7 ms·

Missouri Has Declared Federal Gun Laws Invalid

36 points by Black101 5y ago

ProjectArcturis 5y ago
Mainly because Missouri's AG is running for Senate, and he needs better wingnut credentials to compete in the primary with Eric Greitens and Mark McCloskey.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  This is a statute passed by the Missouri House and Senate, and signed by the Governor. It wasn't an action by the Attorney General.
  - ProjectArcturis 5y ago
    But the AG gets to be the public face of defending it. It raises his profile at an important time. The whole thing was orchestrated by Schmitt's establishment-Republican allies in the MO House and Senate. They're afraid Greitens or McCloskey might win the primary, which would mean a Democrat might have a chance at that seat.
iaw 5y ago
Someone said to me the other day that they're going to pair gun rights with marijuana decriminalization. This appears to be the same playbook states used to legalize marijuana but for deadly weapons.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Causality1 5y ago
Interesting. They're basically using the sanctuary city playbook. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Yup. Which itself is the same as the weed playbook. Anyone with more than six brain cells saw this coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time until a red state gave the feds the bird on an issue like this. Frankly I'm surprised nobody did this sooner.
  - laverya 5y ago
    That's because other states have already done this! [0] Though there's been a big push for such legislation over the past year. Not mentioned in the article: what happened to Kansas's [1] attempt to bypass federal gun regulations. The people involved in that test case are still in prison. 0: https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states-are-trying-to-nullify-federal-gun-control/ https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states... 1: https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461 https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461
  - beerandt 5y ago
    It's a bit more complicated with guns, because businesses aren't going to usually break federal law to sell individuals firearms, since there's a legal way to do it. Weed businesses have no choice but to break the law, since they have no way to comply with it, federally. And private firearm sales between individuals weren't ever regulated so no real change there.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  I mean the red states have mostly been doing this with abortion rights
  - treeman79 5y ago
    Abortion isn’t mentioned In the constitution. Guns are.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      Legally, the constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. In the case of abortion they decided that the right to privacy includes the right to get an abortion, even if it isn’t mentioned explicitly in the constitution.
underseacables 5y ago
Any lawyers, or perhaps better legislative experts, that can tell us how the constitution plays here?
- underseacables 5y ago
  Actually as I re-read this article a second time, it is really one sided in favor of Gun control. Is there a better article that at least tries to be impartial?
- HenryKissinger 5y ago
  I'm not a lawyer or a legislative expert, but the article answers the question. > The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause essentially says federal law is supreme over state law. And the preemption doctrine means that "valid federal law will always displace a state law, even a state constitutional provision that is inconsistent with that federal law," Vladeck says.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - underseacables 5y ago
    “essentially says” doesn’t quite cut it for me. Thank you for pointing that out but im deeply suspicious of the article and bias. So I’m hoping there is someone outside of the article, perhaps with less conflict, to also weigh in.
    - laverya 5y ago
      In practice, it means that local/state police won't/shouldn't call the ATF if they suspect someone is doing something evil with a gun, like making one with a 15" barrel, putting a stock on a pistol, using an oil filter as a suppressor, or 3d-printing a drop-in auto sear in order to waste money at the range more quickly. Some of the above might still be illegal under state law, of course, and those cops can arrest you for that. But if the ATF discovers that you've committed one of the above crimes (10 year felony for each), they can still roll in and arrest you/shoot your dog. They just won't have access to local support.
thrill 5y ago
The federal courts have consistently found that states do not have the right to override federal law. States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate. The federal government certainly can make it difficult for state governments to meet their budget needs by withholding the passing to a state almost any federal monies they desire.
- randyrand 5y ago
  Marijuana went through this as well. States 'legalized' despite selling / consumption being illegal federally. It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason.
  - sterlind 5y ago
    the legal fiction is that the Controlled Substances Act relies on the Interstate Commerce Clause to apply - Congress can only ban drugs on Federal land, and ban drugs as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce in drugs. Congress doesn't have arbitrary power over states (in theory!) so states would argue that since pot is only legalized within their borders, and isn't (legally) sold across state lines, the CSA doesn't apply. the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case, but they couldn't force states to actually enforce their drug laws - it'd be a battle of attrition with the DEA, and it'd piss the states off. honestly, I think they decided it wasn't worth the fight since pot is pretty popular, so they let sleeping dogs lie.
    - mannerheim 5y ago
      > the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case They did win that, see Gonzales v. Raich.
  - GeekyBear 5y ago
    >It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason. Congress used the power of the purse to forbid the Federal Government spending any money to prosecute those in states that had made medical pot legal. >Congress included a provision in the 2015 spending bill prohibiting the DOJ from using any funds to prevent states that have legalized the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana from implementing these laws. In doing so, Congress was using the “power of the purse” as a check on executive power, one of its most important constitutional prerogatives. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, this power “may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-marijuana-prosecutions-probably-arent-legal.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-m... Congress has renewed that provision every year since, and made it clear to the Trump administration that they would extend the ban to include states that had passed full legalization instead of just medical marijuana, if forced to do so.
cbradford 5y ago
We have had sanctuary states and cities for years that have said they will defy federal law on immigration. The president has been set.
- nathanaldensr 5y ago
  Interesting typo--president. I think you meant precedent.
- quantified 5y ago
  Unlike cannabis and immigration status, there’s a real constitutional amendment involved. I’m interested in the arguments that somehow treat the three of these differently. (Pro-cannabis-choice, anti-immigration-hypocrisy here.)
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    I don’t believe there is anything that requires states to cooperate with federal law enforcement. On the other hand, they can’t interfere with federal law enforcement either. So the feds can certainly try to go after any immigration, drug, or gun law violations if they choose to, regardless of what state law says. It just comes down to how they want to use their resources.
- drewcoo 5y ago
  That precedent is called the 10th Amendment. And it didn't have anything to do with sanctuary whatevers.
open-paren 5y ago
The Utah legislature has been attempting to do the same thing recently. After eliminating the requirement for concealed carry licenses, they've propose an amendment[1] to the state's constitution that "declares Utah a Second Amendment Sanctuary State". The only reason it hasn't happened is because the governor won't let the legislature include it in the special legislative sessions they've been having [1] Full bill text: https://le.utah.gov/~2021X1/bills/static/SR0902.html https://le.utah.gov/~2021X1/bills/static/SR0902.html
mnouquet 5y ago
And Texas just became a Constitutional Carry state - https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional-carry-greg-abbott/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional... !
barbacoa 5y ago
Any Missourians who want to celebrate, https://ctrlpew.com/yankee-boogle-3d-printable-ar15-full-auto-mod-swift-link/ https://ctrlpew.com/yankee-boogle-3d-printable-ar15-full-aut... Just be warned 3d printing that little squiggly looking bracket is a federal felony according to the ATF. Even downloading the 3d model is legal gray area.
- ToFab123 5y ago
  I looked up what it is and it is a tool from hell, IMHO. It converts an AR-15 rifle into a machine gun. It can fire a crazy amount of bullets in a short time. No wonder that thing is illegal. https://www.reddit.com/r/gun/comments/ivzuul/yankee_boogle/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gun/comments/ivzuul/yankee_boogle/
  - AuryGlenz 5y ago
    We should be so lucky that people looking to harm others would be using fully automatic weapons. Unless they train with it significantly chances are they’ll end up doing less damage. The one exception I can think of would be something like that Vegas shooting, where it’s a mob of people and the shooter is in what’s effectively a bunker.
sverhagen 5y ago
On my particular media diet I am given the impression that there is an overwhelming consensus around "common sense" measures such as waiting periods and background checks, which aren't even things that seem to be making it into federal law at any urgency. So, is this legislation coming from the fringes, stoking flames where there isn't a fire, or is there just a completely different perspective on these matters in Missouri that someone here could enlighten me on?
- busymom0 5y ago
  > "common sense" measures such as waiting periods and background checks There already is background checks in place. Anti-gunners and media who have never gone through it keep spouting that lie. Waiting periods do the exact opposite - why would anyone want those who need a gun for self defence to wait a month to be able to buy it? Waiting periods also are getting exploited by certain anti-gun states to prevent gun purchases. If you are lets say a woman retiring home from school late at night and need one for self defence because you saw someone following you, you want to wait a month to be able to buy it?
  - sverhagen 5y ago
    Earnest follow-up question: are they really targeting a month? I thought I'd previously heard three days or so. How would you feel if it were three days? Some person retiring home late may run into a scare that makes them want to have a gun for the other night, I suppose, but isn't that offset by wanting to keep people with mental health issues from buying guns instantly? (As in: any rash decisions involving guns seem scary?)
    - busymom0 5y ago
      Not having a gun doesn't stop suicides. Even though vast majority of the gun related deaths are suicides (gang violence is the next), a delay in obtaining a gun to commit it won't stop the suicide. There are plenty of other ways. I immigrated from a country with a major suicide problem of youngsters (because of strict education competition parenting) and almost none of the suicides occur via guns. Suicide is actually the most common cause of death for age 15-39. Poisoning (33%), hanging (26%) and self-immolation (9%) were the primary methods used to die by suicide in 2012. Japan is another country with this problem. Not letting people buy a gun just to prevent suicide is the wrong approach. The mental health problem needs to be addressed separately. New Jersey is an example of the 30 day delay and often those 30 days turn into 7-8 months. I know several people there who went through this last year when the riots were happening and they wanted to purchase a firearm for the first time only to realize how strict the laws were. Ironic enough, they had themselves voted in these laws which were now causing them the problems. This changed the minds of at least 10 friends of mine on gun control. Tim Pool, popular YouTuber went from anti-2A to SUPER-PRO 2A last year and he's from New Jersey and went through this process too. Here's forums of people complaining about this. You can find several similar examples: https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/97756-pistol-permit-delay/ https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/97756-pis... https://bearingarms.com/staff-ba/2021/03/26/new-jersey-gun-permits-face-new-legal-challenge-n42646 https://bearingarms.com/staff-ba/2021/03/26/new-jersey-gun-p... Thanks to all this, gun sales are through the roof. > 10 million people have bought guns for the first time since the beginning of 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/06/17/smith--wesson-says-fy-gun-sales-doubled-to-more-than-1-billion https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/06/17/smith--we... Btw, I am Canadian so I wish people in America actually appreciated how good they have it there when it comes to freedoms. You can't ban somebody into being a good person. If they can't get a gun they will find something else. Couple years ago, one of my friends here in Canada was being followed back home by someone. Unfortunately, even pepper sprays aren't allowed in Canada. So in case she gets attacked, she would be defenceless. Same with if you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household. The best way to defend yourself in such situations is to get a firearm and train often. Delays in obtaining one doesn't help.
WalterBright 5y ago
My issue with the gun control debate really has nothing to do with guns. It's more about the right to bear arms being in the Bill of Rights. If that can be dismissed without a Constitutional Amendment, then there'll be a full scale attack on the rest of the BoR. For example, free speech can be next on the chopping block. Oh, how convenient it would be for people to just suppress opposing views.
StavrosK 5y ago
Can someone explain to me why guns are such a big thing in some places of the US? What's the appeal? Is it just "shooting guns is fun"? I don't see much benefit otherwise.
- busymom0 5y ago
  It's for defence against threats - both domestic and abroad. Domestic threat includes a tyrannical state. Certain people try to make the claim that "The right of the people" was only referring to the government/law enforcement. This is wrong. 2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 The “right of the people” is used in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment and refers to individual freedoms. 1A: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 4A: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "The right of the people" being the crucial part. If people really want to claim that the founders were talking about only the state/militia having arms and not the individual people, then with that logic would mean that only the state/militia has the right to free speech, peaceably assemble or to be secure in their houses free from unreasonable searches without warrants - which obviously makes no sense. Therefore the founders were talking about the individual people.
  - StavrosK 5y ago
    Do people seriously claim this, though? Like, people legitimately keep guns in their homes because they might have to fight against the US Army some day? I thought this was a joke, something people say with a smile and a wink while they mean "we just think they're fun".
    - 5y ago
dmz73 5y ago
Would it be possible for federal government to outlaw bullets? There is nothing in constitution on the right to posses bullets so that would pretty much serve the same purpose as banning guns without going against the constitution. Alternatively, there could be a large levy on purchase and annual ownership tax for ammunition which would effectively do the same.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  The constitution doesn't say either bullets or guns, it says arms. Setting up a system that lets the rich continue to do the thing you claim no one should be able to do, is not a very well considered plan.
- beerandt 5y ago
  The government has purchased ammunition in amounts that corners the market. Of course that just incentivized shooters to hoard ammo and learn how to reload.

36 points by Black101 5y ago

Mainly because Missouri's AG is running for Senate, and he needs better wingnut credentials to compete in the primary with Eric Greitens and Mark McCloskey.

Turing_Machine 5y ago
This is a statute passed by the Missouri House and Senate, and signed by the Governor. It wasn't an action by the Attorney General.
- ProjectArcturis 5y ago
  But the AG gets to be the public face of defending it. It raises his profile at an important time. The whole thing was orchestrated by Schmitt's establishment-Republican allies in the MO House and Senate. They're afraid Greitens or McCloskey might win the primary, which would mean a Democrat might have a chance at that seat.

iaw 5y ago

Someone said to me the other day that they're going to pair gun rights with marijuana decriminalization. This appears to be the same playbook states used to legalize marijuana but for deadly weapons.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Causality1 5y ago

Interesting. They're basically using the sanctuary city playbook. I look forward to seeing how this plays out.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Yup. Which itself is the same as the weed playbook. Anyone with more than six brain cells saw this coming a mile away. It was only a matter of time until a red state gave the feds the bird on an issue like this. Frankly I'm surprised nobody did this sooner.
- laverya 5y ago
  That's because other states have already done this! [0] Though there's been a big push for such legislation over the past year. Not mentioned in the article: what happened to Kansas's [1] attempt to bypass federal gun regulations. The people involved in that test case are still in prison. 0: https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states-are-trying-to-nullify-federal-gun-control/ https://reason.com/video/2021/04/14/more-than-a-dozen-states... 1: https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461 https://apnews.com/article/91541e86b9894ef28db49c75c52c3461
- beerandt 5y ago
  It's a bit more complicated with guns, because businesses aren't going to usually break federal law to sell individuals firearms, since there's a legal way to do it. Weed businesses have no choice but to break the law, since they have no way to comply with it, federally. And private firearm sales between individuals weren't ever regulated so no real change there.
rdtwo 5y ago
I mean the red states have mostly been doing this with abortion rights
- treeman79 5y ago
  Abortion isn’t mentioned In the constitution. Guns are.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    Legally, the constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is. In the case of abortion they decided that the right to privacy includes the right to get an abortion, even if it isn’t mentioned explicitly in the constitution.

underseacables 5y ago

Any lawyers, or perhaps better legislative experts, that can tell us how the constitution plays here?

underseacables 5y ago
Actually as I re-read this article a second time, it is really one sided in favor of Gun control. Is there a better article that at least tries to be impartial?
HenryKissinger 5y ago
I'm not a lawyer or a legislative expert, but the article answers the question. > The U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause essentially says federal law is supreme over state law. And the preemption doctrine means that "valid federal law will always displace a state law, even a state constitutional provision that is inconsistent with that federal law," Vladeck says.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- underseacables 5y ago
  “essentially says” doesn’t quite cut it for me. Thank you for pointing that out but im deeply suspicious of the article and bias. So I’m hoping there is someone outside of the article, perhaps with less conflict, to also weigh in.
  - laverya 5y ago
    In practice, it means that local/state police won't/shouldn't call the ATF if they suspect someone is doing something evil with a gun, like making one with a 15" barrel, putting a stock on a pistol, using an oil filter as a suppressor, or 3d-printing a drop-in auto sear in order to waste money at the range more quickly. Some of the above might still be illegal under state law, of course, and those cops can arrest you for that. But if the ATF discovers that you've committed one of the above crimes (10 year felony for each), they can still roll in and arrest you/shoot your dog. They just won't have access to local support.

thrill 5y ago

The federal courts have consistently found that states do not have the right to override federal law. States certainly can make it difficult for federal officers to operate. The federal government certainly can make it difficult for state governments to meet their budget needs by withholding the passing to a state almost any federal monies they desire.

randyrand 5y ago
Marijuana went through this as well. States 'legalized' despite selling / consumption being illegal federally. It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason.
- sterlind 5y ago
  the legal fiction is that the Controlled Substances Act relies on the Interstate Commerce Clause to apply - Congress can only ban drugs on Federal land, and ban drugs as part of its power to regulate interstate commerce in drugs. Congress doesn't have arbitrary power over states (in theory!) so states would argue that since pot is only legalized within their borders, and isn't (legally) sold across state lines, the CSA doesn't apply. the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case, but they couldn't force states to actually enforce their drug laws - it'd be a battle of attrition with the DEA, and it'd piss the states off. honestly, I think they decided it wasn't worth the fight since pot is pretty popular, so they let sleeping dogs lie.
  - mannerheim 5y ago
    > the Federal government would disagree, and would probably win in a fight citing Wickard v. Filburne or that machine gun case They did win that, see Gonzales v. Raich.
- GeekyBear 5y ago
  >It seems the states won that one, for whatever reason. Congress used the power of the purse to forbid the Federal Government spending any money to prosecute those in states that had made medical pot legal. >Congress included a provision in the 2015 spending bill prohibiting the DOJ from using any funds to prevent states that have legalized the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana from implementing these laws. In doing so, Congress was using the “power of the purse” as a check on executive power, one of its most important constitutional prerogatives. As James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, this power “may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.” https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-marijuana-prosecutions-probably-arent-legal.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/04/obamas-medical-m... Congress has renewed that provision every year since, and made it clear to the Trump administration that they would extend the ban to include states that had passed full legalization instead of just medical marijuana, if forced to do so.

cbradford 5y ago

We have had sanctuary states and cities for years that have said they will defy federal law on immigration. The president has been set.

nathanaldensr 5y ago
Interesting typo--president. I think you meant precedent.
quantified 5y ago
Unlike cannabis and immigration status, there’s a real constitutional amendment involved. I’m interested in the arguments that somehow treat the three of these differently. (Pro-cannabis-choice, anti-immigration-hypocrisy here.)
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  I don’t believe there is anything that requires states to cooperate with federal law enforcement. On the other hand, they can’t interfere with federal law enforcement either. So the feds can certainly try to go after any immigration, drug, or gun law violations if they choose to, regardless of what state law says. It just comes down to how they want to use their resources.
drewcoo 5y ago
That precedent is called the 10th Amendment. And it didn't have anything to do with sanctuary whatevers.

open-paren 5y ago

The Utah legislature has been attempting to do the same thing recently. After eliminating the requirement for concealed carry licenses, they've propose an amendment[1] to the state's constitution that "declares Utah a Second Amendment Sanctuary State". The only reason it hasn't happened is because the governor won't let the legislature include it in the special legislative sessions they've been having [1] Full bill text: https://le.utah.gov/~2021X1/bills/static/SR0902.html https://le.utah.gov/~2021X1/bills/static/SR0902.html

mnouquet 5y ago

And Texas just became a Constitutional Carry state - https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional-carry-greg-abbott/ https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/16/texas-constitutional... !

barbacoa 5y ago

Any Missourians who want to celebrate, https://ctrlpew.com/yankee-boogle-3d-printable-ar15-full-auto-mod-swift-link/ https://ctrlpew.com/yankee-boogle-3d-printable-ar15-full-aut... Just be warned 3d printing that little squiggly looking bracket is a federal felony according to the ATF. Even downloading the 3d model is legal gray area.

ToFab123 5y ago
I looked up what it is and it is a tool from hell, IMHO. It converts an AR-15 rifle into a machine gun. It can fire a crazy amount of bullets in a short time. No wonder that thing is illegal. https://www.reddit.com/r/gun/comments/ivzuul/yankee_boogle/ https://www.reddit.com/r/gun/comments/ivzuul/yankee_boogle/
- AuryGlenz 5y ago
  We should be so lucky that people looking to harm others would be using fully automatic weapons. Unless they train with it significantly chances are they’ll end up doing less damage. The one exception I can think of would be something like that Vegas shooting, where it’s a mob of people and the shooter is in what’s effectively a bunker.

sverhagen 5y ago

On my particular media diet I am given the impression that there is an overwhelming consensus around "common sense" measures such as waiting periods and background checks, which aren't even things that seem to be making it into federal law at any urgency. So, is this legislation coming from the fringes, stoking flames where there isn't a fire, or is there just a completely different perspective on these matters in Missouri that someone here could enlighten me on?

busymom0 5y ago
> "common sense" measures such as waiting periods and background checks There already is background checks in place. Anti-gunners and media who have never gone through it keep spouting that lie. Waiting periods do the exact opposite - why would anyone want those who need a gun for self defence to wait a month to be able to buy it? Waiting periods also are getting exploited by certain anti-gun states to prevent gun purchases. If you are lets say a woman retiring home from school late at night and need one for self defence because you saw someone following you, you want to wait a month to be able to buy it?
- sverhagen 5y ago
  Earnest follow-up question: are they really targeting a month? I thought I'd previously heard three days or so. How would you feel if it were three days? Some person retiring home late may run into a scare that makes them want to have a gun for the other night, I suppose, but isn't that offset by wanting to keep people with mental health issues from buying guns instantly? (As in: any rash decisions involving guns seem scary?)
  - busymom0 5y ago
    Not having a gun doesn't stop suicides. Even though vast majority of the gun related deaths are suicides (gang violence is the next), a delay in obtaining a gun to commit it won't stop the suicide. There are plenty of other ways. I immigrated from a country with a major suicide problem of youngsters (because of strict education competition parenting) and almost none of the suicides occur via guns. Suicide is actually the most common cause of death for age 15-39. Poisoning (33%), hanging (26%) and self-immolation (9%) were the primary methods used to die by suicide in 2012. Japan is another country with this problem. Not letting people buy a gun just to prevent suicide is the wrong approach. The mental health problem needs to be addressed separately. New Jersey is an example of the 30 day delay and often those 30 days turn into 7-8 months. I know several people there who went through this last year when the riots were happening and they wanted to purchase a firearm for the first time only to realize how strict the laws were. Ironic enough, they had themselves voted in these laws which were now causing them the problems. This changed the minds of at least 10 friends of mine on gun control. Tim Pool, popular YouTuber went from anti-2A to SUPER-PRO 2A last year and he's from New Jersey and went through this process too. Here's forums of people complaining about this. You can find several similar examples: https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/97756-pistol-permit-delay/ https://www.njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/97756-pis... https://bearingarms.com/staff-ba/2021/03/26/new-jersey-gun-permits-face-new-legal-challenge-n42646 https://bearingarms.com/staff-ba/2021/03/26/new-jersey-gun-p... Thanks to all this, gun sales are through the roof. > 10 million people have bought guns for the first time since the beginning of 2020 https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/06/17/smith--wesson-says-fy-gun-sales-doubled-to-more-than-1-billion https://www.forbes.com/sites/aaronsmith/2021/06/17/smith--we... Btw, I am Canadian so I wish people in America actually appreciated how good they have it there when it comes to freedoms. You can't ban somebody into being a good person. If they can't get a gun they will find something else. Couple years ago, one of my friends here in Canada was being followed back home by someone. Unfortunately, even pepper sprays aren't allowed in Canada. So in case she gets attacked, she would be defenceless. Same with if you have a wife/daughter/elderly/handicapped person in your household. The best way to defend yourself in such situations is to get a firearm and train often. Delays in obtaining one doesn't help.

WalterBright 5y ago

My issue with the gun control debate really has nothing to do with guns. It's more about the right to bear arms being in the Bill of Rights. If that can be dismissed without a Constitutional Amendment, then there'll be a full scale attack on the rest of the BoR. For example, free speech can be next on the chopping block. Oh, how convenient it would be for people to just suppress opposing views.

StavrosK 5y ago

Can someone explain to me why guns are such a big thing in some places of the US? What's the appeal? Is it just "shooting guns is fun"? I don't see much benefit otherwise.

busymom0 5y ago
It's for defence against threats - both domestic and abroad. Domestic threat includes a tyrannical state. Certain people try to make the claim that "The right of the people" was only referring to the government/law enforcement. This is wrong. 2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8 The “right of the people” is used in the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendment and refers to individual freedoms. 1A: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 4A: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. "The right of the people" being the crucial part. If people really want to claim that the founders were talking about only the state/militia having arms and not the individual people, then with that logic would mean that only the state/militia has the right to free speech, peaceably assemble or to be secure in their houses free from unreasonable searches without warrants - which obviously makes no sense. Therefore the founders were talking about the individual people.
- StavrosK 5y ago
  Do people seriously claim this, though? Like, people legitimately keep guns in their homes because they might have to fight against the US Army some day? I thought this was a joke, something people say with a smile and a wink while they mean "we just think they're fun".
  - 5y ago

dmz73 5y ago

Would it be possible for federal government to outlaw bullets? There is nothing in constitution on the right to posses bullets so that would pretty much serve the same purpose as banning guns without going against the constitution. Alternatively, there could be a large levy on purchase and annual ownership tax for ammunition which would effectively do the same.

Brian_K_White 5y ago
The constitution doesn't say either bullets or guns, it says arms. Setting up a system that lets the rich continue to do the thing you claim no one should be able to do, is not a very well considered plan.
beerandt 5y ago
The government has purchased ammunition in amounts that corners the market. Of course that just incentivized shooters to hoard ammo and learn how to reload.