Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

NY Times: States Loosen Gun Laws

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by Cyrano, Feb 24, 2010.

  1. Cyrano

    Cyrano Resident Curmudgeon Forum Contributor

    Oct 1, 2007
    Likes Received:
    The no-longer-the-Newspaper-of-Record-of-the-United-States, the New York Times, has an article in today's edition. which depicts the walking back of the cat on the issue of gun control.

    When President Obama took office, gun rights advocates sounded the alarm, warning that he intended to strip them of their arms and ammunition.

    And yet the opposite is happening. Mr. Obama has been largely silent on the issue while states are engaged in a new and largely successful push for expanded gun rights, even passing measures that have been rejected in the past.

    Here is the complete article:

    NYT: States push looser gun laws - The New York Times-

    As you read the article, you can see the slant against gun rights and gun owners plain as day in the choice of words Ian Urbana uses. You will also note that he beats the drum of "close the gun show loophole" while conveniently omitting the FBI's conclusion that much less than 1% of criminals obtain guns at gun shows. He also tries to make much of the 'successes' the anti-gunners have had with votes on 20 college campuses banning concealed carry by students licensed to carry concealed, while downplaying pro-gun laws passed by state legislatures around the country.

    When a reporter for a national paper has to dip down to board of regents votes to come up with a meaningless statistic to support his anti-gun position, you know the situation must be getting desperate for the anti-gunners. It surely will be fun to watch these leftists try to tapdance around the ***-kicking I fully expect Alan Gura to give to the lawyer supporting the anti-gun Chicago position in front of the Supreme Court next week!
  2. Archetype_wyo

    Archetype_wyo G&G Enthusiast

    Nov 27, 2008
    Likes Received:

    Simply put...Ian Urbana is a tard..:loser:

    What happened to checks and balances?? Someone needs to put some checks and balances on the Feds...chances are alot of people will be fired for abuse of power and tyranny.
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2010
  3. redrider13

    redrider13 G&G Newbie

    Nov 3, 2008
    Likes Received:
    A few of my thoughts

    I hope you take the time to read through my thoughts here, this is from the eyes of a 19yr old attending college who sees the political spectrum as a Middle-of-the-road Libertarian/Republican. Please do not confuse Libertarian with Liberal, they are definitely not the same.

    I like how Obama hasn't done much about gun control, he has neither pushed or pulled on the gun control issue as of yet to me. The thing that does scare me is guns on campus, legally or illegally. I have first hand experience with this issue right now. My biggest problem is this: We have the right to protect ourselves, but campuses in general speaking, are pretty safe. I feel that the legal introduction of firearms on campus is not a good idea, because of the all the emotional states a student can go through. Stress, anger, peer to peer relations, and the general up and downs of life can go unchecked on campus. This is why I feel a snap decision can happen more easily causing either a shooting or a suicide. You can argue that other students could protect themselves with the right to carry, but this situation wouldn't have happened in the first place if guns were not allowed on campus. Even though I don't think its a great idea for guns on campuses, its always good to remember "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Only Minutes Away".

    These bills are a step in the right direction, but the question remains, would these have made it if they weren't piggybacked on another bill? The Virginia ones would and did, but the federal ones?

    The Brady campaign just shot themselves in the foot. No major gun control law changes were put into affect. The only thing that happened was that the DC vs Heller case was decided (in favor of Heller) and similar lawsuits followed. This lawsuit, as we all know, was pro-gun.

    These sort of common sense laws are the razor's edge of 2nd amendment rights. The question come to this, how far is too far? Where does it get ridiculous?

    Point #1:

    I do not believe in the one-gun-a-month law, it is just impeding legal gun owners. I do however believe in background checks and knowing who I'm going to sell a gun to. I am also in support of background checks for private sales (aka the loophole). Even though the statistics are against a criminal using this loophole, it won't hurt me to make sure the guy trying to buy my gun isn't a criminal. I've bought guns at gun shows and it take ~30 minutes to get a background check done. It just gives me more time to browse around and check ammo prices for my purchase.

    Point #2:
    Even though I don't think it is a good idea for colleges to allow weapons on campus, I do believe in the fact that you should be able to defend yourself any where you go. Think about it for a second. If you go to a restaurant or a bar, 9 times out of 10 you are going to spend more than 30 minutes in there. This whole time you are unprotected while you are out of reach of your firearm. Guns should be allowed in bars as long as the gun owner/carrier is not drinking or in an altered state of mind (ie. drugs or alcohol). This is a good thing, guns and alcohol do not mix. Ever.

    As we all know, the Freedom of Firearms Act (FFA) is one of the most radical pro-gun bills to be passed by a state.

    For those of you who don't know here it is in a nutshell: If the FFA bill is passed in a state, guns of any kind can be manufactured and purchased within state boundaries only to be used within state boundaries without going through the Feds (the ATFE). This would nullify the ATFE and federal law because the state is choosing to not follow federal law therefore nullifying it.

    The basic argument of this is that if Montana can manufacture and sell these weapons to be used within the state, these guns will not cross state boundaries. By definition the federal government is allowed to take over when manufactured products cross state boundaries (this is considered interstate traffic).

    Just throwing this here to be clear of what I mean by nullification:
    Nullification - the failure or refusal of a U.S. state to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, esp. on Constitutional grounds.

    The problem is this:
    -The ATFE is claiming that Montana cannot nullify the laws they enforce.
    -Montana is nullifying the laws the ATFE enforces in their interpretation of the tenth amendment and the through their interpretation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the constitution).

    Basically this whole decision is how far will the federal government go before it will surrender power to the states. Nullification has been used successfully in the past, but this is the first time where it will apply to the second amendment, arguably the most important amendment.

    **Disclaimer: This is my opinion and my opinion only, it may have faults, but they are my faults. Do not take my word as law, I am only interpreting what I read and hear. I am at no fault if you use this information and it is wrong in any way.**

    That's my $.02 about that.
  4. big shrek

    big shrek G&G Evangelist

    Mar 19, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Hate to point this put, but there are more mass shootings at workplaces than will ever happen at schools. All those same stressors exist at almost every jobsite already.

    Most students at colleges at under 21 and can't have a handgun anyway.

    So that leaves the OLDER students who have matured properly and have their heads on straight...and CCW permits. Which means they've received training and have spent serious time thinking about what they will do if some nutbag starts popping off rounds on their campus.

    I carried during college, all five years. No problems occured where I ever even had to unzip the bag, much less grab for my Star model 30. But I was VERY assured that the three 15-round mags inside would be more than enough to stop any bad guys. And I'm thankful that I had taken the time to get properly trained, through the military and through the state CCW course, that if anything had occured, I would have responded in a proper manner.

    Besides, all it means when you have a No Gun that the bad guys know they have a Live Shooting Range with ZERO chance of getting shot themselves!!!
  5. redrider13

    redrider13 G&G Newbie

    Nov 3, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Shrek, you have a good point, but I know some people who are twice my age and still haven't matured enough in my opinion to own a gun. I think it is conditional upon who should be carrying. Don't quote me on this, but I believe VA law states that a CCW permit holder has to attain permission from the president of the school to carry on campus. Other than that there is no law against it.

    The question of concealed carrying on campus is a great big "if...then..." for me.
  6. nathangdad

    nathangdad G&G Newbie

    Nov 17, 2007
    Likes Received:

    bravo and hooray for the states.

    Perhaps, just perhaps, Obama and his liberal braintrust(?) will look beyond the White House lawn to see gun control is a vote magnet for the Republican Party.
  7. redrider13

    redrider13 G&G Newbie

    Nov 3, 2008
    Likes Received:
  8. gunnerdave

    gunnerdave G&G Enthusiast Forum Contributor

    Aug 8, 2008
    Likes Received:
    The morons at CSU were warned by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners Assoc. that the rule is unconstitutional and a lawsuit will be filed to challenge it. It flies in the face of the Colorado Revised Statutes which prohibits enacting more stringent gun laws/policy than the State's. The time is long overdue for lawsuits to be filed by survivng families when these jackasses fail to protect those who have their right of self-defense taken away by decree that creates criminal free-fire zones.

    I'm glad the Sheriff is willing to take a stand in favor of lawful, properly trained, responsible gun owners. My hat's off to him.
Draft saved Draft deleted