The Supreme Court on Friday delivered an historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5-4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples.
The court’s action marks the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion and the nation’s jurisprudence. Advocates called it the most pressing civil rights issue of modern times, while critics said the courts had sent the country into uncharted territory by changing the traditional definition of marriage.
“The court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
The country’s first legally recognized same-sex marriages took place just 11 years ago, the result of a Massachusetts state supreme court decision. Now, more than 70 percent of Americans live in states where same-sex couples are allowed to marry, according to estimates.
Holy cow, what a week. Lots of change. All of it was just a matter of time. Now everyone can marry who they love, all over the nation.
Looking back, the end result of all these changes is that people have more rights. This should be seen as a good thing.
Same-sex marriage was only a matter of time and is definitely a civil rights issue. The LGBT community still has a long way to go to have full rights. There still is no job protection, for example. It’s been less than 50 years since Loving v. Virginia codified interracial marriage in Virginia. At the turn of the century, there were places were homosexual sex was illegal. Imagine the number of lives that have been ruined because former respected members of communities across the country were somehow discovered. That is no longer an issue.
Just as a perspective, when I was a young psych major in college, homosexuality was by the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association as a mental illness. We have come a long way, in so many respects. The wheels of social justice march on. Limbaugh has something to bitch about for decades.
On the gay marriage issue, no surprise, and the last of the bans would have fallen within five years regardless. Just the way of things. The silver lining for this, for me, is now the gun community has grounds to challenge all remaining “may issue” laws, and achieve national reciprocity. The Second Ammendment Foundation already has the cases ready to go. If a state must recognize the right to marry, then they must recognize the right to carry.
Also, our society just opened up a religious freedom fight that promises to be a fireball. Interesting times.
Steve, I don’t understand what you mean on the gun issue. Please elaborate.
As for religious freedom, I not sure what you mean. Please elaborate. Right now, churches don’t have to marry hetero couples who don’t meet that church’s standards. I canremember the Episcopalians showing me the door many years ago. Nothing personal. They had standards and wasn’t willing to jump through their hoops.
I think the victory laps are premature. None of these things are etched in stone. Brown v. Education, Roe v. Wade etc. There are always challenges in one form or another. Some folks simply chose to defy the rulings. It sure happened with Brown. Living proof here.
This case should never have gone to SCOTUS.
The mistake that was made was not recognizing a civil union between two same sex people – it would have deflated the entire movement for gay marriage.
Pat, I couldn’t agree with you more.
I am not sure that the government has any business in the marriage business. I believe marriage is a religious matter. Civil unions are the business end of “marriage.” Let people have civil unions and those who want to give their union an ecclesiastical punch could marry.
Bob Marshall is probably suicidal at this point.
The marriage amendment that he sponsored was a election trick other than I believe Bob was being serious rather than political.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
The gun-rights organizations have been watching this same-sex marriage case for some time, and there has been much discussion and strategizing. But not a whole lot of public-buzz. In a nutshell, the last of the total-bans on carry have fallen, with IL/Chicago and DC being the final hold-outs. DC’s proposed “May Issue” permitting scheme to replace their ban, struck-down with Heller, has also been struck down twice. Puerto Rico’s ban was stuck down last week. Essentially, in each case that “May Issue” has been challenged of late, it has been struck down.
With the Gay Marriage issue, SCOTUS has ruled that:
1) Marriage is a civil-right for adults, not bound by the gender of those seeking marriage.. the right to marry is not dependent on which state you live in.
2) A Marriage in 1 state must be recognized by another
3) State laws infringing on 1) or recognizing 2) are unconstitutional.
Right to Keep (own) and right to bear (carry) has been recognized as an individual right, in Heller and McDonald, ie. a “civil right”. “May Issue” states pick and choose who can carry, based on arbitrary standards, applied in a patchwork and non-uniform way. Same with reciprocity, where a right “granted” to residents of one state, is not recognized for those from outside the state. Essentially, a “patchwork”.
A recent state circuit court case in CA, upheld the state’s “May Issue” permitting scheme, since the California state constitution doesn’t recognize a right to keep and bear arms. This is now working its way through the Federal system, and this ruling on gay marriage will only strengthen the argument that the US Constitution guarantees the individual right, and this applies to the states (Heller), that a right in one state, cannot be denied in another (14th Amendment issue decided yesterday).
So, until yesterday, 35 states honored my VA CHP (all either “shall issue” or “constitutional carry” states and 15 did not. 9 of those are “may issue” which restrict the rights of their own residents, as well as those from non-state residents. The remainder are “shall issue” but for what ever reason do not honor my VA permit. According to the gay marriage ruling yesterday, those states who have laws restricting a right guaranteed by the US Constitution for their own residents, or refuse to extend that right to non-residents or those relocating to their state from other states, are unconstitutional, using the same “Due Process Clause” argument cited in the SCOTUS decision(s) issued this week.
That is why you will not hear any ‘wailing or gnashing of teeth’ from me, over this decision. It is what it is, and it extends a right nationally that was, until yesterday, only recognized as a civil right in 36 states and the district. Coincidentally, that is almost the same number who currently recognize my right to carry in their state. So, forward we go. The Second Amendment Foundation (Newsflash to all you headline surfers,), the real legal powerhouse on the 2A side of the issue, is filing cases as we speak. The NRA (the political powerhouse) will continue lobbying for national reciprocity. The rulings this week only gave them firmer ground to stand on.
Thanks for explaining. I don’t like patchworks of laws either, especially on my “go to the mat” issue. The Same sex marriage recognition will also help out the constantly challenged Roe issues.
My greatest hope would be that both your issue and my issue would be resolved in a way that eac’h group could enforce its own ranks. It’s very difficult to police your own ranks when various groups from the outside are continually trying to whittle away at your rights.
This has been a good week for the United States. What we are seeing is the fulfillment of the American ideal that all of us are created equal.
@Moon-howler
Moon,
It might very well be your issue advocacy groups are planning such a play, but I am not sure they will be quite the 1:1 correlation of arguments. I say with full admission that I don’t follow your issue on a state-by-state win/loss basis.
As an aside: I recently read an article moaning about the glut of attorneys nationally, how they can’t find work. I thought, “how can this be? Crime never sleeps, civil suits are a common as ever, and it seems that every law, regulation, or ordinance passed will see at least one legal challenge”.
@Moon-howler
“It’s very difficult to police your own ranks when various groups from the outside are continually trying to whittle away at your rights.”
Agreed. What most don’t understand is once something has been established or affirmed as a “constitutional/civil” right, attempts to infringe or restrict are subject to “strict scrutiny”, and yet people will continue to try. It’s like the baseball game never ends. We just go to extra-innings, never a “W” or an “L” recorded. I don’t have to agree with the outcome, or happy with what I believe to be “bad umpire calls” but I do have to acknowledge when the other side has more runs, and all my batters have been retired.
I may not support same-sex marriage, but I must acknowledge that the issue is settled. Now all that remains is the peripheral issues of protections for pastors and churches, faith-based organizations, and those other 1st amendment protections that must be respected, whether or not you personally agree. Heller and McDonald settled the main 2A issues, now it is just a matter of challenging the hold-out states.
But, I am optimistic that very soon I shall be able to ‘bear arms for lawful purposes” anywhere in the US and its territories, as this has prevented me from visiting many places without a compelling reason, including my family in MA, just as I am sure there are many same-sex couples who have opted not to relocate somewhere, due to the prevailing marriage laws.
“”The dynamic of our constitutional system is that individuals need not await legislative action before asserting a fundamental right. The Nation’s courts are open to injured individuals who come to them to vindicate their own direct, personal stake in our basic charter. An individual can invoke a right to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the legislature refuses to act”
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority opinion, not sure if I would want to be the test case, but according to this opinion, I can bear arms in any state, as long as I have that same right in my home state, as this is a national right.
@Steve Thomas
Seriously – you did not visit your family in MA because you couldn´t
pack a weapon? Guess your gun is more important than your family.
At least, it sounds that way. What are you afraid of?
Pretty big leap, there, ST. The Court has always acknowledged that the right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation at the State level and has recently declined to review a number of attacks on state regulations that differ from one state to another. If, hypothetically, a State forbade concealed carry (which it is perfectly free to do constitutionally) and required open carry, are you saying that because you come from a state that effectively exercises only the most flimsy control over who carries concealed (Virginia, for example), you should be able to waltz right into the first state on your cardboard Virginia CCP? Come on.
*TWEET*
That’ll be 15 yards from the spot of the foul, for shoveling horseshit: http://tinyurl.com/pfkk6v9
Virginia requires a background check and proof of competency, not sure what additional “controls” would ease your addled mind.
Back at you, Cato. The only “background check” in Virginia is that someone checks (or is supposed to check) whether you have a criminal record or have been committed to the looney bin. There is no competency check whatsoever. All one has to do is submit a copy of a certificate saying that you have taken a training course. You can get the certificate from on-line outfits for $19.95. No one observes you at the range, no one assesses whether you can physically hold a gun in your palsied hand, no one assesses whether you know how to break down and clean your weapon, no one determines whether you have anger issues, no one tests your vision to ascertain whether you can distinguish a varmint from a vicar at 10 paces. It’s an utter joke.
I ran an experiment to see what was the minimum amount of time and money I could invest to get my CCP. I took the on-line course (it took about 15 minutes), the follow-up test (maybe 10 minutes to race through 20 True or False or multiple choice which an intelligent 10 year old could have answered), 10 minutes to fill out the application, an hour round trip to the courthouse, one stamped, self-addressed envelope, 50 bucks filing fee, plus the $20 for the online course. At the end of the process, I could have been hearing voices, had Parkinsons, had anger issues with my neighbors, been suicidal, thought my wife was a saber-tooth tiger, literally could have been nearly blind ( I suppose I would have to see enough to find my way to the window at the Courthouse to pay them my money), and I would still have gotten my little pasteboard CCP. In this whole process, I never touched a weapon. Frankly, if some other state with even a modicum of standards for who carries concealed weapons would have reservations about me hiding one on my person and bringing it into their jurisdiction, I think I would have to say they had a point.
It happens that I’ve had a fair amount of life experience with a variety of weapons, both sidearms and long guns. But whether I did or didn’t could not have been established by the Commonwealth in issuing me a CCP.
Can someone remind me again what the statistics are on crimes committed by people carrying a CCP and lawfully-obtained weapons?
^^Gun crimes, specifically^^
I would expect the number to be relatively low,Emma, particularly compared to all the gun crime and violence that occurs generally in this country. My objection to concealed carry is not that lawful CCP holders are committing the bulk of gun crimes, but rather that concealment is not part of the Constitutional right to carry knives, swords, guns or numchuks and that standards for permitting concealment are too low. However, a state could forbid concealed carry and require visible open carry (my preference is day-glo pink holsters) without having any Second Amendment issues. Because I question the judgment of almost anyone (outside of law enforcement personnel) who carries a firearm on their person on a daily basis (there may be an exception or two, but they would be real outliers) because they make a judgement that their lives are at daily risk from “bad guys”, I want to give those people a really wide berth. If I go into the grocery store and see a lot of people with their pretty pink holsters, I can just decide that that’s a place I don’t care to be and go on my merry way, without impacting their Second Amendment rights in any way.
Yeah, connecting the family values dots on no trips to family where guns are not permitted.
It has nothing to do with fear or paranoia, and everything to do with the state not respecting or recognizing my constitutional right. It is a protest. I have come to believe that the only place I will find Patriots in today’s Lexington and Concord, is on a football field.
If memory serves, wasn’t the VA constitutional ban on same-sex marriage cited as a reason companies and productive citizens who disagreed, wouldn’t relocate or visit Virginia? Why is it so hard to understand that I do not tolerate an infringement of my 2nd Amendment rights, and will not travel to or even through a state that does, if I can avoid it?
@Scout
Scout, you of all people should also understand the legal concept of “strict scrutiny”. As far as the likelihood of success, 15 years was all it took to go from “no same-sex marriage anywhere in the US” to “it’s a Constitutional right”. A state can no longer claim a “compelling interest” in limiting marriage to man + woman. 2A fight is much more advanced, with more supporting case-law. I predict it takes less than 5 years, and we have national reciprocity, and 10 years for constitutional carry.
If you look at permit revocations as a reliable measure, which include felonies and serious misdemeanor, those who are subject to a protective order, or have been involuntarily committed for mental health reasons, the number is less than two tenths of 1%. This is the average for Virginia and Nationally.
@Scout
Heck, Scout, all the authorities would have to do is ask NSA for the file on you and all those hypothetical items you listed would be answered in no time at all (copy to DHS) — with the possible exception of the sabre-toothed tiger thing, which one assumes must be a verrrry private affair. Grrrrrr!!!!
Be careful what you ask for, Steve. In principle, I see no real policy reason for there not to be reciprocity, but at some fairly high level of standards. The Court appears to be sending signals in its recent denials of petitions from various states that it will allow states great leeway in regulating firearms. If reciprocity is what you want, it might end up being a national standard at a meaningful level of competence. You’ll do fine with that (I think I would also, even though I never carry anything other than my cavalry sword, which, ironically, gets me in more trouble with the cops than guns), but I suspect a lot of your packing buds would be very concerned about a strict, high national standard.
@Scout
Scout, you may question the judgement of people who choose to go about their daily lives armed, but in light of yesterday’s SCOTUS decision, it really doesn’t matter what an individual’s opinions are regarding the exercise of a constitutionally protected right. Those opposed to same-sex marriage may question the judgement, mental health or moral fitness of homosexuals in general, and those seeking to marry specifically, but according to the court all those opposed are entitled to is their opinion. Right to
@Scout
Way ahead of you on the national standard, but I don’t think there will be one, just as there isn’t one for a driver licensed in one state driving in another. Thus far, the reciprocity bills that have been submitted basically say if you meet the requirements in your state, you meet the requirements in all states, but the rules regarding manner and place apply, and it is up to the individual to know what those rules are. So, if “no guns” signs have force of law in the state I am visiting, I must respect them even if they don’t have force of law in my home state. If open carry is permissible in my home state, but prohibited in the state visited, I have no right to open carry. (and I think public open carry is silly, but that’s just me).
As to the attitudes of those within my “circle of gun friends”, you might be surprised. They are advocates for regular professional training, far above the minimum required to obtain a CHP, and when I say “professional training” I’m not talking about that stuff which promises to put one on-par with Delta Force. I’m talking about the stuff that stresses safety, legal rights and responsibilities, threat identification and avoidance, confrontation avoidance, and effective use. Most of us also carry some form of legal and civil liability insurance, like that offered through USCCA.
So, I am quite optimistic regarding national reciprocity and the demise of “may issue”, in the future.
Gays win Civil WR
Iconic
—Ben Dreyfuss on Fri. June 26, 2015 4:15 PM PDT
The Southern Poverty Law Center posted this cartoon to its Facebook page. The credit reads CagleCartoons.com but I can’t actually find it on there. I’ll update with proper credit when I figure it out. Safe to say, this is amazing.
http://m.motherjones.com/contributor/2015/06/the-gays-won-the-civil-war
I assume then, Steve, that you share my alarm and incredulity at the abysmal standards Virginia uses for issuance of CCPs in the Commonwealth.
BTW, what’s the problem with public open carry?
It has been quite a week for the ISIS thugs as well. Unlike that beach at Sousse, let us hope that someone is carrying if such is needed here.
So is the justification for carrying deadly weapons now becoming that we are under constant terrorist threat than we can parry by individuals carrying hidden pistols? If only those tourists in Tunisia had had their shootin’ irons in their beach bags . . . .
What kind of cartoon world is that?
How do you have a concealed weapon while wearing a bathing suit?
Scout, YOU are the cartoon here. There were zero security guards at that major resort hotel in a country which has already provided several thousand recruits to the ISIS forces in Syria/Iraq. A bunch of sitting ducks, now dead ducks. Many of them old farts like you and me who tried to run from a bastard who was picking them off at leisure on the beach without a shred of resistance until the police finally got there — after the guy even got into the hotel and was chasing targets in the hallways with his AK and homemade grenades.
The 4th is soon upon us. Did you not hear Jeh Johnson’s warning in the wake of Tunisia, France, Kuwait , and the foiled Army Day plot in London, plus the ISIS call for lone wolf Ramadan attacks? Do you always walk around in a silly fog like that?
We are a better nation today than we were just a week ago
Wolve: I don’t have a problem with resorts or hotels in high risk areas of the world (and Tunisia would certainly qualify) having trained, armed security guards. Not sure what that has to do with the rest of the discussion unless you’re saying that we now need to arm up civilians in this country to fight terrorists. That’s a new wrinkle on the gun debate, I admit.
Thus…open carry should be legal.
http://i.imgur.com/u6Lkppi.jpg
The Israelis make it work…….
Groan Just groan!!!!
There are now almost 300 million firearms in the U.S. With a population of about 320 million, of which 75 million are children under 18, there are now as many weapons in the US as adults. It is way too late for gun control to have much effect on the rate of violent crime. Regardless of motive, mass shootings tend to occur in places that people are guaranteed to be unarmed. Dylann Roof shot people in a church where weapons are prohibited. James Holmes attacked a gun-free theater in Denver. Adam Lanza shot kids in a school where weapons are illegal. Nidal Hasan started shooting at a Fort Hood location where soldiers are not allowed to carry weapons. In our own back yard, Seung-Hui Cho killed unarmed people at Virginia Tech.
A reasonable conclusion follows then that the presence of armed citizens generally eliminates a given location/event as a potential target for a mass shooting.
Kelly, it is reasonable but by no means conclusive. People tend to do heinous deeds where they feel familiar also.
I think what Kelly is telling us is that we are so inundated with guns at this point that there is no hope for a civilized society. We are just all going to have to carry all the time.
That’s sort of what I thought he was saying also.
@Moon-howler
It may not be “conclusive” but there does appear to be a direct correlation (but arguably, no causation) between a spree-shooter’s choice of local, and the prohibition of lawful carry. Schools, businesses, churches. When’s the last time someone tried to shoot up a gun-show?
Also, I did a little research on average annual deaths attributed to gunshot. It is approximately 30K per year. What gun-control advocates fail to mention is 60% of those deaths are “suicide by gun”. Some argue that it is the availability of the firearm that makes suicide easy, but they’d be wrong. Japan has a much higher suicide rate, and all but bans private gun ownership. The remainder are a mixture of Criminal Homicide (35% most of that related to the commission of some other crime) Justifiable Homicide/lawful self defense (2%) Law Enforcement (4%) Accidental/negligent discharge (1%).
This data comes from the FBI. It demonstates what law-abiding gun owners have argued for years: Gun Control only limits the law-abiding. Someone bent on harming themselves will find a way to do so. A criminals by their very nature do not obey laws.
My problem is when the law abiding stop being law abiding. I have known a whole bunch of people who are generally law abiding but they get liquored up or have short fuses. Those are the people I don’t want with guns. I also don’t think that there is anything one can do about it.
I also have a problem with some of the weapons the average Joe can buy legally. There are plenty of guns that shouldn’t be sold to me, for instance. What’s stopping it though? Nada. I can’t think of anyone shooting up any show, gun or otherwise. I would probably shoot up one of the gem shows if that were how I was wired.
Wasn’t a police substation shot up a couple years ago? Fairfax county? I am not sure these deranged bastards put that much thought into it in most cases.
@Steve Thomas
Correction: Law Enforcement is 2%, not 4%. This is statistically equal to that of private citizens defending themselves.
@Moon-howler
“I also have a problem with some of the weapons the average Joe can buy legally.”
I think that comes from a lack of understanding of the differences between civillian and military models of certain firearms. While cosmetically similar, the mechanical operation is vastly different. Take a 12-gauge pump shotgun for instance. Paint it in some sort of field cammo, or some nice cherry wood furniture on it, and it looks like something any hunter or clay shooter would use. Take the same gun and give it a black parkerized finish, maybe a pistol grip, heat-shroud on the barrell, and stick a flashlight on the side, and it becomes a “scary weapon of mass destruction”. It’s still a 12 gauge pump shotgun. It won’t shoot any faster, or farther, or make bigger holes than the skeet version.
When people stop becoming law abiding, they lose their rights to do a lot of things, like vote, or own firearms. And we can’t take away someone’s rights based on something they “might” do, anymore than we can prosecute someone for something the have the potential to do.
People don’t shoot up gun-shows because there are too many people who might shoot back, including the teams of unifromed and undercover state and federal law enforcement who are present at every show. People who shoot up police stations are often attempting “suicide by cop”.
Maybe I have just known more good ole boys than the average bear.
That’s the same problem we have with the mentally ill. We cant lock people up based on what they might do. We can’t deny them a weapon based on what they might do.
We are right back where we started.
Suicide by gun is especially effective. Other suicide methods frequently “fail” allowing the person to get the help needed to eliminate the need for suicide. Local law enforcement saved a guy trying to die by CO2 by leaving the car run in a closed garage. Police unfortunately often help people with guns die.
Suicides are a symptom of the defect in guns….they kill in situations where death is not desirable. That defect can be fixed by manufacturers developing safer guns that result in fewer suicides by gun or by legislation that requires gun manufacturers to implement safety measures.
The presence of guns is evidence that those present are not members of a civil society. No one is welcome in my home if they need to bring a gun. I decline to worship with someone who needs to bring a gun to pray. I do not need to buy groceries if someone is so fearful of the canned goods they need a gun. The risk that I will die from a gunman intent on mass murder is really low. A bigger risk is “accidental” discharge or the misinterpreted action that leads a gun owner to wrongly perceive me as a threat and that risk rises with each increase in in number of places that guns are found (not the actual number of guns). The relaxing of standards for who can carry guns around in public means we have less competent gun owners increasing the risk at a rate faster than the number of people exercising that right.
For background on Steve’s comment in #42 I offer this excerpt from an exchange posted on an earlier thread.
“Ed…how and where did you get that 30,000 per year stat? I call BS. Even if it were an accurate number, the bulk of those would be criminals shooting other criminals, or criminals harming the innocent in the commission of a felony, such as armed robbery. And lawfully armed citizens are not out to deprive you of any of your rights, as you argue, and as any court would do, I challenge your standing to make such a specious argument. Yes, Ed, on both counts I believe you are full of horse-fruit.”
“Steve you can believe any lies you want but here are verifiable facts: CDC.gov estimates the number of US deaths due to firearms at 33,636 for 2013. If you want to dig deeper you’ll find the largest group are suicides. “
@Moon-howler
Do you think society has become more civilized (i. e. less violent) and the government more effective at protecting its citizens from violence in the last 25 years? Those are the basic questions at the crux of this discussion.
@Kelly
neither more nor less.
@ Kelly: No. The crux of the discussion is about the prevalence of guns in society. Violent crime is down generally (it usually rises and falls with the condition of the economy, and there has been a recovery, albeit slow, over the last few years). My own personal opinion is that a society in which everyone carries around deadly force on their persons in day-to-day activities is inherently uncivilized, probably far less civilized than even the society in which our Founders lived. It is not a place that I take any pride in inhabiting.
Actually, we can. Get them adjudicated to be a danger to themselves and others. Due process.
Oh if only it were that easy. Do you think Creigh Deeds would say that?
You can’t just get people adjudicated based on what they might or might not do.
Now it’s my turn to make the naïve comment.
@Kelly Violent crime stats have been declining a lot over the past several decades which I would argue is evidence that we have become more civilized. Wars have fewer casualties, another sign of progress. Mass murder has fewer victims mostly from better infrastructure. The current favorite of shooting up the place with guns gets headlines only because the strategies from a half-century ago of locking the doors and lighting the place on fire or blowing it up with explosives is really hard to accomplish because of government regulations. Less newsworthy sources of daily violence such as car accidents are also reduced because of improvements in safety standards and product design.
That said I think carrying around a gun is as smart as carrying around gasoline in a can while smoking because who knows when you might run into a situation where someone has run out of fuel.
@cargo, we could improve gun design to reduce the carnage that a mentally ill person can inflict on society when they get their hands on one.
If everyone were required to have liability insurance for their guns insurance companies would mitigate losses by repossessing guns from people who are a high risk…something government can’t do.
@Moon-howler
Actually, we can lock up the mentally ill, for what they may do to themselves, and others. It’s called a “civil commitment” and is considered to be within “due process”. Those adjudicated as mentally unstable and involuntarily committed are prohibited from owning firearms. If the court follows the law and reports it to NICS, that person would fail a background check, and would be denied a firearm.
We obviously haven’t locked them all up. You can’t.
This is where the slip up really is. There are also life events that trigger unacceptable behavior. Divorce, death. return from battle, chemical imbalance. People might notice something isn’t right with Sam but…it isn’t perceptible enough to lock Sam away.
I basically don’t feel everyone has the right to own a gun. I honestly think we hang too much on the words rather than looking at intent. When those words were written, guns were single fire muskets that took a fairly long time to load and reload. I am uncomfortable with some of the interpretation of a 200 + year old set of words, by people who didn’t have the foresight to see the technological advances on the horizon.
@Moon-howler
Actually, we can lock up the mentally ill, for what they may do to themselves, and others. It’s called a “civil commitment” and is considered to be within “due process”. Those adjudicated as mentally unstable and involuntarily committed are prohibited from owning firearms. If the court follows the law and reports it to NICS, that person would fail a background check, and would be denied a firearm.
Ed,
Your ideas grow nuttier by the day. An insurance company could no more “repossess” the firearms of someone deemed “high risk” anymore than they can confiscate an automobile from an habitual DUI offender, reckless driver, or the accident prone.
I will say this: the trend of those who lawfully carry obtaining special insurance is growing. I think it’s a wise thing to do. Group policies are offered through several organizations, which helps to keep the cost down. The insurance provides money for bond, retainer and other legal defense fees, and civil liability. The USCCA has a very good and affordable policy.
@Ed Myers
and one last thought on your ideas regarding mandatory liability insurance:
You seem to argue that it’s the law-abiding who are the problem. It’s not Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public who are engaging in criminal gun violence. What makes you think a criminal would carry the required insurance, when they aren’t permitted to possess a firearm in the first place? How’s that work?
In Ed’s world, a pre-home invasion planning would go something like this:
Thug 1: Okay, we’re all set. We’ll hit that house as soon as they turn in for the night. Kick the door in, and head right for the upstairs bedrooms. No rapin’ the lady this time. Almost got ourselves caught last time. Smoke the family, grab the stuff, and be gone in 5 minutes. Will take the police at least 10 minutes to respond to a 911 call from the alarm company or the family. You get the car?
Thug 2: Yep. Stole it from a Walmart. Stole some tags too.
Thug 1: Great. You get the scary masks?
Thug 2: Yep. Same Walmart.
Thug 1: Awesome. You get the guns?
Thug 2: Yep. shotgun and a pistol. Both stolen. Bought’em from a meth-head. Stole them from some house. I saw’ed off the shotgun. Filed off the serial numbers. We can dump’em when we’re done.
Thug 1: Fantastic. How about the insurance?
Thug 2: Insurance? For what, the car is stolen.
Thug 1: No dummy, for the guns. The liability insurance. Law says we have’ta have it, in case we shoot someone.
Thug 2: Insurance for the guns? We’re both felons. He’ll, you are out on parole for rape. We stole the car. Bought stolen guns. Saw’d off a shotgun. We’re planning on kicking in the door of an occupied house, shooting anyone to doesn’t lay down, stealing their stuff, and you are asking about gun insurance? I’m the dummy?
Thug 1: Yeah..you right. Dumb idea.
Thug 2: Wait. What if they have guns?
Thug 1: If they do, they’re smart guns or they have to be locked or unloaded. We’ll be all over them before they can shoot. Man I love these gun control laws.
Thug 2: Think they have that insurance?
Thug 1: These law-abiding folks here? Yeah they have the insurance. If you get shot and live, you can sue them for a bundle.
Thug 2: Really? That’s crazy!
Thug 1: Yeah…I know. The “Ed Myers Gun-Safety Act”. Man thinks we obey the laws. All he did was make our jobs easier.
Moon, it’s not the rednecks, good ol’ boys or even Soldier of Fortune wannabes and Mall Ninjas buying all these guns and getting CHP’s. It’s doctors and lawyers, CPA’s, plumbers and tradesmen. The fastest growing segment of first-time gun buyers and those getting training for CHP is Women. Single Moms. Soccer Moms. College students. Hausfrau and professional women. I applaud this trend.
Those in the first group are already gunned up.
I guess I don’t think the 2nd group is any safer than the first group. At least good ole boys know that bullets are real.
My basic problem is that I don’t think everyone should be permitted to own a gun. The world is simply gifted with too many AH’s/
A gun is associated with an insurance policy, not a person. If someone steals the gun and uses it in a crime, the insurance still pays. The first owner (the manufacturer) pays the insurance into perpetuity (like a whole life insurance where the investment proceeds pays the premium). The policy transfers with the gun.
Having an uninsured gun would be a crime as is operating a motor vehicle without insurance is a crime. Insurance would pay for damaged caused by uninsured guns with a premium rider just like auto insurance pays for uninsured drivers.
See, no criminal needs to obey the law to ensure that people harmed by guns have monetary compensation for their loss. The idea works for autos and can work for guns too.
A simpler approach would be for the ATF to register guns and charge an annual gun tax but I know how well that would fly so I created a private enterprise way to accomplish the same objective.
@Ed Myers
“See, no criminal needs to obey the law to ensure that people harmed by guns have monetary compensation for their loss. The idea works for autos and can work for guns too.”
I am probably going to regret further indulging this silliness, but how would someone make a claim, if the firearm is never recovered? You do know that criminals have a tendency to file off identifying marks, or dump the gun after a crime, don’t you? The East River in NYC, the swamps in Jersey. Lot’s of places where guns are dumped.