The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[IglooDame]

I also watch 'Border Control ' and there's plenty of Yanks turning up to get into Canada with their guns because "they can at home", or "Im from Texas and have a carry permit".
This is Canada. It's a different country, idiot ! They have their own laws. One of them a retired Texas judge!
Texan got arrested for attempting to smuggle weapons , hahaha.

I was traveling cross-country (westbound) and in the states I was allowed, I was concealed-carrying. Eastbound I was taking a multiweek detour through Canada so I shipped the guns home before I got out of North Dakota, specifically to be legal crossing into and staying in Canada.

Last time I went up there (last week), I got searched at the northbound border crossing. They were unhappy when they found a holster (empty of course), and my explanation that I am a competitive pistol shooter didn't make a dent. One guard asked me 'what gun club am I a member of' like that is any sort of relevant or useful question of a USian gun owner.

 

[E.man]

I was traveling cross-country (westbound) and in the states I was allowed, I was concealed-carrying. Eastbound I was taking a multiweek detour through Canada so I shipped the guns home before I got out of North Dakota, specifically to be legal crossing into and staying in Canada.

Last time I went up there (last week), I got searched at the northbound border crossing. They were unhappy when they found a holster (empty of course), and my explanation that I am a competitive pistol shooter didn't make a dent. One guard asked me 'what gun club am I a member of' like that is any sort of relevant or useful question of a USian gun owner.

Very good. Nice to hear.
Yes, law enforcement can ask a lot of seemingly silly questions. Sometimes it's not to get the answer but to see how you react.

 

[zxcvbob]

I was traveling cross-country (westbound) and in the states I was allowed, I was concealed-carrying. Eastbound I was taking a multiweek detour through Canada so I shipped the guns home before I got out of North Dakota, specifically to be legal crossing into and staying in Canada.

Last time I went up there (last week), I got searched at the northbound border crossing. They were unhappy when they found a holster (empty of course), and my explanation that I am a competitive pistol shooter didn't make a dent. One guard asked me 'what gun club am I a member of' like that is any sort of relevant or useful question of a USian gun owner.

If you're driving up into Canada and coming back the same way, you can leave your gun at a gunsmith for "cleaning" or some other insignificant repair. When you come back they can transfer it back to you. DO NOT leave a handgun with an out-of-state pawn shop (unless you have your own FFL) because the pawn shop can't transfer it back to you. The pawn shop's FFL would have to ship it to a FFL in your state, and that would probably cost you $$$. I think a long gun is okay at a pawn shop but better double-check.

OTOH you might can take a long gun into Canada if you declare it. (check that too)

 

[Hygro]

Pick up some fervor if you think you won't idle it

Just right

 

[IglooDame]

If you're driving up into Canada and coming back the same way, you can leave your gun at a gunsmith for "cleaning" or some other insignificant repair. When you come back they can transfer it back to you. DO NOT leave a handgun with an out-of-state pawn shop (unless you have your own FFL) because the pawn shop can't transfer it back to you. The pawn shop's FFL would have to ship it to a FFL in your state, and that would probably cost you $$$. I think a long gun is okay at a pawn shop but better double-check.

OTOH you might can take a long gun into Canada if you declare it. (check that too)

I appreciate the feedback. You are correct (at least regarding the handguns, I don't know about rifles), but in my case I was going into Canada coming back from Montana (a Michigan border crossing point, specifically) and departing heading toward the Northeast so a NY border crossing on the way out. I had to do the FFL-to-FFL ship/transfer, at what worked out to be a bit over $100 total for a pair of pistols.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'm half-listening to a story about some gun control measure - I don't even know what it is - and a 2nd Amendment advocate who's opposed to the bill said, "Sometimes you see a crime being committed - someone shoplifting or something - and you have to take action."



I'm not kidding. That's a direct quote. Some rando dude thinks he needs to stop someone shoplifting with a gun. WTAF. I am now slightly more opposed to the 2nd Amendment than I was just a few seconds ago, and this specific guy needs to be disarmed, because he clearly lacks the sense to know when a gun is appropriate and when it isn't. He may also benefit from having someone tell him to stfu for his own good (and perhaps for the good of the cause, if you're also pro-2A), because he said this on mic, to a radio reporter. I don't mind if he wants to embarrass himself in front of a national audience, nobody's going to be killed because he doesn't know when to shut it, but do 2nd Amendment advocates seriously think this guy, and every other guy like him, should be allowed to decide when to shoot someone? Because he's just revealed to the whole world that he's completely unfit to make that decision. (And he was just talking, under no duress at all. This was his calm, rational position on the subject.) At scale, in a nation of 300 million, that's an argument for lawlessness, violence, and chaos. I don't see any other way to interpret it.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I went looking for something I'd posted a while back, thinking it might be germane. It turned out it wasn't, but I did find this:

(I guess I also question the efficacy of [using guns to resist] a tyrannical government, should such a government arise despite our best efforts. I think if the aforementioned Palestinians had rifles, for example, even more of them would be dead. If a full-on shooting war is all that's left, the situation has reached its nadir and we should all be ashamed of ourselves.)

 

[IglooDame]

I'm half-listening to a story about some gun control measure - I don't even know what it is - and a 2nd Amendment advocate who's opposed to the bill said, "Sometimes you see a crime being committed - someone shoplifting or something - and you have to take action."



I'm not kidding. That's a direct quote. Some rando dude thinks he needs to stop someone shoplifting with a gun. WTAF. I am now slightly more opposed to the 2nd Amendment than I was just a few seconds ago, and this specific guy needs to be disarmed, because he clearly lacks the sense to know when a gun is appropriate and when it isn't. He may also benefit from having someone tell him to stfu for his own good (and perhaps for the good of the cause, if you're also pro-2A), because he said this on mic, to a radio reporter. I don't mind if he wants to embarrass himself in front of a national audience, nobody's going to be killed because he doesn't know when to shut it, but do 2nd Amendment advocates seriously think this guy, and every other guy like him, should be allowed to decide when to shoot someone? Because he's just revealed to the whole world that he's completely unfit to make that decision. (And he was just talking, under no duress at all. This was his calm, rational position on the subject.) At scale, in a nation of 300 million, that's an argument for lawlessness, violence, and chaos. I don't see any other way to interpret it.

It is pretty disheartening to hear about a fellow human being that clueless, yes. I suspect that #1 he probably isn't carrying regularly, and #2 if push came to shove he wouldn't draw on someone committing a nonviolent crime in front of him, but I tend to bias toward optimism so who knows.

That aside, I'm not a fan of acknowledging/protecting rights depending on how the worst of the worst may abuse or take advantage of those rights.

 

[Broken_Erika]

RCMP tells owners to turn in guns after banned fully automatic model sold in Canada​

Hundreds of firearms were misidentified as semi-automatic and sold commercially in Canada​

The RCMP has told owners to turn in what the force is calling fully automatic military surplus firearms after hundreds were misidentified and allowed into Canada for commercial sale.
The Mounties say the registrar of firearms immediately froze records relating to the 245 prohibited guns after discovering the issue to prevent further sale or transfer of the firearms.
The registrar believes three firearm businesses imported and registered the guns as semi-automatic Tavor X95s that are classified as restricted firearms and can be sold in Canada.
The RCMP says that upon physical inspection it was determined the firearms are actually fully automatic Tavor X95 MSWs, which are prohibited in Canada.

• Ottawa extending amnesty for 'assault-style' firearms again, until October 2025
• New Winnipeg-based lab aims to speed up tracing, ballistic imaging of crime guns

Rod Giltaca, chief executive officer of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, said several people who received revocation notices told him the firearm they purchased was semi-automatic, meaning it would have been converted from fully automatic at some point.
"Nobody knew that it was converted. They just know they have a semi-automatic rifle," Giltaca said Thursday.
Under the law, such a converted firearm would still be prohibited and subject to revocation, he said.
"My main concern is that Canadians don't think that there's fully automatic military surplus firearms floating around Canada in the hands of licensed gun owners."

Owners have 30 days​

Within 30 days of receiving a revocation notice, individuals and businesses must deliver the prohibited firearms to police or a firearms officer, lawfully dispose of them or contest the decision in provincial court.
The Mounties say the misidentification is being investigated.
An image of an Oct. 5 revocation notice circulating on social media indicates the problem was discovered when the Canadian Firearms Program, administered by the RCMP, conducted a technical inspection of guns imported by firearm businesses.
"These Tavor X95 MSW firearms would not have been permitted entry into Canada had they been properly verified as prohibited firearms," the notice says.
Under section 71 of the Firearms Act, the registrar may revoke a registration certificate for a restricted firearm for "any good and sufficient reason."

Questions about compensation​

Any questions about compensation should be directed to the supplier or distributor from whom the buyer acquired the firearm, the notice says.
Tavor X95 firearms, assembled by IWI US, Inc., are purpose-built semi-automatic guns and are either non-restricted or restricted depending on barrel length, the Mounties say.
However, the Tavor X95 MSW is a fully automatic military surplus firearm from Israel.
"The two makes and models are different and technically distinct firearms," RCMP Sgt. Kim Chamberland said in response to questions.
"Individual licence holders are in illegal possession of these prohibited firearms inadvertently."

• Mendicino says government moving to compensate retailers who own guns on banned list
• Ottawa withdraws controversial amendments to firearms law

The RCMP did not immediately answer follow-up questions Thursday about whether any of the 245 firearms had been converted to semi-automatics.
If an owner refers a revocation notice to a provincial court judge, they may keep their firearm and registration certificate until the outcome of the hearing.
On its website, Canada's National Firearms Association urges recipients of the notice to contact the association immediately "for legal guidance in regard to these revocations."
Blair Hagen, the association's executive vice-president, told The Canadian Press that the firearms organization is "assisting owners of this property."

Senate studying gun legislation​

The misidentification comes as the Senate studies Liberal gun-control legislation that includes a ban on assault-style firearms that would fall under a new technical definition.
The definition would apply to such guns designed and manufactured after the bill comes into force.
The government also has promised to make regulations under the Firearms Act with the aim of ensuring that guns are classified correctly before entering the Canadian market by requiring a valid firearm reference number.
It says this would ensure the government is aware of the presence of new makes and models of firearms before their entry into the domestic market.
The existence of a firearm reference number did not appear to help in the Tavor case.
The RCMP says the firearms were imported and registered using a firearm reference number that corresponds to the semi-automatic Tavor X95, instead of the reference number for the Tavor X95 MSW.
Gun-control groups PolySeSouvient and Danforth Families for Safer Communities said in a letter last spring to Marco Mendicino, public safety minister at the time, that a pre-authorization process "for dangerous products like guns should have been in place a long time ago."
However, they expressed concern that the proposed federal system wouldn't be rigorous enough.
"An effective pre-authorization process aimed at preventing misclassifications must include mandatory physical inspection by the RCMP before manufacturers can introduce a new model on the Canadian market," the letter said.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-automatic-guns-misidentified-1.7002197

 

[EgonSpengler]

That aside, I'm not a fan of acknowledging/protecting rights depending on how the worst of the worst may abuse or take advantage of those rights.

Yeah, me neither. No right is ever absolute, and a lot of rights come into conflict with other rights, and those conflicts have to be adjudicated.

And, fwiw, I don't consider the US Constitution to be the sole or most important arbiter of what should be a right and what shouldn't. I don't know if you do, but there are 2nd Amendment advocates who believe that owning a gun is a right simply because it's in the Constitution, which is backwards. All of these things are in the Constitution because they were believed to be rights and liberties that the government should protect and provide. The document is pretty good, but it's imperfect. Off the top of my head, the 2nd Amendment is the only one that doesn't protect a valid right, in my view. Conversely, I think the right to privacy should be made explicit. There are some other Constitutions that acknowledge a right to dignity, which I like the idea of. I think maybe bodily autonomy might need to be spelled out as a right to 21st-Century Americans, but perhaps the broader concept of human dignity would be sufficient. I know I'm not the only one who views the Constitution as an imperfect document: There are people, for example, who disagree that freedom of religion ought to be a Constitutionally-protected right, or that the government shouldn't be promoting particular religions, just as I believe gun ownership shouldn't be.

I also think that when we're talking about things like Constitutionally-protected rights, we are by definition talking about The Big Picture, so the net impact on our nation and society has to be part of the conversation. Just as I wouldn't want a small number of people misusing something protected as a right to be given too much weight, I also wouldn't want a small number of people benefiting from something being protected as a right to be given too much weight. There's a term I see sometimes in legal documents that name multiple people: "Jointly & severally." Even as the Constitution protects individual rights, it applies to 336+ million of us collectively and simultaneously, "jointly & severally."

 

[Lexicus]

The individual right to carry firearms in public for self-defense is a recent invention of the right-wing Supreme Court, it has little or nothing to do with the actual history of jurisprudence around the 2nd Amendment.

 

[IglooDame]

Yeah, me neither. No right is ever absolute, and a lot of rights come into conflict with other rights, and those conflicts have to be adjudicated.

And, fwiw, I don't consider the US Constitution to be the sole or most important arbiter of what should be a right and what shouldn't. I don't know if you do, but there are 2nd Amendment advocates who believe that owning a gun is a right simply because it's in the Constitution, which is backwards. All of these things are in the Constitution because they were believed to be rights and liberties that the government should protect and provide. The document is pretty good, but it's imperfect. Off the top of my head, the 2nd Amendment is the only one that doesn't protect a valid right, in my view. Conversely, I think the right to privacy should be made explicit. There are some other Constitutions that acknowledge a right to dignity, which I like the idea of. I think maybe bodily autonomy might need to be spelled out as a right to 21st-Century Americans, but perhaps the broader concept of human dignity would be sufficient. I know I'm not the only one who views the Constitution as an imperfect document: There are people, for example, who disagree that freedom of religion ought to be a Constitutionally-protected right, or that the government shouldn't be promoting particular religions, just as I believe gun ownership shouldn't be.

I also think that when we're talking about things like Constitutionally-protected rights, we are by definition talking about The Big Picture, so the net impact on our nation and society has to be part of the conversation. Just as I wouldn't want a small number of people misusing something protected as a right to be given too much weight, I also wouldn't want a small number of people benefiting from something being protected as a right to be given too much weight. There's a term I see sometimes in legal documents that name multiple people: "Jointly & severally." Even as the Constitution protects individual rights, it applies to 336+ million of us collectively and simultaneously, "jointly & severally."

Indeed. Agreed on the Constitution being imperfect - and about the right to privacy being inadequately covered, among others.

But as far as 2A, I think it's at least worth codifying a right to personal self-defense, but here's my problem. The moment we decide that idiots - not the ones with criminal records, just the clueless ones - should not be allowed to own firearms, then a whole bunch of people will immediately counter with mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms either, and oh by the way transgender people are obviously mentally ill. In fact all LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill. And since the clueless folk are a lot less likely to obey the law (especially the white cishet masc ones that don't tend to be negatively impacted by it elseways), they end up mostly unaffected anyway, and the net effect is disarming people who were more legitimately in need of defensive arms in the first place.

Now, I'm reasonably sure that you and I disagree on the effectiveness of defensive arms in the first place, and I'm honestly not eager to wade into that debate here again.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The individual right to carry firearms in public for self-defense is a recent invention of the right-wing Supreme Court, it has little or nothing to do with the actual history of jurisprudence around the 2nd Amendment.

Correct. And yet, here we are, anyway. DC v Heller is law, until and unless another decision overturns it. This is why I think the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed. I'd be willing to amend it, make it clearer or something, but there's no point, because the gun enthusiasts have already made it clear they aren't interested in compromising, and with the 2nd Amendment as written, nothing is forcing them to. There's literally nothing that can be imposed on gun ownership that can't be found unconstitutional. For example, just yesterday...

US judge declares California's assault weapons ban unconstitutional

A federal judge on Thursday declared a California law banning assault weapons unconstitutional, saying the prohibition enacted in 1989 against semi-automatic weapons could not stand under a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year that expanded gun rights.

www.reuters.com

This particular ruling isn't worth shedding a tear over, imo, because the law found unconstitutional wasn't very impactful anyway. I mean, sure, go ahead and wave a magic wand and make all "assault weapons" and magazines over 10 rounds vanish in puffs of mist. It wouldn't really change very much. So I don't really care a lot that this particular law got overturned, but this ruling illustrates my point that there's really nothing that would stand up to a conservative view of the 2nd Amendment. If they're not even willing to compromise enough to capitulate on large-capacity magazines, then the only thing left is the "nuclear option" of removing the entire 2nd Amendment. And before anyone thinks it's a clever rejoinder to say 'that'll never happen', of course it'll never happen. Every American reading this is probably just stuck living with this mayhem, for the rest of our natural lives. We're very close to seeing as many Americans killed by guns every year as were killed in the entire Vietnam War. (Actually, I think if you just look at combat deaths by enemy action, we've already passed that number. I think about 10,000 Americans died from accidents and illnesses over the course of the war "in theater", and therefore are counted among the casualties.)

 

[EgonSpengler]

Indeed. Agreed on the Constitution being imperfect - and about the right to privacy being inadequately covered, among others.

But as far as 2A, I think it's at least worth codifying a right to personal self-defense

Sure, yeah. I'd be willing rewrite the 2nd Amendment, or replace it with something that gets the job done better, but the pro-gun lobby has demonstrated that they're uninterested in compromise, and the 2A means they don't have to. Why would they agree to an amendment of the amendment, if they don't even want to concede on magazines over 10 rounds? Also, the gun violence we currently experience violates the Constitutional rights of everyone in the whole country, and the 2A promotes said gun violence. If we look at the preamble of the Constitution as the document's "mission statement", the gun violence in this country actively frustrates or compromises every single clause: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The proliferation of guns in this country violates or compromises every single ideal laid out there.

but here's my problem. The moment we decide that idiots - not the ones with criminal records, just the clueless ones - should not be allowed to own firearms, then a whole bunch of people will immediately counter with mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to own firearms either, and oh by the way transgender people are obviously mentally ill. In fact all LGBTQ+ people are mentally ill. And since the clueless folk are a lot less likely to obey the law (especially the white cishet masc ones that don't tend to be negatively impacted by it elseways), they end up mostly unaffected anyway, and the net effect is disarming people who were more legitimately in need of defensive arms in the first place.

Yes, I think someone who has a legitimate need for a gun should be allowed to have one. Just because something isn't Constitutionally protected doesn't mean it's not allowable. Right now, the 2nd Amendment prevents sensible gun laws. It doesn't enable them.

Now, I'm reasonably sure that you and I disagree on the effectiveness of defensive arms in the first place

Indeed, I was just about to ask whether the proliferation of guns in this country does indeed make queer people safer. Not just theoretically, but actually.

and I'm honestly not eager to wade into that debate here again.

Okay. nbd.

 

[Lexicus]

Indeed, I was just about to ask whether the proliferation of guns in this country does indeed make queer people safer. Not just theoretically, but actually.

Not surprisingly,

https://www.northwell.edu/news/the-latest/lgbtq-individuals-impacted-by-gun-violence

Among other stats,

LGBTQ+ people are 2.5 times more likely to be victims of violence involving a weapon than straight, cisgender people

 

[Farm Boy]

When 250 years of practice is clarified as the status quo under the law, it's a new invention! Because we're liars. Functionally. But quibble quibble.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

www.smithsonianmag.com

Gun Control and the Old West | Origins

America’s right to bear arms. For many who keep a romantic image of America’s past, gun control is like that, a battle steeped in American tradition. It calls us back to those legendary days of the Old West, when cowboys defended their honor and their horses by way of their Colts.The smoke has...

origins.osu.edu

Once upon a time in Texas, even cowboys were forbidden to carry six-shooters in public

When it comes to gun laws in Texas, the days of the wild, wild West were much more restrictive than they are now.

www.caller.com

 

[Farm Boy]

Let's assume we're actually arguing against an evil. For discussion's sake. Recognizing chattel slavery as legal is one type of thing. Insisting North Korea is a democratic republic is another.

But yes, that's how the SCOTUS is at least supposed to work. It pulls regional deviance from protected rights into line. So goes the theory and the design.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I'm half-listening to a story about some gun control measure - I don't even know what it is - and a 2nd Amendment advocate who's opposed to the bill said, "Sometimes you see a crime being committed - someone shoplifting or something - and you have to take action."



I'm not kidding. That's a direct quote. Some rando dude thinks he needs to stop someone shoplifting with a gun. WTAF. I am now slightly more opposed to the 2nd Amendment than I was just a few seconds ago, and this specific guy needs to be disarmed, because he clearly lacks the sense to know when a gun is appropriate and when it isn't. He may also benefit from having someone tell him to stfu for his own good (and perhaps for the good of the cause, if you're also pro-2A), because he said this on mic, to a radio reporter. I don't mind if he wants to embarrass himself in front of a national audience, nobody's going to be killed because he doesn't know when to shut it, but do 2nd Amendment advocates seriously think this guy, and every other guy like him, should be allowed to decide when to shoot someone? Because he's just revealed to the whole world that he's completely unfit to make that decision. (And he was just talking, under no duress at all. This was his calm, rational position on the subject.) At scale, in a nation of 300 million, that's an argument for lawlessness, violence, and chaos. I don't see any other way to interpret it.

And as if on cue... (I'm only reading about it now, but this happened the day before I posted the above.)

GameStop clerk fatally shot man suspected of shoplifting Pokemon cards

Derrick Guerrero, 33, was working at the video game retailer’s store when a man grabbed five boxes of Pokemon Scarlet & Violet “ultra-premium” trading cards and ran toward the door, police said.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Arwon]

That's a well regulated militia baby