McDonald v. Chicago decision

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, now that's total and complete bollocks.

Gun manufacturers must be federally licensed under the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Gun manufacturers are also subject to very strict recordkeeping rules. They are required to keep a registry of firearms sales in an ATF-approved Bound Book, or a computerized equivalent using ATF-approved software. They must also maintain file copies of Form 4473 or eForm 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record" documents, for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. When retiring or otherwise relinquishing a license, these records are sent to the BATFE's Out-of-Business Records Center. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five business day period must be reported to ATF on Form 331.

Under 44 USC sec. 921 et seq., gun manufacturers are subject to federal regulation: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ ... 20_44.html

Federally, there is also the Brady Law and the Gun Free Schools law of 1994.

And each state has their own gun laws variously requiring some scheme of registration, concealed carry permitting ,and other such laws and regulations: http://www.bloomfieldpress.com/links/index.htm

With respect to teddy bears, if you or I wanted to make teddy bears and sell them, we don't need a federal license, and there are really no regulations at all on how we can make them.

No, gun manufactors are not regulated for safety. Autos are. So are kids toys. But gun manufactors are exempt. Thus, teddy bears are more regulated than guns.

You want guns and ammunition tested for lead?

[Coito ergo sum]

So you think a gun manufacturer could turn out a product that explodes in the face of whoever fires it and not be held accountable? You can't even produce lettuce that gives you the shits without being subject to litigation.

In that circumstance, you'd be able to sue the manufacturer for negligence and product liability.

[Coito ergo sum]

Manufactors of teddy bears are more regulated than gun manufactors. Even consumer protection drives gun owners bonkers.

Forgive me, but that sounds pretty hyperbolic to me. Do you have some data to support the 'teddy bear' thing?

What, you're joking, right? Gun manufactors are exempt from consumer safety regualtions. If I'm not mistaken gun manufactors are also expemt from wrongful death lawsuits.

What consumer safety regulations are you referring to? The one's regulating only toy safety for children 12 and under? Or, some other consumer safety regulation?

Also, gun manufacturers are not "except from wrongful death lawsuits." They aren't liable for a civil action for wrongful death uses a gun to kill someone wrongfully. In other words, they are exempt only in the sense that Ford is exempt from liability for wrongful death if you run someone over with your Ford vehicle.

What are you thinking should be the case? The if you make a knife and sell it to someone that you're liable for a stabbing that occurs with the knife?

Also, are we going to discuss the topic of this thread? The McDonald case? If you are interested in what actually was at issue in McDonald, the issue on appeal was Chicago's law to:

Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
Require that long guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
Mandate that long guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee
Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses

[Wumbologist]

Also, gun manufacturers are not "except from wrongful death lawsuits." They aren't liable for a civil action for wrongful death uses a gun to kill someone wrongfully. In other words, they are exempt only in the sense that Ford is exempt from liability for wrongful death if you run someone over with your Ford vehicle.

What are you thinking should be the case? The if you make a knife and sell it to someone that you're liable for a stabbing that occurs with the knife?

Also, are we going to discuss the topic of this thread? The McDonald case? If you are interested in what actually was at issue in McDonald, the issue on appeal was Chicago's law to:

Prohibit the registration of handguns, thus effecting a broad handgun ban
Require that long guns be registered prior to their acquisition by Chicago residents, which is not always feasible
Mandate that long guns be re-registered annually, with another payment of the fee
Render any gun permanently non-registrable if its registration lapses

I hope you're not saying what I think you're saying here. Because, if you're saying that we should blame violent criminals for the violent acts they commit.... well, that's just crazy talk.

[Svartalf]

People who live in wooden houses probably shouldn't own 7.62's for 'home defence' !

In Britain if you get a firearm you are expected to be able to see what you are shooting and make a clean kill ..Having to wear ORANGE clothes so someone does not mistake your head for a Duck or fire a 30.06 into you because a bush moved is a good example as to why some sensible gun controls might not be such a terrible Idea ?

Mind you in Britain we have gone way too far the other way ....

Nothing wrong with a 7.62 for home defense if you're using Glaser Safety Slugs. Of course, 12ga 00 buckshot is still the clear choice.

MMMMM Is taking a life in defence of property moral ? Should I be able to kill someone for taking my car ? If I have a burglar in my house is it ok to use a .50 in his back and say 'Well he deserved it !" ?

Well, when somebody gets into private property where he's not welcome with the intent of committing crimes of any nature, I don't see too well why law should go on protecting him, especially since policement are minutes away when all you got is seconds.

The limits law puts on self defence are excessive, and actually put honest people people into the hands of the ill intentioned.

To boot, this is the US we're talking of, where "the right of the people to own and bear arms sholl not be abridged" is verbatim written in the constitution, so any judgment voiding laws and regs that actually abridge those rights are inevitably correct.

[Svartalf]

Surely getting a firearm should be A LOT harder than a driving licence ?

It should be, but gun wackos think gun access should be unrestricted.

whackness aside, the constitution is on their side though, since restricting access is effectively restricting the ability to own.

[Svartalf]

Terrible news but hardly unexpected. With activists conservative judges on the SCOTUS the idiocy of gun rights will win out.

Why wouldn't the 2nd Amendment apply to the States, like the 1st, 3d, 4th, 5th....?

What's funny about that statement is that most second amendment freaks are pro states rights, and yet, they want to deny a states right to regulate or ban weapons.

States rights apply for everything not specifically stated in the constitution, and part of that is that the constitution applies to all 50 (and any that might join later), so abridiging the rights specified in the Bill is de fact null and void as legislation goes, like the Texan GOP that has a platform of passing new anti sodomy laws if they win on the next polls.

[Svartalf]

No, the true freaks in this case are the ones who advocate unrestricted gun ownership.

That is pretty extreme in itself. Anything potentially lethal needs some controls.

Any controls on guns is viewed as an infringement of percieved constitutional rights. That's why gun regulations drive gun nuts insane with paranoria.

Actually, it should drive every American mad with paranoia. Once you infringe on any constitutional rights, what's preventing you from abridging the others?

[Gallstones]

No, the true freaks in this case are the ones who advocate unrestricted gun ownership.

That is pretty extreme in itself. Anything potentially lethal needs some controls.

Any controls on guns is viewed as an infringement of percieved constitutional rights. That's why gun regulations drive gun nuts insane with paranoria.

Actually, it should drive every American mad with paranoia. Once you infringe on any constitutional rights, what's preventing you from abridging the others?

Our guns................hahahahahahah.

[Svartalf]

You want guns and ammunition tested for lead?

Actually, aren't there any number of locations where steel replaces lead in ammo manufacture because of environmental concerns?

[Coito ergo sum]

You want guns and ammunition tested for lead?

Actually, aren't there any number of locations where steel replaces lead in ammo manufacture because of environmental concerns?

Perhaps, but the point is that toys for kids under 12 years old are tested for lead because kids chew on them. Adult products aren't similarly tested because typically adults don't chew on them. If you're chewing on a gun barrel, it's likely you'll end up dying from something more direct and immediate.

[Trolldor]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Exactly, which is why it needs to be so heavily goddamn regulated. People are idiots.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You all can come for my guns, not not all of you will leave with them.

Unless I bring my own guns when I come for yours.



...You know, to trade 'n stuff.

Nothing over 1" bore, please. I already have enough of that.

Got anything cute? I'd like to get something cute like the Beretta 3032.

How about a Bren gun?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Exactly, which is why it needs to be so heavily goddamn regulated. People are idiots.

Humans need guns because people have guns.

[FBM]

I see a large part of the problem as being that people in other countries are applying their own cultural context to the US, where it doesn't apply. Guns were necessary for survival during colonial days, for both food and protection from threats like wild animals, natives and potential tyrants. The tradition is deeply ingrained for very good reasons that simply don't exist in countries that became populated before firearms had become common household items. Now there are so many unregistered firearms, that it would be impossible to track them all down. The attempt would result in armed resistence, anyway, and not just from the whackjobs. If, by some miracle, the gov't were to capture all the firearms, people would just start making their own in their basement or smuggle them in. Anybody will a little metal-working skill and a few common tools can make a pretty decent firearm.

I'm not a gun nut, but I enjoy owning them and using them for hobbies and protection. They should be kept out of the hands of criminals and those who cannot demonstrate their competence, mental and physical, to own one without being a threat to others.