Mass shooting at Florida school

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Well there would be IF you limited the sale of guns, which is what I was discussing with Ljadw there, not every post here is directed at you you know

But since I have your attention, would you have sold this one a gun, privately ?

'This one'? What, I was going to use my Jedi mind powers to determine if he was a murderer or not?

I expect I've bought and sold about 200 firearms in the course of my life; not a large number as such things go. About 120 were to complete strangers.

I've also sold cars to complete strangers, and those kill a lot more people than firearms each year, by a facor of three to five times as many.

[Snowygerry]

It has unwavering sided with gun ownership. Recently it forced Illinois to create a concealed carry program because the court ruled that the state did not have the authority to deny that option.

That seems logical, given the way you carry something seems to follow from the fact you own it.

But has it ever ruled on the question if the right to own, automatically includes a right to sell ?

[Arnold J Rimmer]

The number of gun deaths in the US last year was 15592, including unintentional shootings and defensive use(2040) but not including suicides (22000).

The number of fire-arms is estimated on 350 million.

Thus it took more than 20000 guns before some one was killed .

Russia has 9 guns per 100 inhabitants, US 110.

Murder rate in Russia was 102 per million inhabitants, in the US 42 .

Thus there is no corelation between the number of murders / murders by guns and the number of guns .

350 million is IMO/IME extremely low.

What's even more interesting is when you remove the felon-on-felon (who aren't supposed to have firearms at all) from the totals.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

That seems logical, given the way you carry something seems to follow from the fact you own it.

But has it ever ruled on the question if the right to own, automatically includes a right to sell ?

Property law. That goes back a lot further than gun ownership.

[Snowygerry]

'This one'? What, I was going to use my Jedi mind powers to determine if he was a murderer or not ?

Well I imagine you talk to people if you sell a gun and obviously you see them ?

About 120 were to complete strangers.

That's another yes then, thanks.

[Half Pint John]

Interesting point

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Well I imagine you talk to people if you sell a gun and obviously you see them ?

If talk you mean "How much are you asking"

"$####."

"OK. Here."

Then sure, we talked.



If he or she was painted blue and wearing a tin foil hat I probably wouldn't sell to them.

[Snowygerry]

Property law. That goes back a lot further than gun ownership.

Yes but it is not explicitly included in your constitution/BOR to my knowledge, is it ?

(...)
If he or she was painted blue and wearing a tin foil hat I probably wouldn't sell to them.

I'd go much further, but thanks for what I assume is an honest reply.

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Yes but it is not explicitly included in your constitution to my knowledge.

Can't be deprived of property save by due process. Secure in your goods. 5th Amendment.

[Snowygerry]

Yes but once again limited right to sell does not deprive you of your property.

Basically US law guarantees the right own and bear, but does it guarantee the right to sell ?

[Arnold J Rimmer]

Yes but once again limited right to sell does not deprive you of your property.

Basically US law guarantees the right own and bear, but does it guarantee the right to sell ?

5th amendment. Guns are legal property.

Remember: in the USA unless it is specifically prohibited, it is legal.

5th ad issues were hammered out literally centuries ago. The first real USSC ruling on the 2nd didn't occur until 1935-7 (not sure which one).

That's why DoJ doesn't prosecute for falsifying background checks: because if they do, sooner or later someone will appeal it and the higher courts are extremely likely to toss the program out.

[Snowygerry]

5th amendment. Guns are legal property.

So are live cows but I imagine there are laws in place that prevent, or at least limit, say Walmart, from selling them ?

As I understand there are limitations on the right to sell guns in the US now, otherwise there wouldn't be "licenced dealers", just "dealers".

So the question is, in how far can the right to sell be limited without conflicting with the rights to own and carry.

[Cambronnne]

So are live cows but I imagine there are laws in place that prevent, or at least limit, say Walmart, from selling them ?

As I understand there are limitations on the right to sell guns in the US now, otherwise there wouldn't be "licenced dealers", just "dealers".

So the question is, in how far can the right to sell be limited without conflicting with the rights to own and carry.

The right to sell is already regulated.

Relevant to the current debate, guns can’t be sold to the mentally ill or people who are barred from owning a firearm.
At least in Illinois, if I try to buy a gun I must submit to a background check that is designed to reveal to the seller if my right to own a gun is limited in any way.

The State can place limits that are reasonably related to safety concerns. The problem is that too many dem controlled states try to use that basis to enact laws that are no more than outright bans. That is unconstitutional.

The problem is that sellers cannot possibly know what is in the minds of the buyer. 99.9% of the time, the buyer’s motives are legal. In those situations where they buyer has evil intent, there is no way the seller can predict that.

[Snowygerry]

I would reverse that logic, do not limit to who you can sell, which involves arbitrary decisions and potential infraction of rights as yourself and others pointed out above, but limit who can sell in the first place.

I'm wondering though - if a state or county would impose law that reduces the licensed selling points to one or few dealers, would/could it be considered an infraction the right own and bear ?

[Cambronnne]

I would reverse that logic, do not limit to who you can sell, which involves arbitrary decisions and potential infraction of rights as yourself and others pointed out above, but limit who can sell in the first place.

I'm wondering though - if a state or county would impose law that reduces the licensed selling points to one or few dealers, would/could it be considered an infraction the right own and bear ?

States like Illinois and cities like Chicago already do that.
I think that Chicago has driven all shooting ranges in the city limits out of business. There are restrictions on where gun stores can be located and, as I’ve said, sales are heavily regulated. In Chicago there is an ammo tax on each round you buy to make ammo too expensive.

At present, there are more guns in this country than people. Banning the sale of firearms isn’t going to have any real impact on crime, because criminals aren’t likely to try and buy a gun legally. (Odds are they couldn’t any way)
The law abiding aren’t the threat, but always end up being the target of the demands that we “do something” following a mass shooting.