur at every gun show. Private sales occur both at gunshows, and in people’s living rooms, and they make up a tiny fraction of total sales. A statistically insignificant number of firearms used in crime were actually purchased at gunshows, sold by licensed or private dealers.

    The governors proposal will not address crime. It will only restrict the rights of the law-abiding. So I ask, Starry, which of your constitutional rights is it ok for a Republican governor to restrict? Perhaps your right to free speech or vote?

    1. May I chime in here….probably better not to bring up Republican governors restricting constitutional rights…ahem….Trust me, I didn’t like it very much at all. It’s not OK.

  8. Ed Myers

    I want every gun sold to have a $1m per victim insurance policy payable to anyone injured by the gun. That way gun owners can pay for the death and injury caused by gun owners. No more demanding that the costs of gun ownership be subsidized by everyone. To prevent people from claiming the gun was stolen the insurance would be in force until that gun was recovered and transferred to another rightful owner. This is how we handle car insurance. (If someone steals your car and t-bones a minivan, your uninsured motorist coverage pays the bills.) Responsible people would get cheap insurance and it would not affect their right to own a gun. Irresponsible people would find insurance prohibitively expensive. This is the way we prevent teenagers with a bad driving record from driving a sports car even though they may be able to buy one. Gun collectors could get a cheap policy by permanently disabling the guns. This gives insurance companies, not the government, the power to choose who is trustworthy enough to risk having a gun. If they are wrong they will pay for their mistake directly to the victims.

  9. Scout

    Ed’s approach is reasonable and creative, while at the same time avoiding any 2A impositions. It also would provide insurers incentive to require competency (physical, practical, mental and emotional) standards. I assume no one would oppose it. Right? If not, why not?

  10. Steve Thomas

    “No more demanding that the costs of gun ownership be subsidized by everyone. ”

    I want every liberal democrat voter to have to purchase a $1M insurance policy, that way liberal democrat voters can pay for the social and economic misery caused by democrat voters. No more demanding that the costs of voting democrat be subsidized by everyone. (Gratuitous Assertion Rule, applied).

    Ed, first off, you don’t subsidize in any way, shape, or form, my gun ownership, and I challenge you to prove it.

    Second, many of those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, do have insurance…personal liability insurance. Unfortunately, when some thug gets shot during a home invasion, they or their families often bring civil suits. Their thug is magically transformed into some pillar of society, who, while on the way home from Bible study and on his way to donate both kidneys to children, happened to enter the wrong house. The (stolen) gun and crowbar he was carrying were to rescue a basket of kittens who were in danger, and it is the home-owners fault that he ended up dead or critically injured.

    Contrary to “Scout’s” opinion, your proposal is neither reasonable, nor creative. It is pure lunacy, and furthermore, unconstitutional. It would be considered an “onerous burden” on lower-income people…you know, kinda like voter-id.

    And you broke Moon’s “no car analogy” rule….but since you went there, I’d just like to point out that there is no constitutional right to own and drive an automobile.

    1. Steve. Stop it right now. I am hysterical.

      Second, many of those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights to keep and bear arms, do have insurance…personal liability insurance. Unfortunately, when some thug gets shot during a home invasion, they or their families often bring civil suits. Their thug is magically transformed into some pillar of society, who, while on the way home from Bible study and on his way to donate both kidneys to children, happened to enter the wrong house. The (stolen) gun and crowbar he was carrying were to rescue a basket of kittens who were in danger, and it is the home-owners fault that he ended up dead or critically injured.

      There is just more and more of that going on.

      Don’t forget that some liberal or sorta liberal democrats or perhaps I should say left leaning democrats are gun owners, on this blog. I can think of at least 3 and they are all female.

      I don’t hate guns or gun owners. I just hate the NRA. But I hate a lot of things. right now, PETA has surfaced at the top of my list.

  11. blue

    The solution here is to amend the 2nd Amendment to repeal “shall not be abridged” Its that simple and since every totalitarian state in modern times has essentially done exactly that, we should not be surprised of the result. It only takes 2/3s of the states.

    My sesne is that McAuliffe and the other doemogods know this and that they could never get the amendment through. This is why they continue to raise unconstitutional measures that solve nothing but do energize their utopian political base. It sounds so reasonable because history teaches these folks nothing.

  12. blue

    And since we aree talking about changes that are not demanding, how about this. Any local, State or Federal official or any other person, who is shown to knowingly, wantenly or abusively violates any contitutionally guarateed right shall be held personally responsible and liable for that action.

    1. Do those rights include abortion? Don’t give me the “it isn’t mentioned” BS. It has been decided by any number of different amendments.

  13. Censored bybvbl

    What are “doemogods”?

  14. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :The gun sale that continues to haunt me is the guns sold to Cho in the VA Tech Massacre. I know it was perfectly legal. I don’t know what could be done to have stopped that as far as gun sales go. It just shouldn’t have happened.

    When Cho was sent for a psychiatric evaluation, which recommended commitment, the Judge should have had him committed for a time, rather than order him to an out-patient program. This would have prevented him from being able to pass a back-ground check, and purchase the weapons…period, end-of-story. As I’ve mentioned too many times to count, when the mental health system is what needs fixing, all the back-ground checks and AWB’s in the world won’t stop the spree-killer. Look at Creigh Deed’s kid. They couldn’t get him placed in an in-patient facility, and he ended up stabbing his father. Would closing the so-called “gun-show loop-hole” or any of the measures being proposed today have prevented this, or VA Tech? When last I checked, neither had purchased firearms from a gun-show, or unlicensed seller, and neither was behind on child-support. Both had mental health issues, were known to the system, and neither were involuntarily committed. Deed’s son was turned away.

    1. When we start targeting mental health then all the mental health rights people get up in arms about privacy, and we are keeping people from getting marriage counseling etc etc. I tend to agree more with you on this issue. I will take it a step further and suggest that Fairfax County should have been required to send records to Tech when Cho signed in. Furthermore, I am not willing to let Tech off the hook either. Nicki Giovanni refused to teach him. He had to have private instruction. How about just sending someone’s ass home if they are that screwed up? Tech had plenty of warning. If we have laws that prevent them from acting, from securing the safety of everyone, then we need to take a good look at those laws and change them.

      Rant over now….

      Well, not quite. Creigh Deed’s kid was inexcusable and a failure on the part of the mental health facilities. I am not sure out GA actually fixed it either.

      I also want laws to prohibit these clowns from walking around with long guns in retail stores. I don’t much care about a properly holstered person, even if I don’t know them. I will leave if I see one of those clowns.

  15. Ed Myers

    There is a constitutional right to travel .. to move about the country. That is as broad-based as “bear arms.” The analogy holds.

    If a person purchases and store a dangerous weapon and does not adequately prevent it from being stolen, then they incur tort liability. Even though their culpability is really small in comparison to the thief, that culpability is greater than zero and because the victim’s culpability is zero the victim should get compensation from the next person in line who has culpability and money–the owner–to make the victim whole.

    Some gun owners have homeowner’s policies that cover their guns but most renters do not. When a gun is stolen and then used to commit a crime the cost of that crime falls on taxpayers and the victim. Litigation is possible but rarely effective if the gun owner or the criminal (if they are different) have no money. Compensation for gun violence, like a car accident, should not require a lawyer.

    The 2A guarantees a right to bear arms … not a right to subsidized gun ownership.

    1. I am bothered by the fact that we have never established which arms we have a right to bear. Obviously nuclear weapons are “arms.” We can’t own those. I would like to see the who, what and where established.

      These clowns parading around target are too stupid or unwise to bear arms of any kind.

  16. blue

    @Moon-howler

    So you really were not serious about abortion in comment #17 because only your rights count.
    And here I was thinking we had a deal.

  17. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    What could have stopped it was if the judge had ruled him to be a danger to others.
    The law has since changed that being ruled a danger to oneself also makes you prohibited.

  18. Cargosquid

    @Moon-howler
    Actually, the Heller decision did establish which arms are protected. Nuclear “arms” are considered “ordnance.” Also, they fall under “dangerous and unusual” under the Heller decision.

    All arms that are in common lawful use, suitable for a militia.
    A CT supreme court just ruled that police batons and “dirk knives” should also fall under that protection.

    The people parading long guns did it as a political protest against Texas’ ban on open carry of handguns. The new governor has said that he will sign a bill allowing that if one has a permit for concealed carry. Still an infringement..but an incremental win is better than none.

  19. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    The analogy does not hold.

    I am not responsible if someone steals my property and uses it in a crime. Period.
    Who decides what is an “adequate” protection against theft? YOU?

    The cost of ALL crime falls onto society and the victim unless the perp can pay.
    My insurance would not pay for another’s criminal act. In fact, if I committed a crime, the insurance would not pay. Liability pays for negligence and accidents, NOT criminal acts.

    Furthermore, since 98% of murders, per the DOJ, are committed by criminals, please provide how you will force THEM to buy insurance to cover their illegal possesion and use of a gun.

    Your false argument is merely to increase the costs of owning a weapon and exercising a right.

    1. Not getting in this argument but insurance does pay in some cases of criminal act. Ex. drunk driving, arson. If an arson sets fire to my company, my insurance will pay if I had nothing to do with it. If I drunk drive and crash into your car, my insurance will pay to fix your car.

  20. Ed Myers

    Someone has to pay. Should the victim always pay? If the gun owner hadn’t bought a gun to begin with there would not have been as lethal an instrument for violence.

    Steve asked for proof on how a gun owner is subsidized. Since a owner increases the risk of gun violence (successful suicide, homicide, accidents) and that violence causes injury to people who are not gun owners and gun owners do not make the injured party whole, then society subsidizes the ownership of guns because it picks up the costs.

    We decided as a society that cars were a net positive and thus put up with the carnage but instituted insurance (and licensing and owner regulations) to make sure innocent victims were compensated. I simply want the same for guns…insurance, licensing regulations. Gun owners love their subsidy and will fight to keep it while victims of gun violence suffer or are compensated by taxpayers.

    (I’m not going to respond to the wild speculation that guns reduce crime and are therefore a net positive to society. I’ll give you that if you jack the numbers by eliminating gun owners who commit crimes and inflate the number of situations that CHP people get into as “life threatening” and then count the successful outcome as a “gun save” you can lie with statistics and claim gun ownership is a net positive.)

    Guns are a hobby that I am willing to let it stand as a right provided owners don’t demand that I subsidize it. The more subsidy demanded the more regulation that will be imposed.

  21. Ed Myers

    Insurance is for the gun, not the owner. If the gun is used in a crime the serial number is traced back to the last known owner and their insurance policy pays. This would incentivize owners to keep their guns more secure and insurance companies would make sure people with high risk for committing a crime or losing their weapon paid higher premiums and if they didn’t would have their guns repo’d. A portion of insurance would be to cover uninsured guns since there wouldn’t be uninsured guns unless a legal gun owner were involved and culpable somewhere in the chain of events. This is how we transfer responsibility for gun crime onto gun owners instead of society in general.

  22. Steve Thomas

    Ed, what you provided as “proof” that you, Ed, subsidize my, Steve, exercise of my 2A rights, is nothing but gratuitous opinion.

    Your “victim needs compensation ” argument fails. So, a criminal breaks into my shed, and steals my crowbar. He uses the crowbar to break into a house, and in the process, beats a little old lady to death. The police recover the crowbar, and my name is etched on it, and they identify it as something I had previously reported stolen. By your rationale, I am, at least at some level, responsible for the murder, because had I never owned the crowbar, it couldn’t have been stolen, and later used in a crime. Therefore, the victim, or her estate, has a claim against me, and my insurance, if I have it.

    Your argument is deserving of ridicule.

  23. Ed Myers

    The reasonable person doesn’t expect a murderer to steal a crowbar to use in a murder as crowbars have a mostly beneficial and positive uses in society. If a crowbar was often used for theft and mayhem then the owner would be culpable and government regulators would likely take it off the market until it was redesigned so that it wasn’t dangerous even in cases where it was misused. Handguns, however, are made and purchased to kill people. Any attempt to make them safer (e.g. smart guns) or regulate to prevent misuse has been met with stiff objection. You can’t advocate no liability and then object to any regulation to fix problems with theft and misuse of a dangerous device. Gun owners are liable because they knowingly purchased a dangerous device and did not take care to prevent it from being used to kill someone.

    You ridicule the idea of insurance because you benefit from the gun subsidy and want to continue to feed at the public trough.

  24. Cargosquid

    Interesting NPR poll.

    Would you support more restrictions on guns in your state?
    Yes. Increased regulations on firearms are necessary to prevent another tragedy like the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary. 4.05% (4,515 votes)

    No. Laws like this unnecessarily punish lawful gun owners and will do little to prevent mass shootings. 94.81% (105,818 votes)

    Unsure. It’s important to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, but this may not be the solution. 1.14% (1,273 votes)

    Total Votes: 111,606

  25. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    “(I’m not going to respond to the wild speculation that guns reduce crime and are therefore a net positive to society.”

    Of course you aren’t. You’re just going to make unfounded assertions and present them as fact.
    You are going to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, over the years have defended themselves with guns.

    “Guns are a hobby that I am willing to let it stand as a right.”
    Aren’t you just a special little snowflake? Its a good thing that you don’t get to have a say in the matter. Rights are not subject to votes.

    “Insurance is for the gun, not the owner.”
    You apparently have no clue how insurance works. The “last” “registered” owner, if not the current owner and not the person committing the infraction has no culpability and once the gun is no longer in his possession, there would be no insurance on the gun.

    Your entire premise is a straw argument because you willfully ignore the benefits of gun ownership. There is no subsidy. There is only your assertion of one, due to your tortured logic and wild ideas about how insurance works.
    We have regulations for thegt and misuse. They are call criminal laws. People go to jail.
    We ridicule YOUR idea of insurance because it is completely and utterly unworkable and results in penalizing ONLY innocent people for the actions of criminals.

    We know your opinion on guns. EVERYTHING you propose is thus suspect. So far, you have show a tendency to invent schemes and scenarios with no basis in reality, just to restrict gun ownership or justified use.

    But please, continue with this idea of a “gun subsidy.” We need a good laugh.

  26. Ed Myers

    “Rights are not subject to votes.”
    We can vote on constitutional Amendments and have declared rights via direct votes and via legislative process. Granted you can declare any right you want but unless we collectively agree as a society and defend it with government your invented right is as good as your might.

    “You are going to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, over the years have defended themselves with guns.” That isn’t saying anything. Millions of people over years have crapped in the woods and that doesn’t mean that public toilets are a bad idea.

    “The “last” “registered” owner, if not the current owner…has no culpability” Cars are your responsibility until you turn in the registration. (Try claiming it wasn’t you when you get the speeding cam or parking ticket.) Why should guns be an exemption to the rule. Or, do you want the finder’s keeper’s rule where any gun left unsecured is free to be used by whomever finds it? Can’t have it both ways…Is it private property or communal property?

    Gun owners are not innocent or there would not be any gun crime. Either the gun owner started out good and became a criminal or he was a criminal and was aided by an “innocent” gun owner. Either way the gun owner is responsible. Those who want free and easy access to guns collectively own the responsibility for the gun crime that results.

    (This is how it works elsewhere in society. I want to drive a car and so I have to buy uninsured motorist insurance even though I have insurance. I pay for roads damaged by bad drivers even though I am as perfect a driver as you are a gun owner. Pedestrians do not pay for roads nor do they have car insurance. Non-gun owners should get the same benefit regarding gun violence as pedestrians do regarding car accidents.)

  27. Steve Thomas

    Ed Myers :The reasonable person doesn’t expect a murderer to steal a crowbar to use in a murder as crowbars have a mostly beneficial and positive uses in society. If a crowbar was often used for theft and mayhem then the owner would be culpable and government regulators would likely take it off the market until it was redesigned so that it wasn’t dangerous even in cases where it was misused. Handguns, however, are made and purchased to kill people. Any attempt to make them safer (e.g. smart guns) or regulate to prevent misuse has been met with stiff objection. You can’t advocate no liability and then object to any regulation to fix problems with theft and misuse of a dangerous device. Gun owners are liable because they knowingly purchased a dangerous device and did not take care to prevent it from being used to kill someone.
    You ridicule the idea of insurance because you benefit from the gun subsidy and want to continue to feed at the public trough.

    Ed, you have just jumped the sanity shark. A gun owner doesn’t expect his guns to be stolen and used in a murder, and guns are mostly used for beneficial purposes in this country. They are used to hunt for food and sport, they are used for recreational purposes. They are used in self-defense. They are used to enforce the law. They are used to defend nations. Very few are used to commit crimes. Crow bars are used for lawful and unlawful purposes.

    A crowbar was designed to increase mechanical leverage when prying two surfaces apart. The crowbar can be used to open a crate containing a “fragile” major award leg-lamp at Christmastime, or, can be used to jimmy open someone’s door. It can be used to pull an offending nail out of a deck, or beat a person to death. It is not the crowbar that is good or evil. It is the heart of the person wielding the tool. Were the crowbar were to be “redesigned” because it was used by a bad person for bad things, it would cease to be useful to the good person, using it for good things.

    A gun was designed to propel a projectile toward an intended target. Whether the target is a deer, a duck, a piece of paper or a person, it is the heart of the one who wields the gun that decides whether the gun is to be used for good or evil.

    But you have yet to prove your assertion that I benefit form some societal subsidizing of gun ownership. You haven’t presented one fact, and making the claim doesn’t make it true, no matter how many times you say it. I say prove it, or SHTHU.

    Better yet, I will refute your assertion: I have never had a firearm stolen, so no drain on law enforcement. I have purchased and sold many firearms through licensed dealers, creating economic activity, and jobs. I’ve paid the background check/transfer fee, so more money in to the state and federal coffers. I’ve paid the state sales tax. I go to a local range, and pay to use the facility. I regularly purchase ammunition, and pay the state sales tax on that. I take a training course at least annually, and pay the instructor, the facility, and again, for the ammunition expended. When I renew my CHP every 5 years, I pay the renewal fee, so again, no public money spent.

    So, Ed, I’m waiting…demonstrate how you, Ed, subsidize my right to own a firearm.

    1. Then there is the lowly baseball bat….

  28. Steve Thomas

    “(This is how it works elsewhere in society. I want to drive a car and so I have to buy uninsured motorist insurance even though I have insurance. I pay for roads damaged by bad drivers even though I am as perfect a driver as you are a gun owner. Pedestrians do not pay for roads nor do they have car insurance. Non-gun owners should get the same benefit regarding gun violence as pedestrians do regarding car accidents.)”

    Ed, you do not have a constitutional right to drive. You do have a constitutional right to own a firearm, unless you are a prohibited person. You do have a constitutional right to vote. I can argue that if you vote for a bad candidate, and that candidate gets elected and does a lousy job, which causes me some economic loss, you are responsible at some level, which means I am subsidizing your right to exercise poor judgment in the voting booth.

    That’s IT! I can prove that Obama’s economic polices have caused me damage! I’m suing everyone that I know or suspect voted for Obama, and if they did it twice, I’m suing for pain and suffering as well. Ed, Starry, Moon and Censored…you will be hearing from my attorney.

    1. Lots more than just us…..

  29. Steve Thomas

    “Cars are your responsibility until you turn in the registration. (Try claiming it wasn’t you when you get the speeding cam or parking ticket.)”

    If I can prove it wasn’t me, then I am not responsible. If my car was stolen, and I reported it stolen, and it is later used to run down a pedestrian, I am neither criminally nor civilly liable. Neither is the maker of the car, nor the car-dealer who sold it to me, nor my insurance company.

  30. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :Lots more than just us…..

    Then my attorney will be busy…until it gets laughed out of court, the same way Ed’s entire “the gun-owner is partially responsible” argument is laughable.

  31. Steve Thomas

    Moon-howler :Then there is the lowly baseball bat….

    Yes indeed! Little Leagues everywhere are bracing for the torts, as they are at least partially responsible for being baseball bats with which to commit murders.

  32. Cargosquid

    @Ed Myers
    “We can vote on constitutional Amendments and have declared rights via direct votes and via legislative process. Granted you can declare any right you want but unless we collectively agree as a society and defend it with government your invented right is as good as your might.’

    Yet you cannot REMOVE rights by voting or, by your logic, it would be simply a matter of voting to remove the 1st amendment or reintroduce slavery, etc.
    You are right…. our rights should be defended as a society. But you are advocating that might makes right and that since I will be the only one defending a right…then its perfectly okay to remove them. Just because the state refuses to defend a right does not remove the right, it merely means that it is harder to protect.

    “You are going to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, over the years have defended themselves with guns.” That isn’t saying anything. Millions of people over years have crapped in the woods and that doesn’t mean that public toilets are a bad idea.

    I love that you actually compare defense of human life with crap. Good on you. Nothing I say can make you look any worse.

    “The “last” “registered” owner, if not the current owner…has no culpability” Cars are your responsibility until you turn in the registration. (Try claiming it wasn’t you when you get the speeding cam or parking ticket.) Why should guns be an exemption to the rule. Or, do you want the finder’s keeper’s rule where any gun left unsecured is free to be used by whomever finds it? Can’t have it both ways…Is it private property or communal property?
    Actions committed with stolen cars are not the fault of the owner. If I can prove that I sold a gun to someone, regardless of registration, I am not culpable. ANYTHING left unsecured is free to be used by those that found it. Their actions are THEIR responsibility. It is private property. IT is also individual responsibility. You are advocating collective guilt.

    “Gun owners are not innocent”
    That…right there…is the ENTIRE premise of your argument and the evidence of your bias. The rest of your statement just reinforces your twisted view of justice, crime, and guilt and your twisted definition of rights.

    (This is how it works elsewhere in society. I want to drive a car and so I have to buy uninsured motorist insurance even though I have insurance.”
    No..you don’t. If you have insurance, you are covered. YOU are the one insured for liability. The costs of the insurance may change due to the type of car you are driving. Or, you can pay the govt’ penalty and not buy insurance.

    “I pay for roads damaged by bad drivers even though I am as perfect a driver as you are a gun owner. Pedestrians do not pay for roads nor do they have car insurance. Non-gun owners should get the same benefit regarding gun violence as pedestrians do regarding car accidents.)”

    You do get the same benefits. You do not have to pay for a gun. You do get the benefit of having the right to keep and bear arms just as everyone else. That you do not choose to exercise that right, is your business.

  33. Steve Thomas

    @Cargosquid
    Well said, sir. Huzzah and harrumph!

  34. Steve Thomas

    @Ed Myers

    And just to issue the counter-argument:
    A recent study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy concluded that there is a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime in countries internationally (more guns = less crime): http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

    Here are the stats: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/

    So, it would appear that the inverse of your argument is true: You actually benefit from my gun ownership, as there is a correlation between high private gun ownership and lower crime rates. So, I am actually subsidizing YOU.

  35. Ed Myers

    We can remove rights by voting. Virginians eliminated the right for same sex people to marry by voting a marriage constitutional amendment. The only problem was that the state amendment appears to conflicts with the federal constitution.

    Correlation is not causation. Classic mistake in logic.

    My right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness is endangered by other’s reckless exercise of the 2A. My point centers on how best to balance those competing rights.2A advocates always want the 2A right to supersede all other rights.

    In Virginia an automobile insurance includes uninsured motorist insurance. You can pay the penalty for self insurance but you can’t buy insurance and delete the uninsured motorist coverage.

    The tort of gun owners is that they don’t adequately secure their guns therefore allowing it to be misused. A car owner has increased liability if they leave the keys in the ignition and the door unlocked and a kid takes the car out joyriding and causes mayhem. Trigger locks and smart guns are all attempts to hold gun owners responsible for securing their guns to prevent accidents. Insurance is a nice non-government way to incentivize gun owners to be responsible and to compensate victims when they are irresponsible. The beauty is that the insurance costs would be really trivial if gun owners were as responsible as you claim and therefore not a financial burden. You must be talking out of both sides of your mouth if you think insurance is onerous while at the same time claiming guns owners do not increase the risk of violence to others.

    If guns made a home safer than homeowners should get a liability insurance policy reduction for declaring their guns. An enterprising insurance company could make a killing if only it were true. The smart money, actuaries and the NRA are betting against your premise that guns make our lives safer. Otherwise there would be a business opportunity and a chance to prove me wrong by starting a discount homeowner’s liability insurance company just for gun owners.

  36. Cargosquid

    “Virginians eliminated the right for same sex people to marry by voting a marriage constitutional amendment.”

    Please point out where marriage is a right. You can get married in a church that will agree to do so. You must ask permission from the state for the state to recognize it…thus the license. I see no constitutionally protected right to get married.

    Your “correlation is not causation” is nonsensical.

    “My right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness is endangered by other’s reckless exercise of the 2A.”

    Your key word is reckless. If someone acts recklessly with a firearm, they may be breaking laws, therefore there are laws against infringing upon your right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The right to keep and bear arms harms no one and infringes upon no rights. Shooting is strictly regulated. Every shot must be accounted for.

    “The tort of gun owners is that they don’t adequately secure their guns therefore allowing it to be misused.”
    There are already laws on the books for culpable negligence.

    “Trigger locks and smart guns are all attempts to hold gun owners responsible for securing their guns to prevent accidents.”

    And people use trigger locks. Smart guns that are reliable are science fiction.

    Requiring insurance costs would be considered a poll tax. Poor people could not afford it. It is would be abused by all gun control cities.

    If guns made homes more dangerous, every gun owner would be facing a steeper bill. They aren’t.

    1. Loving v. Virginia pretty much guarantees the right to marriage. Just not everyone can do it. Same sex, multiple people, people to animals, children, etc.
      Not everyone can vote either.

      Other than that comment, I am not getting in this fight.

Comments are closed.