Suggestion for compromise gun legislation

No worries I am a better shot than that.

 

No we won't

 

Vegas here is a visual of how negotiations are supposed to work. You and I are standing in our end zones looking at each other. We may agree to compromise and meet on the 50 yard line (say an agreement to require NCIC checks on all secondary market sales in exchange for a national CCW reciprocity bill). But there are those in your ranks who as soon as that compromise was struck would retreat back to your end zone and demand that we meet in the middle again on your 25 yard line, and if we do that then retreat again and again.

The problem is a lack of trust, Vegas. You just said it best when you said we must “fight for everything”—for you must admit some of the loudest people on the “anti-gun” side really do want to “fight for everything”—every part of my RKBA. If you’re not willing to accept this, then I suggest you go back and read the anti-gun amici briefs in Heller and McDonald.

And look I agree there are people on the gun rights side who feel the same way and who have no current desire to leave the other end zone. I even understand your desire to consider yourself superior to them, but the problem is not solved by calling them names like “gun nuts.”

Seriously now, suggesting that someone has a mental condition merely because they refuse to agree with what you deem reasonable may demonstrate a level of self-conceit and derision of the views of others, but it does nothing to build an environment of trust required for any compromise. And since we are on this subject I’ll also say this…I have in my time looked at every version of the ever-evolving DSM manual, and nowhere do any of them list a mental health condition entitled “failure to agree with or compromise with Vegas.”

Even on this blog we all do far more talking past each other than to each other. Please don’t suggest you are not a part of the problem too.

 

I agree the common law of self-defense is a law of necessity. By this we mean your right to use force in self-defense ends when you reasonably perceive that the threat has ended. A shot that puts an attacker on the ground and renders him incapacitated ends the right of self-defense. You cannot walk over to him and shoot him again (or kick him, etc.) as he lies helpless on the ground. It is a right to stop the threat, not a right of retaliation.

In addition, I think we all need to realize that self-defense is limited by the rule which requires that the amount of force used must be reasonable. For example, you cannot use deadly force to prevent a child from hitting you with a green willow switch.

For reference, here is a jury instruction from Virginia that would be used where the defendant on trial claims self-defense (Virginia follows the classic common law rule of self-defense):

THE COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY THAT the amount of force used in self-defense must be reasonable in relation to the harm threatened, and that the defendant is not allowed to use deadly force in self- defense unless he reasonably feared, under the circumstances as they appeared to him, that he was in danger of being killed or that he was in danger of great bodily harm.

I note that where women are concerned suffering sexual assaults is equated with great bodily harm.

But whether that fear of suffering death or great bodily harm exists depends on how a judge or jury views the circumstances you are confronted with. One thing that is certain is that more than just fear is required. Deadly force requires an overt act against you (i.e. angry words cast your way are not enough by themselves). Here is a case that explains this point:

In dealing with apparent danger the jury should be told that before an accused is justified in making an attack with a dangerous weapon upon his adversary he must honestly believe and must have reasonable cause to believe that he was in imminent danger of losing his life or suffering serious bodily injury. . . . “The bare fear that a man intends to commit murder, however well grounded, unaccompanied by any overt act indicative of such an intention, will not warrant killing the party by way of prevention.” Peeples v. Commonwealth, 30 Va. App. 626, 637-638, 519 S.E.2d. 382, ___ (1999)

Also, since it has been brought up in this thread, here is a case quote outlining the common law “castle doctrine”:

Defense of habitation and justifiable self-defense overlap in the "castle doctrine" which states that one may, without retreating, use force, to include deadly force if necessary, to keep aggressors out of his own house. This part of the castle doctrine is one aspect of defense of habitation. . . . [T]he justification exists in the curtilage as well as the castle. Roger D. Groot, Criminal Offenses and Defenses in Virginia 114 (3rd ed. 1994). Alexander v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 771, 780, 508 S.E.2d 912, ___ (1999).

Note the common law rule here does not require that the “aggressor” you are trying to keep out be armed….

When you look at the “homeowner protection” bills in the various states, many of them are merely codifying this old common law rule.

I offer these as examples. Please be aware that your state may or may not follow these rules, and if you live outside my beloved Commonwealth of Virginia you need to check the laws in your state—and how your courts have interpreted them.

---

If a slave, says Plato, defends himself, and kills a freeman, he ought to be treated as a parricide. This is a civil law which punishes self-defense, though dictated by nature. . . .

It is unreasonable. . .to oblige a man not to attempt the defense of his own life. . . .

Who does not see that self-defense is a duty superior to every precept. . . .

[T]he laws of an Italian republic [Venice], where bearing fire-arms is punished as a capital crime and where it is not more fatal to make an ill use of them than to carry them, is not agreeable to the nature of things. Montesquieu, The Spirit of Laws, pp. 59, 60, 64, and 79-80 (trans. T. Nugent, 1899).

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia , in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES, Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300.

 

I prefer this:

Voluntary access to the FBI NICS database for private individuals and making the sale/transfer to a prohibited person a felony regardless of whether the seller knew or not because the seller would have the means to verify that the person was not prohibited..... in exchange for reciprocity of CCW licensing between all states.

 

Are you not capable of defending yourself? If you are not, then I will try to help you, for the same reason I wouldn't step in if two grown men were fighting but if a grown man was beating on a child I would.

 

I would step in if ten grown men were beating another man. But then that is me.

 

Irrelevant nonsense, intended to provide a convenient excuse for strict laws failing to work as intended.

And the untied states as a society has also decided that there are some individuals do not deserve to ever be free in society, and who should be confined for the duration of their lives so that they cannot hurt themselves or others.

The FBI is experienced in matters pertaining to the law and crime. The CDC is experienced in matters pertaining to medicine. Thus the findings of the FBI take precedent over the CDC.

The problem with this interpretation of Heller and McDonald is that various states are focusing their efforts on firearms and components that are in common use, and overwhelming used for all legal and lawful purposes. Thus they are ignoring and violating both rulings.

 

Claiming per capita data is irrelevalent is simply hilarious. It is because you say so? LOL

- - - Updated - - -

Reported. And if you don't like it take it up with the mods

 

Unsupported nonsense as well.

 

You're not being attacked by ten men. You're being talked about by ten men in a moderated forum. If talk hurts you, contact a moderator, advice which I believe you've recently given out yourself.

 

Very well then. I will take your advice

 

It is irrelevant because you are claiming that a higher annual death toll in a state with strict firearm restrictions, supposedly intended to prevent such from actually occurring, is not actual proof that their laws are failing miserably. You throw in this per capita nonsense in an effort to excuse the fact that laws fail to achieve their supposedly intended goal.

If strict laws work, which you have made being a statement of absolute fact, there is simply no excuse for the state of California having more firearm-related deaths than every other state in the nation. Having more people than any other state is not a legitimate reason for these laws failing to work as they were sold to the public. And when their newly enacted laws fail to make any difference, per capita will still be irrelevant.

You are free to report whatever you wish, to whatever extent you wish. However abuse of the reporting feature for posts that do not warrant such is an offense that can lead to your removal, just as if you were reported too many times. If you are problematic you will be removed from the forum regardless. You would not be the first, you would not be the last.

 

I can not explain per capita data to you. It is used as the statistical basis for a wide variety of outcome measures. But if you do not understand that I can not make it any simpler for you. The fact remains states with lax gun control have more per capita gun deaths. I can not make it simpler than that

 

Yet more accurate data showing locales with high crime areas "trumps" yours. Gary, Chicago, Philly, Baltimore, Birmingham etc etc LOL.

 

Actually the most accurate data would have the largest sample size and include rural and city areas. Most gun deaths per capita are in lax gun control states

 

Wrong. Chicago has a sample size of 3 million. You can repeat this all you want. No one believes it. LOL.

 

Hmmm....what is the sample size of California? LOL

 

So based on this argument the government could stipulate that email doesn't fall under 1A protections, and that books could be banned with the commerce clause.

 

Potentially true (I don't agree with many of the anti-gun restrictive legislation by Democrats) but if that is the case it will eventually be adjudicated in the federal courts and those laws and regulations will be struck down.

I'd still point out that "common use" is key and popularity does not establish the connection to "common use" per se. Is the item in question superficial to the "common use" for lawful and legal purposes is a question that can legitimately be asked. This line of thought would be related to high capacity magazines for example. Unless you're one hell of a bad shot you don't require high capacity magazines for hunting nor would you require them for other common uses such as target and competition shooting. While I stopped hunting many years ago I still go target shooting and I don't require a 20 round magazine (I only have semiautomatic pistols anyway) for target practice.

Does that meet the criteria? I don't know but it's questionable and doesn't appear to really have any Second Amendment implications because it's not an actual infringement upon the "keep and bear arms" provisions of the Second Amendment.

Of course that's not what this threads about unless you have something you would trade by giving up "high capacity" magazines. Perhaps "no prohibitions against rifles with a pistol grip" in exchange for "no high capacity magazines" could be a trade-off.

 

You continue to assert this as if it's established in law. It's just your opinion.

Why do you use the word "require"?

What is a "high capacity magazine"? It's a term with completely arbitrary definitions. We've seen laws defining them as 20, 15, 10 and 7 round capacity. Since there is no real definition, and no real logic behind the limitation, any restrictions on capacity are unacceptable. If restricting capacity to ten is Constitutional, then a restriction to 5 or 2 is just as Constitutional.

 

Common use, however, does establish the connection to "common use".
Virtually every time an AR15 is used for any legal purpose, it is so used with a "high capacity" magazine.
The fact that such a magazine may not be "necessary" for that use is meaningless, the fact that they ARE commonly used meets the test.

- - - Updated - - -

Common use, however, does establish the connection to "common use".
Virtually every time an AR15 is used for any legal purpose, it is so used with a "high capacity" magazine.
The fact that such a magazine may not be "necessary" for that use is meaningless, the fact that they ARE commonly used meets the test.

 

Indeed - that a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds qualifies as "high capacity" is subjective and nonsensical opinion.

"High capacity" is a qualitative standard, in reference to what might be a "standard" capacity; this, of course, necessitates determining what constitutes a "standard" capacity magazine.
For the AR15, a military weapon of war, that's 30 rounds.

 

To be more accurate, the AR15 is not a military weapon of war, as it isn't a issue weapon for any military. It is a semi-auto sporting arm in common use for lawful purpose in the US and in other countries.