Sanders says he could support banning some weapons, universal background checks

[SecularMotion]

During his “Meet the Press” appearance Sunday, Sanders said he could support universal instant background checks, saying “nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations.”

“Second of all, I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America,” Sanders said.

He also voiced support for ending the so-called “gun-show loophole” and said “there may be other things we can do.”

“Coming from a rural state, I think I can communicate with folks coming from urban states, where guns mean different things than they do in Vermont, where it's used for hunting,” Sanders said. “That's where we've got to go. We don't have to argue with each other and yell at each other, but we need a common-sense solution.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/07/26/sanders-says-he-could-support-banning-some-weapons-universal-background-checks/

[Duckhunter935]

1. He has been saying that for years

He voted to limit magazine sizes and ban some weapons on cosmetic features. I do not agree with that but I support him. But I guess this is just not far enough for the controllers here from reading people's posts. So are you in agreement with him? Should you care to discuss it?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. Everyone has an opinion

[pipoman]

2. Saying 8t doesn't make it possible or constitutional .....

[SecularMotion]

3. The 2nd amendment right is not unlimited

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

[branford]

6. The 2A, like the entire BOR, is not "unlimited."

However, such verbiage is trite, meaningless and legally insignificant, to say nothing of the fact that firearms are one of the most heavily regulated consumer products in existence at all levels of government.

Besides the totally uncontroversial and current statutory propositions that felons and the dangerously mentally ill might be prohibited from owning firearms, or that guns might be restricted in sensitive areas like schools and certain government buildings, Heller and McDonald explicitly protected the right of Americans to own and use the most common firearms in general (and criminal) use, the semiautomatic handgun. You could potentially ban every purported "assault rifle" and "high capacity" magazine, and it would only account for a tiny fraction of the firearms used both in crime and suicide. Notably, despite their often scary black features, these types of rifles are actually used in hunting and sport, and thus outside of Bernie's willingness to seriously restrict.

Arguing about the 2A, however, is really just a red herring in the gun rights discussion. Many proposed laws, such as UBC's, would likely pass constitutional muster, and other laws first need to be enacted before judicial challenge. Democracy is the biggest obstacle to most gun control, not the Constitution. Seemingly popular UBC's couldn't even pass a Democratically-controlled Senate with a vocally supportive Democratic president (without mention of a sure defeat of such laws in a Republican House), while pro-gun rights amendments like concealed carry reciprocity actually garnered a clear majority among senators. Our elected representative reflect popular will if for no other reason than they want to get reelected, and poll after poll demonstrates strong and increasing support for gun rights.

[flamin lib]

9. Heavily regulated my ass.

Any idiot regardless of background, criminal history, mental instability, age or avowed intent of violence can buy a gun on the street no questions asked. Shit, just search Craig's list for 'things that go bang'.

There are more than 30 federal regulations defining safety features for the interior for cars. How many for the manufacture of guns?

[DonP]

10. What's the background check waiting period for the car?

[branford]

11. The fact that you want a product to be far more regulated, or even banned,

does not in any way mean it's not heavily regulated. In fact, much of what you complain about in your post is already illegal. Your argument is little more than a strawman, and akin to stating that drugs are unregulated or barely regulated because so many easily gain access and use them.

However, since you inquired, here's a small sampling of articles and other material relevant to firearm manufacturing and related laws and regulations. A simple Google search will provide additional information you might find of interest.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/2/gun-makers-baffled-by-atf-criteria/?page=all
https://www.atf.gov/file/58221/download
https://www.atf.gov/file/58676/download
https://www.atf.gov/file/58686/download
http://www.academia.edu/7095795/Do_U.S._State_Firearms_Laws_Affect_Firearms_Manufacturing_Location

[flamin lib]

12. Private gun sales are completely unregulated and comprise at least 40% of gun transfers in the US.

The only requirement is that the seller not knowingly sell to a felon or other restricted person. Unless the buyer volunteers that he is a prohibited person there is no further regulation.

From your first source: The ATF recommends that manufacturers voluntarily submit weapons for case-by-case determination after the manufacture or modification to determine if the prototype or modification conforms to laws regulating the sale of firearms.

Source 2 is about licensing manufacturers and definitions. There is no regulation of features, methods of manufacture or other regulation of the actual making of a firearm in that publication.

Source 3 is about licensed FFLs in business to sell to the public and their responsibilities pertaining to background checks and record keeping.

Source 4 pertains to the sale of firearms and laws applying to various types of firearms.

Source 5 applies to the LOCATION of a manufacturing facility.

NOWHERE in any of your citations are there any regulations on the features, methods or other aspects of making a gun. There doesn't even have to be a mechanical safety to prevent discharge if the trigger is inadvertently pulled.

I'm familiar with all those publications from applying for a C&R FFL and gunsmith license. Didn't proceed with the gunsmith because it requires a stand alone storefront and I don't have/want one.

Your response is little more than NRA gun fetishist dribble.

[branford]

13. You systematically concede the existence of the multitude of laws and regulations,

yet still imply that firearms aren't heavily regulated?!?!

In one sentence you declare that private gun sales are "completely unregulated," and then in the very next sentence admit that a "seller (can)not knowingly sell to a felon or other restricted person." "Completely unregulated" does not mean what you think it means.

I would also note that private individuals do not have access to the NICS database to conduct background checks of prospective purchasers, and although such access is supported by gun rights proponents, it is largely opposed by gun control advocates because they believe it would hurt their case for more stringent background check legislation. If you and your ilk believe the perfect the enemy of the good, there's not much anyone can do.

Again, because you believe that the existing regulations are insufficient does not mean that firearms are not heavily regulated.

As to regulations concerning "features, methods or other aspects of making a gun," you apparently have not read the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Undetectable Firearms Act, the Firearm Owners Protection Act, and the host of other federal, state and local laws and accompanying regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

[flamin lib]

14. Not on private sales and not on manufacture.

I'll type this real slow. There are NO federal regulations on manufacturing guns. 30 safety regulations on interior features on cars, NONE on guns.

There is NO regulation of private sales. The seller does not even have to ask for identification or a name from the buyer.

The invisible gun law is the only law applicable to gun manufacture and has nothing to do with features, design or other aspects of manufacturing. Only requiring a tiny bit of metal.

More NRA gun fetishist dribble about sooooooo much regulation.

Keep tryin' tho. Just reinforces how special gunz is.

[pipoman]

7. It's not unlimited as is evidenced by the tens of thousands

Of regulations already in place. Regulation has, however, been defined...asked and answered...any regulation in the future will fit the existing limitations on regulation set by SCOTUS.

So any firearms, ammunition, or related items must be proven NOT to be "in common use for lawful purposes". This makes banning almost any gun now available impossible.

Universal background checks won't be happening at the federal level either until a constitutional amendment eliminating the commerce clause is passed.

So while candidates may pretend they are going to do something, nothing will be done unless it passes these and many other constitutional hurtles....

[ileus]

4. He's from the age where all guns were fudd guns....

Last edited Mon Aug 17, 2015, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Hopefully he can be schooled in proper 2A progressiveness.

[Kang Colby]

8. Hmmm

I wonder if he is related to our very own Fred Sanders?

[benEzra]

15. "Certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively."

This, he can be educated on.

The rifles that the DLC/Third Way want him to ban are among the *least* likely to kill people, and among the *most* likely to be used for sporting purposes and other lawful/moral uses.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls

His previous history shows he is not idealogically commited to the Prohibition position, so I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on that.

Vermont isn't the stop-and-frisk, gunz-r-evilll utopia of Bloomberg/Guliani's NYC; AR-15's are exceedingly popular in the state, and Vermont doesn't even require a license to carry a concealed 9mm for self-defense. It's one of those places that shows that a lawful gun culture is not a left/right issue.