This year, Maryland passed strict gun-control legislation. In response, residents have flooded the state police with applications to purchase weapons, before the new law takes effect. Through August, more than 85,000 residents have made new requests to purchase firearms. This is almost double the amount who sought buy guns in all of 2011.
The Maryland law, pushed through by Democrat Gov. Martin O’Malley and a Democrat legislature, bans 45 types of “assault weapons” and limits ammunition magazines to a maximum of ten rounds. Possessing these weapons and magazines would be legal, however, if purchased before the law’s October 1 effective date. Residents in Maryland have responded to this incentive by stock-piling guns.
Something's wrong here. Every time there's a new gun law going into effect, especially if it's to make possession of certain guns illegal, gun sales soar beforehand. This obviously diminishes whatever good the new law will do. In some cases the benefits of the new law will never catch up with the increased sales that took place leading up to the implementation of the law.
The solution is obvious. Restrictions on certain kinds of guns and accessories cannot allow the grandfather clause. If something is so bad that it has to be outlawed, what sense does it make to allow those who already possess it to continue doing so?
Voluntary surrender of outlawed weapons must accompany any new laws prohibiting their possession. This is exactly what Chris Christie did not want to do with the .50 caliber sniper rifles, but at least he didn't outlaw them with a grandfather clause built in.
What's your opinion? please leave a comment.
Then the government is in effect taking property without compensation. It would have to be either fair market value, or recorded purchase price on a receipt. But the government would never do that. Or at least I can't recall it happening before.
ReplyDeleteAnd what exactly happens if they don't "volunteer"?
The details would need to be worked out, but don't you agree it's a bit silly the way they're doing it now?
DeleteAre you asking if he thinks that it's silly that Maryland left open a window of time in which citizens get to exercise their rights? Yes, that's silly. The state shouldn't be violating their rights at all.
DeleteI think I explained what's silly about this which you're ignoring in order to get your infantile remark in there about "rights."
DeleteBanning a certain item but allowing people to stock up on in up until a certain date is silly. Either ban the fucking thing or not, is what I say.
Then not. Obviously they weren't comfortable with a major confiscation, so they should have done nothing.
DeleteMikeb, I consider gun control to be silly, speaking in general terms. This is just one specific example. But as I said, the government should have no power to ban these rifles.
DeleteAnd there you go again, engaging in insults instead of being logical.
Mike, its bigger than this "stupid" law. The people are also reacting to this law, by purchasing is also a way of telling the government that they don't approve of or want this law. If this law was wanted by the people, no mass rush to buy would happen. Makes sense, doesn't it? And you can bet that the same sentiment will be expressed at the polls on election day.
DeleteLaw makers that keep pushing the people into less and less freedom to choose will pay the piper. Democrats are creating their own demise. As well as RINOs.
Well, so much for your and your side's statements that you didn't want to take away the guns people already had--that we were safe with them.
ReplyDeleteBut as for your proposal: Outlaw possession and have voluntary surrender. Are you going to pay people a fair price, or do they just lose all of the money they've invested in their collections? And how exactly does this proposal have any effect? If the surrender provisions are truly voluntary then the people who are going out to buy these guns are not going to turn them in. If, on the other hand, there are teeth to the law, then the turn in is not Voluntary any more than we have a policy today of the "voluntary" surrender of marijuana.
Details would need to be worked out, but do you agree that if something is outlawed allowing people to stock up before the law goes into effect is silly?
DeleteYes. It indicates that the product didn't need to be banned in the first place.
DeleteNow, tell us about these details: are there going to be teeth behind the voluntary surrender?
And what about your past positions that you're not going to take our guns that we have--have you just "evolved" on that, or have you been shading the truth the whole time, telling us our guns are safe, but only meaning the bolt actions and lever actions?
I don't know if I ever said that the allowing by grandfathering of banned items is acceptable.
DeleteYou've at least supported bans with grandfathering such as the last proposal for a federal AWB, and you noted that nobody was going to come take our guns. I guess you weren't meaning that you didn't want to, but were just lulling us into a false sense of security by pretending you didn't want to.
DeleteThere's also the little matter of your support for laws that required registration of Assault Weapons and your statements that we were paranoid for thinking that such registrations were a prelude to revoking grandfathering and confiscating guns, but apparently it's always been your position that such a revocation is a necessary step to perfecting the bans, so apparently we weren't so paranoid about your motives at all.
Thanks for clearing all that up.
Now, what about those teeth?
What a control freak you are, Mikeb. Voluntary surrender? Are you serious? How about you and your kind volunteer to stay out of where you don't belong?
ReplyDeleteThe solution here is obvious: Stop passing stupid laws.
Well, that's one solution. But since Maryland has passed the "stupid law," do you think it makes sense to allow people to stock up beforehand?
DeleteI've asked this question about 5 times now and I've yet to receive an answer.
Yes, it makes sense to have a future date when a prohibitive law goes into effect. Not having this period doesn't make sense. Police need time to understand the law and brief the rank and file- figure out what enforcement techniques they will use, etc.
Deletedealers also have a stock that needs sold, but I'm sure you see damaging that business as a bonus.
The question is invalid, since the law itself is stupid.
DeleteTS, since guns have a very long shelf life, this period of time which the cops need to "figure out what enforcement techniques" will pretty much nullify whatever good the law is supposed to bring. I call that stupid.
Delete"The question is invalid, since the law itself is stupid."
DeleteAnother example from the professor that he is perfectly willing to break the law. In this country, if you don't like a law you remove the law through proper channels, you don't have a right to just disobey the law. A concept you have proven many times, you don't understand.
The law will do zero good. The null of zero is also zero, so I wouldn't worry too much about nullifying it in that time period.
DeleteGun control Jim, an unconstitutional law is no law at all. An immoral law, whether constitutional or not, is also no law at all. It's just force, and Americans have shown time and again a willingness to resist tyrannical force. You apparently believe that any law is just. That's a sick position to hold.
DeleteAnd is it your personal Libertarian world-view which determines which laws are constitutional and which aren't.
DeleteNo, my ability to understand the concept of natural rights and to read the plain English of what the Constitution protects.
DeleteNot at all, I believe you change laws through the democratic process, not by taking the law into your own hands, or ignoring the law because you disagree with it. You and your gun are not the law.
DeleteEveryone decides that according to their own worldview, and everyone must live with the consequences. They go to jail if the judge doesn't agree with them, but if the judge does, then their charges are legally dismissed.
DeleteYour statement doesn't win the argument with what Greg said.
you're giving gun owners a good reason to oppose registration.
ReplyDeleteAnd what do you mean by "voluntary"? Is that voluntary as in Soviet Russia voluntary? Otherwise, how's that different than a grandfather clause? We can always turn in our guns if we want to.
A Soviet Russia comparison, brilliant.
DeleteMikeb, you don't like it when people talk openly about your goals?
DeleteIn Soviet Russia, they would use the word "voluntary" but they really mean mandatory. It is a very cheap, highly transparent, form of propaganda to make it seem like there is free will. You used it in the same way. There is no way you actually meant voluntary. That would be no different than the status quo. Any of us gun owners can voluntarily turn in whatever we want right now. Surely that's not what you meant. But you saw the word "soviet" and dismiss the entire point as if I were screaming that you're Vlad Lenin.
DeleteOr I misinterpreted it as sarcasm, and you really did find it brilliant, in which case I say, "thanks".
By "brilliant" I mean ridiculously inflammatory, nonsensical too.
DeleteBy "voluntary" I mean, constrained by law which law-abiding people freely comply with.
"Constrained by law" does not equal "voluntary".
DeleteIf it's against their wishes, they're not freely complying with the law.
DeleteIn other words, you meant "voluntary" in the soviet sense.
DeleteMandatory under law, and all good citizens will gladly, voluntarily comply with the law to avoid prison or beatings.
I don't know how you could be a bigger caricature than by saying, "By "voluntary" I mean, constrained by law . . ."
A Russian friend of mine was once recruited by the KGB. He asked them if he could turn them down. They said, "completely voluntary, though if you refuse, I promise you will regret the decision for the rest of your life."
DeleteNote: It loses a lot when typed, and not spoken in a heavy Russian accent.
T. said in his typically hysterical and exaggerating way, "Mandatory under law, and all good citizens will gladly, voluntarily comply with the law to avoid prison or beatings."
DeleteActually the reason people obey laws is because they're good citizens and willing to obey voluntarily. They need not be constrained by sanctions to do the right thing.
But see, turning in rifles isn't the right thing. It's the same nonsense that the government tried with Prohibition. A bunch of busybodies demanded that their obsession become law, and it took about a decade of good citizens breaking a bad law to get the thing repealed.
DeleteA good citizen supports good laws, not tyranny.
Mike, what word do you use to describe a program that someone can choose to participate in if they want to, but with zero repercussions if they choose not to participate? Do you have a word for that in your vocabulary?
DeleteAh! So it's a voluntary turn in if you are such a noble soul that you Want to obey all laws passed by your government, and if you're not so noble and are constrained by punishment, then while you aren't complying voluntarily, it doesn't matter because you're not a good and noble person, so you don't count.
DeleteThanks for clearing that up!
As for your comment that I'm being hysterical, are the constraints you suggest not prison terms? Is one only fined a little bit for not turning in guns or magazines?
DeleteI find it telling how you keep dodging the question and talking about needing to work out the details later--all so that you don't have to admit that your "voluntary surrender" would be a little more compulsory than you're making it out to be.
ReplyDeleteSo mike, we see the same panic buying when AWBs are being proposed/pushed by the President. Wouldn't you say that's also silly of the gun controllers? Since legislation failed, they ended up doing more harm to their cause than good (if you're an ardent believer that more AR-15s is "bad"). Maybe we can say the AWBs are the "open carry" of your side?
ReplyDeleteTrue, that was a disaster. The result is more people will be killed this year than otherwise would have been. You should be proud of your "victory."
DeleteExcept that killings by rifles of any kind are a tiny percentage of the total.
DeleteI like how you threw in that "than otherwise would have been" line so that if murders were to drop by 5% you can come back with "well it would have been 10% without all the new AR-15s", and you'll back this with no statistical proof, and concrete data disproving your hypothesis because you can count up all the people killed by AR-15s purchased in 2013 and it won't give with your story.
DeleteSo would you consider not banning anything, and instead concentrate on licensing, registration, etc.? Every attempt at banning has negative consequences as far as you are concerned, and your idea of no grandfathers will severely harm the chances of getting universal registration.
DeleteEven if he dropped his ban ideas, allowing him licensing and registration would be a fatal mistake because he would then evolve back (devolve?) to his position on bans. (Or, more realistically, return to honestly stating his goals.)
DeleteI didn't mean to suggest that as a compromise, but rather pointing out the negative consequences of being a gun banner. I don't believe the AR-15 would be the most popular rifle platform in
DeleteThe country if not for them. That's the bed they have to sleep in now.
Too bad they focused on it rather than something like the M1A. Imagine a market where it received all of this attention and all of these upgrades.
DeleteBy "voluntary" I mean, constrained by law which law-abiding people freely comply with.
DeleteHow did I miss this? I think we have a new winner for the most ridiculous assertion Mikeb has ever made (a competition for that "honor" is certainly fierce).
"Voluntary" means "constrained by law." Absolutely classic.