8 ms·
The difference between respecting a right and not can be seen by how much restraint goes into crafting the law. The details can get murky, but often the spirit
The difference between respecting a right and not can be seen by how much restraint goes into crafting the law. The details can get murky, but often the spirit is plain to see: was a good faith effort made to specialize the law to the problem being solved with minimal interference on any rights?
Here, the California order doesn't ban going to church, it places additional building capacity and total attendance limits.
There are complications though -- the longer these emergency orders drag on, the more skeptical we should be. They should be reviewed frequently, enforced moderately, and lifted promptly along with other similar activities. Surely it would turn into disrespecting the right if ballparks and concerts reopen first.
Another complication is the idea of protests. While limiting the capacity of a church doesn't completely deny religious services; limiting protests strikes more at the heart of the first amendment and our ability to challenge decisions at all.
The closing of gun stores is also problematic. It seems many gun stores in California have been ordered completely closed (not sure about state/county/city status), when other retail establishments remain open. A farmers market near my house is offering pony rides, the Starbucks and the Baskin Robbins are open, as are liquor stores and probably dispensaries. I think there is a real Constitutional issue there, and if it makes it to SCOTUS I would expect an injunction allowing gun stores to remain open.
Are you advocating gun stores have to remain open for the right of the people to own a gun?
Why would anybody need a gun right now while their biggest life treat is a virus?
Please lord more riots with more people having guns would be a plead from Anders Breivik. Does that guy have internet these days?
I think the argument is just about unfair discrimination.
During the shutdown, police in my area had severe staffing issues, and flat out said they would only come out for the most serious crime. At the same time, huge numbers of people were released from prison.
> Are you advocating gun stores have to remain open for the right of the people to own a gun?
How am I supposed to bear arms if I can't obtain arms? I think it's fairly reasonable to close gun shops if all other stores are closed, but there's no reason not to allow gun shops to open under the same terms as other shops. Maybe pickup / curbside only, maybe strict simultaneous customer limits, whatever.
> Why would anybody need a gun right now while their biggest life treat is a virus?
I personally don't think more guns help to deescalate situations, but there's like a lot of unrest, and some people think guns can be used to protect themselves from rioters, riot police, instigators, or some combination of the three.
You actually want the gun stores to remain open. Why? Because closing them just feeds into the hoarding mentality that causes people to buy irrational numbers of guns when they are available. If someone feels like they can walk into a gun store any time they want and buy a gun with no hassle, they won't be in any rush. And for certain kinds of people, there's a big element of "the government doesn't want me to have this thing... here's a pile of cash, I'll take 12 and stick it to 'em".
Since you asked, the right to keep and bear arms includes the ability of ellegible people to buy them, along with ammunition, and make use of practice/training facilities.
Part of having a right means you don't need to explain it to anyone else. You can exercise your right, and if someone is curious why you did what you did (past tense), then you can choose to explain it to them. Nobody gets to ask "why" as a condition of exercising a right; otherwise it's not a right, it's a privilege.
Legally purchased firearms are rarely used to do something illegal. That would be stupid, they have your name and address. I see no reason why a gun store can’t remain open. Or any store for that matter. It should be up to that business to decide social distancing protocols and mask wearing. If you don’t agree with how that store operates, don’t shop at it. Simple.
The gun store issue in California is even worse because of the gun laws. You cannot lawfully acquire ammunition anywhere except at a gun store. You cannot lawfully acquire or transfer a firearm to another person except at a gun store. Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out. And if you have a place to shoot right now, your ammunition supply is probably a little perilous.
The background-check-for-ammo law is a constitutional disaster. There was recently an injunction against the AG enforcing it, but the ninth stayed the lower court's order.
I read the decision granting the injunction, and wow. The ID requirements are even higher than for buying a gun -- you need certain kinds of ID that proves that you are a citizen (passports can take a long time to get, and some people have complications with their birth certificate). For those who were able to provide such an ID, the background check falsely rejected 16% of applicants, amounting to over 100K people.
I really think that people would be more willing to compromise if they felt that their rights were respected. But what a lot of people don't realize is how outright hostile these gun control laws are. They are meant to penalize and annoy gun owners, not provide safety.
Another example is the handgun roster in California, where you can only buy certain models that were approved before 2013. They aren't safer, they just made the new standards infeasible to meet, so no more models are approved. This doesn't help anyone, unless you think annoying gun owners is a worthwhile goal.
Curbside pickup ammo and guns is allowed, see for example http://reedsindoorrange.com/ http://reedsindoorrange.com/
Why not implement social distancing rules and require proper ventillation or even outdoor services? Religious orgs are non-profits that can't survive without attendance. Prohibiting the free excercise of religion is a clear violation, especially given that other unprotected gatherings are allowed with less restrictions. To many it's an optional gathering, to others it's a "church vs state" fight, but the right was esrablished to protect the people that consider these gatherings as important.
Sepration of Church and state is a two way road,you can't be ok with this and then have a problem with sharia law and honor killings. If religious law cannot force governmental law to accept a contradicting outcome that is acceptable only because the government in turn is restricted from telling religious organizations how to conduct their affairs. If this is a public health concern, rules must be established for everyone with no exceptions. If there are exceptions, religious organizations get priority because they are specifically protected along with freedom of speech and aseembly as the first right of the people.
Let me spin it a bit for you due to all the riots and protests that are happening, majority (most?all?) Gatherings to plan and mobilize civil rights movement protests happened in protected Church assemblies (people sometimes like to conveniently excluse MLK's tile of Reverend). Today it's a virus, next month a terrorist attack, maybe then an enemy invasion and natural disaster. I understand this opinion will be unpopular here but you must understand OUR equal application of rights has no exception. Period. For example,You can say freedom of speech can't apply if you're shouting "fire in a crowd", but you can't say Jack can shout fire but Christian Emily can't. It's not just because Emily is being picked on for being religious,but also because she's a person guaranteed equal treatment.
> you can't be ok with this and then have a problem with sharia law and honor killings.
I am, and I do.
This is an egregiously hyperbolic argument. Perhaps you, personally, are unable to make the distinction, but most people are perfectly able to distinguish between a temporary restriction to stop a virus spreading and literal murder.
Your argument is logically equivalent to saying “if you support building codes that ensure churches have fire exits, then you also support sharia law and honor killings”
"I’m strongly in favor out stronger gun control but find your argument here reasonable."
A few genuinely curious questions.
First, would you rather there was just no 2nd Amendment at all? I can understand that point of view.
Second, let's assume there is a right to bear arms, and that it's not going away. Do you think all of the little half measures are actually helpful? Stuff like how you can buy ammo, or what models of guns are acceptable, or what kind of grip or stock a rifle can have?
Third: rifles. Not many killings happen with rifles. They are lower than knives, and behind even fists/feet[1], even in states with very permissive rifle laws. What do you think about removing pretty much all restrictions on rifles (and accessories, including suppressors[2]), and instead restricting pistols more heavily?
[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-20 https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
[2] For most rifles, a normal suppressor just reduces the sound from "instant permanent hearing damage" to "louder than a jackhammer and you still probably want hearing protection".
Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world (I am a retired soldier that has served abroad, and have gone to gun ranges to shoot).
I think currently stronger background checks, strong penalties for selling guns outside of this and bans of large magazines and ways of reloading quickly.
I would support some way of limiting open arms in public places, I do not think they belong in demonstrations or Subway stores and are often used to intimidate.
I'm personally mostly OK with rifles, except automatic rifles with large capacity magazine. If you have a hunting rifle and it can be traced back to you, please have your fun.
The parts I feel strongly about are strict background checks, weapons can be traced back, and should not be used for intimidation in protests. The rest are details and I am sure we can come to an agreement.
In the weapon culture I come from if you point a weapon at someone, loaded or not, your are assumed to be hostile or an idiot that should not have a gun and will be met with extreme force.
"I'm personally mostly OK with rifles, except automatic rifles with large capacity magazine."
You mean semi-auto or fully-auto?
I ask because many states in the stats I offered allow pretty much any semi-auto rifle to eligible people with little restriction, and the deaths are still lower than knives/fists. While I agree that some rifles are scary, the data just don't seem to justify restrictions on semi-auto rifles regardless of magazines.
I think all states have laws against brandishing or threatening people with any weapon.
I generally agree about background checks, but some laws are pretty extreme, where it prevents reasonable sharing, and I don't agree with that.
I am not aware of any real problems with open carry demonstrations other than they make people uncomfortable. That doesn't seem like a great reason to pass a law, but I don't see a big problem having a law like that in city limits. You need ways to allow people to legally transport though, which should include walking.
Agree fully about ways of transporting that includes walking. I have seen many pictures of people using guns for intimidation. I remember one picture of a black kid in Charlottesville laying down with the hands up and armed protesters were pointing guns and rifles at him. To me this is a pretty serious offence.
I think we mostly agree about everything except on the margins.
No full auto for sure, semi? I don't really know. As a soldier I never used full auto in training or in action other than for the memes. It is just not a reasonable way to spend your ammo and aim well.
The issue with rifles is not really that the stats show they are dangerous but the potential they have for example in school shootings so if possible I would prefer to keep them out of the hands of civilians. Perhaps banning them is too much and instead strict background checks.
As for sharing, I don't really know enough about it. There would need to be background checks for that person as well as if they would buy the weapon I suppose? Perhaps some minor way of tracking this, should be possible now that we have Internet. Weapons should be handled with care, if you have to take 5 min to share it I am OK with that.
> Overall I would rather 2nd amendment would not exist and I don't think it belongs in a modern world
Genuine question since I see this argument online with some regularity. Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world? What does the time frame (modern vs not modern) have to do with human rights?
Several reason:
- Civilians today do not have the means to stand up to a modern state. For a minor example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege, note the outcome was never in any doubt just how much casualties the feds wanted to inflict
- Weapons today have much larger damage potential
- We live in a world that violence and weapons are not part of the way it used to be, for the better. I don't think we are ready to go back to having to defend ourselves
- A strong and well armed democracy was hoped to be a better solution to this
Taliban didn't do too badly in afghanistan. We've never defeated them despite over a decade of the world's most advanced military. Sure, they've had help from iran and such, but still their armaments are mostly inferior to what the average US citizen can buy with the right license and enough money.
> Why don't you think the 2A belongs in a modern world?
The forgotten premise of the 2A is that it would prevent tyranny by providing the tools so that the citizenry could demand that the government not form permanent external or internal security services beyond what was necessary for a minimal tripwire and training cadre force that would form the nucleus of an at-need force that would be sized up as situations presented with the militia and it's privately-owned arms. Liberty wasn't guaranteed by permitting the general citizeney arms to fight the central government at need, but by providing the tools so that the citizens could use the government to meet their security needs while keeping the general citizenry and not a distinct and separate peofessional warrior group as the necessary and essential component of the government providing that function.
The development of standing armies scaled to fight major wars rather than serve as tripwire and cadre forces, professional paramilitary law enforcement services, the professionalization of not just standing military forces but even the ready reserves, culminating in the all-volunteer force, have all rendered that design outdated.
The 2A might conceivably serve it's function in a modern world, but not in a country where the citizenry has accepted the changes the US has since roughly the second quarter of the 19th Century which have completely eradicated it's fundamental premise.
> and should not be used for intimidation in protests
“Brandishing” a weapon is already a crime.
I think showing up armed to a protest against the government is sometimes important - reminding the government that the populace as a whole has the means to fight oppression is an act of political speech.
Using guns to imply a desire for violence against a group other the government seems wrong to me and I would be against it if I thought there was a way to legitimately differentiate between the two.
> . Lending a firearm to a friend in case of civil unrest is right out.
In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days, civil unrest not required, and the rules are looser for family members out to grandparents/grandchildren. In the event of some imminent need due to civil unrest, the general criminal defense of necessity, which is recognized in California law, would be available even if the loan was otherwise prohibited.
The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
>In California, you can lend a firearm to other people who have a firearms safety certificate for up to 30 days... The state’s gun laws must be too loose if the firearms fetishists have to keep inventing fake restrictions to campaign against.
Maybe before you go around calling names it would be beneficial to do some research of your own? I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that your knowledge of CA firearms laws is outdated as opposed to being maliciously incorrect:
Years ago you could lend guns to anyone with an FSC or HSC for <30 days. However the powers that be decided that this was a "loophole"[1] and banned all loans to non-relatives. These are not "fake restrictions", you can verify them on the state of California's own website[2]
edit: as mentioned below, it's still legal to let a non-owner handle a firearm as long as the original owner is constantly present and supervising. So sharing on a trip to the range is legal, but letting someone take a gun home afterwards is not.
[1]: https://a17.asmdc.org/article/2016-legislation-0 https://a17.asmdc.org/article/2016-legislation-0
[2]: Law which amended PC § 27880[3] to ban nonfamilial loans: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB1511 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...
[3]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27880 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
>> “banned all loans to non-relatives”
False; see PC § 27885:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=27885 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
——
To give some idea of how complex firearm law is in California, take a peak at the 141 page document below (current as of 2019) covering “just” the state’s penal code:
https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download https://www.atf.gov/file/117166/download
True, when I think of loan I was thinking more along the lines of "let a friend take it home", not loans that require colocation. Definitely agree with you on the complexity— some of my personal favorites are how CA and the Feds measure the lengths of guns completely differently, leading to much confusion. And of course there's 3 or 4 different definitions of what it means to "possess" a gun, which depend a lot on the context
False; see PC § 27885:
PC § 27885 (a) The person loaning the firearm is at all times within the presence of the person being loaned the firearm.
I think most people's definition of "loan" isn't limited to the loaner having to be right there for the duration. That's like a library "loaning" a book but forbidding you from taking it out of the librarian's view. In practical terms, it bans loans.
I am aware of the comparison and you're misunderstanding.
Fire exits don't prohibit free excercise of religion.
The government's authority to say "actual murder" as you put it (by the way, is capital punishment murder? Because honor killings are capital punishment under a different law.) is wrong is legitimate only because they honor the rights of the governed, a critical and primary right being the right to assemble, freedom of religion and equal application of the law,especially to a group explicitly protected.
> I am, and I do.
Of course you do, because you perhaps forget many wars were fought over this subject. It's not optional. If you believe that way then do you also believe neo-nazis should be shot on sight for displaying a swastika? But burning a swastika is illegal? Of course not, you allow both because both are protected. But I can tell you, the day they ban burning swastikas would be the day people line up to shoot neo-nazis. I make the hyperbolic comparisons for a reason. The extremes start small. Let us not take peace and freedom for granted.
I am not saying Church services should be allowed. I am saying when you do ease restrictions, do it equally! Bases on building capacity and ventillation among other factors not "Churches". If that's ok then let's do the same by saying "black people can only assemble at 25% capacity because of covid death rate in the black community". There is a reason this basic rights exist. You treat them as suggestions and act surprised when the country is falling apart.
If responsibilities are not optional, rights are not optional.