Forums

[JimDandy75]

.

Ok, then I am confused by what you meant by this sentence: "There are more restrictions that need to be there. Alabama has a closer list but still not right. You're forgetting the felons and adjudicated mentally deficient."

My restrictions I took were directly off of voter registration rules in Washington. There are no more restrictions in Washington, so did you think there were? Or did you believe more restrictions need to be added to Washington voter registration law?

And I pointed out a difference between WA and Alabama, as well as both, and currently "prohibited persons" from firearms if you want to apply the same standards to both.

I said Different states have different voting registration requirements, and that to apply that standard to firearm ownership would require changes to the voting requirements.

That's not entirely what you said, but I kinda understand - though I still do not understand. I am not sure why you say that applying voting registration requirements to firearm ownership would require changes to voting requirements. There is nothing legally requiring us to change voting requirements in order to apply those standards to guns.[/quote]
Actually there is. The Brady Bill has listed a number of prohibited persons that would not be prohibited by voter registration laws in WA, or even in Alabama, the two states we've looked at specifically.

But lets also turn this idea around and go about it from the other direction... in states with an AWB and a Law Enforcement exemption, only those in law enforcement would have the vote. When legislators look for a way to carry they sometimes get a special deputation which provides them the same exemption. This means the only people able to vote in this scenario are those in charge of the government, and those who work for those people and answer to them. Any restriction you want to apply to owning a firearm, also apply it to speech, religion, or voting in the harshest possible way. If it doesn't make you squirm, it may be a decent law.

[-Alex]

And I pointed out a difference between WA and Alabama, as well as both, and currently "prohibited persons" from firearms if you want to apply the same standards to both.

Ok. So you're just saying that like voter registration differs from state to state, gun registration can differ too. And that the list of "prohibited persons" from firearms and voting in a state should be identical.

Actually there is. The Brady Bill has listed a number of prohibited persons that would not be prohibited by voter registration laws in WA, or even in Alabama, the two states we've looked at specifically.

Ah, so you're saying existing laws would conflict with this. I guess I was assuming we'd reform the gun laws with this one. We can't just pass one thing to only restrict the same people from gun owning as voting, because the Brady Bill restricts more people who own guns than from voting. So you'd like to strip the Brady Bill, and just have gun owner registration like voter registration. Or, incorporate the Brady bill into both.

But lets also turn this idea around and go about it from the other direction... in states with an AWB and a Law Enforcement exemption, only those in law enforcement would have the vote.

Assuming "ability to own assault weapon" = vote, as opposed to "registered weapon owner" = vote. Assault Weapons Ban, being a ban on a specific weapon, would be like banning specific votes, such as on setting a budget. And there would be a City Council exception, say.

Any restriction you want to apply to owning a firearm, also apply it to speech, religion, or voting in the harshest possible way. If it doesn't make you squirm, it may be a decent law.

Well nobody is squirming at voter registration, so then I guess requiring people interested in owning guns to register first, and then track each gun they purchase in a database. And the legislature can set what goes on the market like they set what goes on the ballot.

And who knows, maybe one day we can also have common sense and realize there's a slight difference in a vote and a gun.

[JimDandy75]

And I pointed out a difference between WA and Alabama, as well as both, and currently "prohibited persons" from firearms if you want to apply the same standards to both.

Ok. So you're just saying that like voter registration differs from state to state, gun registration can differ too. And that the list of "prohibited persons" from firearms and voting in a state should be identical.

Actually voter registration and gun registration already DOES differ from state to state- most states don't have any sort of gun registration. And no, I'm not necessarily saying they should be identical. I'm saying that if that standard was applied, there are laws on the books that would mandate changes to both for all the laws on both subjects to be legal.

Ah, so you're saying existing laws would conflict with this. I guess I was assuming we'd reform the gun laws with this one. We can't just pass one thing to only restrict the same people from gun owning as voting, because the Brady Bill restricts more people who own guns than from voting. So you'd like to strip the Brady Bill, and just have gun owner registration like voter registration. Or, incorporate the Brady bill into both.

I'm not necessarily advocating either, just pointing out that one law cannot contradict another law, and while they don't quite literally contradict, it's enough of a car crash there would be issues in a legal challenge, and IF this were done changes to a lot of laws would be required to avoid that, and listed a couple easy and obvious examples.

But lets also turn this idea around and go about it from the other direction... in states with an AWB and a Law Enforcement exemption, only those in law enforcement would have the vote.

Assuming "ability to own assault weapon" = vote, as opposed to "registered weapon owner" = vote. Assault Weapons Ban, being a ban on a specific weapon, would be like banning specific votes, such as on setting a budget. And there would be a City Council exception, say.

Any restriction you want to apply to owning a firearm, also apply it to speech, religion, or voting in the harshest possible way. If it doesn't make you squirm, it may be a decent law.

Well nobody is squirming at voter registration, so then I guess requiring people interested in owning guns to register first, and then track each gun they purchase in a database. And the legislature can set what goes on the market like they set what goes on the ballot.

And who knows, maybe one day we can also have common sense and realize there's a slight difference in a vote and a gun.[/quote]
See that's where you missed the point.. harshest way possible... to apply your gun control suggestion to voters, you'd have to register to vote, there would be no secret ballot, your votes would be tallied and registered. In some jurisdictions, they would be public record, available to a freedom of information act request that could be published in the local paper... lets hope your employer and boss either don't see it or agree with you. Personally I think voting is a private matter and should remain so. The legislature cannot set what goes on the ballot They can throw stuff out there, but the people can also put things on the ballot via initiative. Much the same as supporting a company that sells what they want.

[-Alex]

Actually voter registration and gun registration already DOES differ from state to state

.....I know.

most states don't have any sort of gun registration.

And if they did, no biggie. Except the stink put up from some.

And no, I'm not necessarily saying they should be identical. I'm saying that if that standard was applied, there are laws on the books that would mandate changes to both for all the laws on both subjects to be legal.

Oh, wow, that wasn't clear at all. But I don't see how the Brady Bill would mandate voter registration changes. It doesn't seem that laws that apply to guns would apply to votes. In any case, we can use a standard derived from voter registration, and they don't need to be identical.

I'm not necessarily advocating either, just pointing out that one law cannot contradict another law

Right. I'm sure lawmakers enacting a gun owner registration database would take that into consideration, and would work out kinks, but of course not all. There are ALWAYS legal challenges to laws.

See that's where you missed the point.. harshest way possible.

Or not. There is no reason they need to be enacted in the harshest way possible, so no need to consider them in that way.

to apply your gun control suggestion to voters, you'd have to register to vote,

As we do.

there would be no secret ballot

Or there could be, if what specific gun you owned was as secret as how you specifically voted. But of course we don't need the same restrictions, as you pointed out.

your votes would be tallied and registered.

Or our ballots, like they are today. I can check to see how many times I voted, just like how many guns I own.

So in some jurisdictions, whether you voted or not would be public record, but that's all. Let's hope your employer and boss don't disagree with you voting! Personally I think voting is a private matter and should remain so, though knowing someone is registered or that they voted is no big problem at all. Just like guns.

The legislature cannot set what goes on the ballot

Yes they can. That's what propositions are. Legislators set up the election process. They set up the ballots.

but the people can also put things on the ballot via initiative.

In states where the legislature allows ballot initiatives. So people could put a ballot initiative on to change what guns are allowed and not allowed if they wish.

[JimDandy75]

Oh, wow, that wasn't clear at all. But I don't see how the Brady Bill would mandate voter registration changes. It doesn't seem that laws that apply to guns would apply to votes. In any case, we can use a standard derived from voter registration, and they don't need to be identical.

Yes, they do. If you want to apply the same standards to both, they have to be. Equal Protection would mandate it.

I'm not necessarily advocating either, just pointing out that one law cannot contradict another law

Or not. There is no reason they need to be enacted in the harshest way possible, so no need to consider them in that way.]

You absolutely do. When the SCOTUS rules, this is the sort of thing they look for. Our history has shown that when the government disapproves of a minority laws are passed and enforced in just this way. Poll Taxes. Gun laws. Sodomy laws... the list goes on and on.

to apply your gun control suggestion to voters, you'd have to register to vote,

As we do.

Or there could be, if what specific gun you owned was as secret as how you specifically voted. But of course we don't need the same restrictions, as you pointed out.

No, there can't be. If we're talking about applying the same standards, and there's a gun registration database, every gun we own would be registered. Thus to apply the same standard every vote you cast- the issue it's about, when you cast it, and what your vote was, would have to be equally databased.

your votes would be tallied and registered.

Or our ballots, like they are today. I can check to see how many times I voted, just like how many guns I own.
[/quote]
That's not what they database being suggested would contain... it would be the details. Who you voted for.. what issues you voted against... if you voted to legalize marijuana, that would go in the database.. and when a conservative administration takes power, they can check the people who checked that box, and we've got a flood of search warrants for illegal substances. The Seattle times could get a FOIA request through, and publish the names of everyone who voted for the measure. If your boss still watches Reefer Madness like it's a documentary your job could be in jeopardy.

The legislature cannot set what goes on the ballot

Yes they can. That's what propositions are. Legislators set up the election process. They set up the ballots.

but the people can also put things on the ballot via initiative.

In states where the legislature allows ballot initiatives. So people could put a ballot initiative on to change what guns are allowed and not allowed if they wish.[/quote]

And we're back to applying the same law to any other freedom we have.. As we're now talking about regulating a free enterprise market, lets go with freedom of speech/press. Should the legislature be empowered to decide what books are allowed on the Barnes and Noble book shelves? Should we say goodbye to Catcher in the Rye, The Color Purple, 1984, Beloved, Of Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird and others?

[-Alex]

Equal Protection would mandate it.

Equal protection applies to people, not that all regulations must be equal. I'm not sure you are understanding, or what you are thinking. And as you and I agreed, we don't need to apply the same standards to voting registration as gun owner registration. They can be different - as they are now.

You absolutely do. When the SCOTUS rules, this is the sort of thing they look for.

It's the sort of arguments they look for, yes. And the SCOTUS has already ruled on gun restrictions and registration.

Our history has shown that when the government disapproves of a minority

...when the government disapproves of a minority, yes. We aren't talking about any minority here, of any race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, disability, etc.

Or there could be, if what specific gun you owned was as secret as how you specifically voted. But of course we don't need the same restrictions, as you pointed out.

No, there can't be. If we're talking about applying the same standards, and there's a gun registration database...

Depending on what's in the database...

every gun we own would be registered.

Just like every time we cast a ballot is registered.

Thus to apply the same standard every vote you cast- the issue it's about, when you cast it, and what your vote was, would have to be equally databased.

Only if what your vote was, and what your gun was, would be databased. That could be left out.

That's not what they database being suggested would contain... it would be the details.

And hence we arrive at people who are not suggesting the same standard. So yes, there would probably be a similar, but different standard. Where they would not keep a private registry of what you specifically voted for, they would keep a private registry of what specific guns you have.

Of course, that's all IF we apply the EXACT same standards. Which I believe only you have suggested. And recanted, and then continued to argue.

And we're back to applying the same law to any other freedom we have.

Are we? Since we require voter registration, do we now have to apply that same registration law to all other freedoms? I didn't hear myself say that. I didn't hear you say that. Where do we register for liberty, as we have to register to vote?

[JimDandy75]

They can be different - as they are now.

That's the concept we're discussing though... the hypothetical IF they were scenario not?

It's the sort of arguments they look for, yes. And the SCOTUS has already ruled on gun restrictions and registration.

I'm not sure they've ruled on registration yet. I haven't seen any cases pointing to that. And if we're talking about crafting laws... and what SCOTUS looks for when they rule on the constitutionality of those laws, shouldn't we as responsible "law crafters" look for the same things? I said you have to make sure it can't be applied to something else in a bad way... and you said we didn't. I said that's what the SCOTUS looks at, and you just up there said Yes...so?

Our history has shown that when the government disapproves of a minority

...when the government disapproves of a minority, yes. We aren't talking about any minority here, of any race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, disability, etc.

Or there could be, if what specific gun you owned was as secret as how you specifically voted. But of course we don't need the same restrictions, as you pointed out.

No, there can't be. If we're talking about applying the same standards, and there's a gun registration database...

Depending on what's in the database...

every gun we own would be registered.

Just like every time we cast a ballot is registered.

Thus to apply the same standard every vote you cast- the issue it's about, when you cast it, and what your vote was, would have to be equally databased.

Only if what your vote was, and what your gun was, would be databased. That could be left out.

That's not what they database being suggested would contain... it would be the details.

And hence we arrive at people who are not suggesting the same standard. So yes, there would probably be a similar, but different standard. Where they would not keep a private registry of what you specifically voted for, they would keep a private registry of what specific guns you have.

Of course, that's all IF we apply the EXACT same standards. Which I believe only you have suggested. And recanted, and then continued to argue.

And we're back to applying the same law to any other freedom we have.

Are we? Since we require voter registration, do we now have to apply that same registration law to all other freedoms? I didn't hear myself say that. I didn't hear you say that. Where do we register for liberty, as we have to register to vote?[/quote]

Make up your mind... first I suggested it, then I recanted it, then you haven't heard me say that... you've got me on one side, then the other, then not on either side in the span of four sentences.

We've talked about the theoretical treatment of two rights, voting and keeping and bearing arms, and then applying the same standards to both in a hypothetical exercise.

We've talked about the concept of applying any law to any right we dislike, to a right we like. And I've held the position that any law you propose for a right you don't like should be applied to one you do like, from the perspective of a government who doesn't like that right- either period or in the hands of a group they don't like.

[-Alex]

That's the concept we're discussing though... the hypothetical IF they were scenario not?

I believe you wanted to stick to hypothetically exact same, rather than similar, yes. I'd prefer we discuss similar, more similar laws than today, as identical would likely not be the most suitable for both, and similar makes much more sense as far as what would be implemented rationally.

I'm not sure they've ruled on registration yet.

Not specifically registration for guns. The Supreme Court has rejected challenges to voter ID laws for voter registration, so it seems they are fine with requiring registration, and even more requirements on how to register. They have not overturned requirements for voters to register. So they most likely wouldn't for guns either. As far as guns specifically, the Supreme Court has ruled that society has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

And if we're talking about crafting laws... and what SCOTUS looks for when they rule on the constitutionality of those laws, shouldn't we as responsible "law crafters" look for the same things?

Absolutely.

I said you have to make sure it can't be applied to something else in a bad way... and you said we didn't.

When the Supreme Court ruled on voter ID voter registration requirements, they may have looked at how the same ID law would work in other situations, such as requiring ID to register for free speech. It didn't overturn it. The Supreme Court can look at that argument. And it can dismiss it too. The Supreme Court can LOOK at it, but it doesn't have to MAKE SURE it can't be applied to something else in a bad way. The Supreme Court can completely side with ID for voter registration, but not for free speech. Do you agree? Do you understand? If not, are you hung up somewhere?

Make up your mind.

Ok. I suggest a similar, though not identical standard. My mind is made up. We can theoretically argue what an identical standard would do, as you proposed, but we should probably stick with having just similar and not identical requirements.

We've talked about the theoretical treatment of two rights, voting and keeping and bearing arms, and then applying the same standards to both in a hypothetical exercise.

So perhaps now we should agree to talk about a similar standard instead of the same standard.

And I've held the position that any law you propose for a right you don't like should be applied to one you do like, from the perspective of a government who doesn't like that right- either period or in the hands of a group they don't like.

You can hold that position. You can also hold the position that if I like Voter registration rules, they must apply to all laws, such as free speech, and freedom of religion. I think it would be a waste of time. I wouldn't know what your point would be - if your point would be that voter registration laws are Bad because we wouldn't do them for free speech, I disagree.

[JimDandy75]

Do you believe an assault weapons ban to be a good thing?

Do you believe we should require people to go through a federal process similar to the ones in some states where you have to have a state issued card to purchase firearms and ammunition? Not a state issued driver's license, but a card just for the consumerism required for arms and ammunition?

Do you believe the State should choose who may or may not carry a concealed pistol based on their currently stated need? i.e. being stalked, having a protection order, or other imminent quantifiable danger from a known individual or group?

[-Alex]

Do you believe an assault weapons ban to be a good thing?

Yes. I also believe a fully automatic weapons ban is a good thing.

Do you believe we should require people to go through a federal process similar to the ones in some states where you have to have a state issued card to purchase firearms and ammunition?

I don't believe we should require that, no. If states want to run it, that would be good.

Not a state issued driver's license, but a card just for the consumerism required for arms and ammunition?

Like a voter registration card? Again, I think the states can handle that, it doesn't need to be a federal process.

Do you believe the State should choose who may or may not carry a concealed pistol based on their currently stated need?

It shouldn't be based on need, no. The state should only deny gun registration if there is a compelling interest to do so. Like voter registration.