Constitutional measures that can be taken for gun control

Now, these are pretty extreme, but they are constitutional and would solve the problem of guns being so prevalent in our society.

1) Ban the sale of firearms and/or ammo. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to purchase firearms, only that you can own them. So they are fine to ban the sale of firearms to the general public, but impose no penalty for actually owning one. If you want to build your own gun, knock yourself out, no one is going to infringe on your right to build your own and own it.

2) Heavily tax firearms and ammo (especially ammo). Again, the constitution gives the government the right to tax. So we can tax the manufacturers and tax at individual at the time of purchase. We can make these taxes high to make it prohibitive for people to want to go out and buy 50 guns or 100,000 rounds of ammo. $5 tax per bullet for the manufacture and the individual at the time of purchase. That is $10 a bullet. Again, this would reduce the amount of guns and ammo in society. Right now ammo is extremely cheap, let's make it expensive.

3) Completely ban the sale of ammo. Ammunition is not a firearm, the gun is the firearm. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to ammunition. Again, if you want to make your own ammo, fine, knock yourself out.

4) In addition to any of the above, institute federal gun buyback programs and pay thousands of dollars for turned in guns. Make it very attractive for people to turn over some of their guns willingly by offering an outrageous amount for each gun. $10,000 for a handgun? Besides the most die hard gun owners, who isn't going to turn in that gun for some cash?


There are many other options, but these are just a few that could be passed and still be Constitutional. I'm under no delusion that any of these would be passed with the Congress we have right now, Republicans would have to get out of the House first. But I think one or a combination of above should be the end goal for gun control.

All are forms of INFRINGEMENTS. Yes, ammunition is not a firearm per se but it is a part of the firearm system like an arrow is to a bow for without the projectile (bullet) the firearm is useless as designed. Thumbs down.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
All are forms of INFRINGEMENTS. Yes, ammunition is not a firearm per se but it is a part of the firearm system like an arrow is to a bow for without the projectile (bullet) the firearm is useless as designed. Thumbs down.

None of it is infringement. You currently have to buy a gun, is that infringement?

If someone is too poor to buy a gun, should they be given one for free? Wouldn't that be infringement if they aren't given one for free?

Ammo is not a firearm, sorry, it isn't Constitutionally protected. You are free to make your own, but it is Constitutional to ban the sale of them. I would think most people made their own when the Constitution was written, so you are free to do the same the way the founders intended.

reply to post by xedocodex


roflma

This has got to be the most pathetic attempt of bastardizing the Constitution that I have ever seen.......

Here ya go, print this picture out and put it on your pillow so that you can feel safer at night when you try to sleep...

reply to post by seeker1963


So you have nothing to add except silly pictures?

All the options above are valid and Constitutional. People are so worried about going after their guns, but it won't be the guns, it will be the ammo.

The Federal government has the right to taxation and to regulate commerce.

reply to post by xedocodex

I said "forms" of infringement....an infringement is not a cost or an inconvenience but more of an intentional barrier. Intent is the key. The cost of buying private property from the seller is not an infringement unless the price is artificially increases due to anti competitive measures (more of an anti-trust concern tho) but a government tax with the intent to discourage ownership of said property can be considered an infringement. The point on ammo is less clear cut as it is not a gun per se but it is what enables the firearm to be a weapon. If they outlaw the sale of ammo then people will load their own and if you restrict the sale of bullets, powder, etc then it is an obvious game of semantics to try to outflank the intent of the founding fathers.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by xedocodex

 

I said "forms" of infringement....an infringement is not a cost or an inconvenience but more of an intentional barrier. Intent is the key. The cost of buying private property from the seller is not an infringement unless the price is artificially increases due to anti competitive measures (more of an anti-trust concern tho) but a government tax with the intent to discourage ownership of said property can be considered an infringement. The point on ammo is less clear cut as it is not a gun per se but it is what enables the firearm to be a weapon. If they outlaw the sale of ammo then people will load their own and if you restrict the sale of bullets, powder, etc then it is an obvious game of semantics to try to outflank the intent of the founding fathers.

The intent of the tax would be to raise revenue to pay for having to deal with a society where guns are all over the place. Having to pay for the support of SWAT teams, having to pay for the extra security we need everywhere because people love their guns so much, having to pay for the extra work needed to make sure only sane people are owning guns. The thing with intent is that it's very hard to prove what the intent is at all.

Ammo is not protected by the constitution, it isn't even mentioned in the Constitution, it could be outright banned with no problem. And if semantics are needed to outflank the moronic founding fathers who said we are all created equally while owning humans as slaves, then so be it.

reply to post by xedocodex


What is this a trial balloon by another globalist socialist govbot. I am so sick of these type of threads. The gun grabbers are straight out of the tactics of Chairman Mao and Stalin. Gun grabbers want to disarm up so they can bring in their global enslavement. That is clear. The worst tactics of every tyranny are being brought to bear.

reply to post by exitusstatuquo


Then don't read them, The op has a right to an opinion.

If any of these are done.... there will be blood.

Originally posted by exitusstatuquo
reply to post by xedocodex

 

What is this a trial balloon by another globalist socialist govbot. I am so sick of these type of threads. The gun grabbers are straight out of the tactics of Chairman Mao and Stalin. Gun grabbers want to disarm up so they can bring in their global enslavement. That is clear. The worst tactics of every tyranny are being brought to bear.

edit on 10-1-2013 by exitusstatuquo because: edited for small errors

No, what this is are some Constitutional measures to make guns less prevelant in our society.

I'm sorry you don't like them, I'm not asking you to like them, I am just presenting them as Constitutional measures that can address the out of hand gun culture we have in our society.

None of them will remove guns for society, that isn't the intent. The intent is to reduce the amount of guns in our society. If you want a gun to protect your family, go ahead, it's going to be a big investment, but you are free to do it. What these will prevent is someone being able to buy 5 guns and thousands of rounds of ammo in a year, let alone a month.

#2 and #4 would actually stand up to Constitutional challenge and may be in some part what we do see, IMO. The other two would have the Roberts Supreme Court laughing harder than I was to read them I'm sure...and I found them amusing to say the least. Neither of those would stand to the most passing challenge.

The Roberts court of Heller decision fame, wouldn't be tolerant of backdoor clever plays at a ban I'll bet. I'm just not sure there is a thing they could do about 2 and 4 though. Money is being treated like nothing but a play thing now anyway with nonsense like trillion dollar coins even being discussed so why not get stupid about buy back amounts?

Yeah, #4 would work and it would be a disaster. It would have 10's of millions of burglars and many more who never considered that, hunting firearm homes like little gold mines.

Originally posted by xedocodex
Now, these are pretty extreme, but they are constitutional and would solve the problem of guns being so prevalent in our society.

1) Ban the sale of firearms and/or ammo. The constitution doesn't guarantee you the right to purchase firearms, only that you can own them. So they are fine to ban the sale of firearms to the general public, but impose no penalty for actually owning one. If you want to build your own gun, knock yourself out, no one is going to infringe on your right to build your own and own it.

2) Heavily tax firearms and ammo (especially ammo). Again, the constitution gives the government the right to tax. So we can tax the manufacturers and tax at individual at the time of purchase. We can make these taxes high to make it prohibitive for people to want to go out and buy 50 guns or 100,000 rounds of ammo. $5 tax per bullet for the manufacture and the individual at the time of purchase. That is $10 a bullet. Again, this would reduce the amount of guns and ammo in society. Right now ammo is extremely cheap, let's make it expensive.

3) Completely ban the sale of ammo. Ammunition is not a firearm, the gun is the firearm. There is nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to ammunition. Again, if you want to make your own ammo, fine, knock yourself out.

4) In addition to any of the above, institute federal gun buyback programs and pay thousands of dollars for turned in guns. Make it very attractive for people to turn over some of their guns willingly by offering an outrageous amount for each gun. $10,000 for a handgun? Besides the most die hard gun owners, who isn't going to turn in that gun for some cash?


There are many other options, but these are just a few that could be passed and still be Constitutional. I'm under no delusion that any of these would be passed with the Congress we have right now, Republicans would have to get out of the House first. But I think one or a combination of above should be the end goal for gun control.

TOO bad these are NOT constitutional AT ALL!!!!!!

An infringement is exactly that. Anything that infringes on these rights. You cannot heavily tax firearms in a way that infringes on the ability for the common man to obtain them. You cannot tax AMMO in a way that would restrict the average man to obtain them.

Hell, the restrictions that have already done this to an extent barely survived judicial review and they shouldn't have.

Besides, it is not firearms that are guaranteed, it is ALL arms, AMMO is armament...

so MASSIVE FAIL on your so called constitutional measures that can be taken...

Jaden

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
All are forms of INFRINGEMENTS. Yes, ammunition is not a firearm per se but it is a part of the firearm system like an arrow is to a bow for without the projectile (bullet) the firearm is useless as designed. Thumbs down.

None of it is infringement. You currently have to buy a gun, is that infringement?

If someone is too poor to buy a gun, should they be given one for free? Wouldn't that be infringement if they aren't given one for free?

Ammo is not a firearm, sorry, it isn't Constitutionally protected. You are free to make your own, but it is Constitutional to ban the sale of them. I would think most people made their own when the Constitution was written, so you are free to do the same the way the founders intended.

edit on 10-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)

You think everybody back then made their own weapons? You should study more history.

Originally posted by xedocodex
reply to post by seeker1963

 

So you have nothing to add except silly pictures?

All the options above are valid and Constitutional. People are so worried about going after their guns, but it won't be the guns, it will be the ammo.

The Federal government has the right to taxation and to regulate commerce.

No they are NOT valid and constitutional...

They cannot institute taxes in a way that infringes on rights of the people. There is actually case law that sets this precedent..

That would be like instituting heavy taxes on newspapers to prevent freedom of the press.

Any law that is an infringement at ALL is an illegal law. PERIOD and is NOT constitutional. The Supreme Court is NOT the highest authority, the PEOPLE are, which is WHY the second amendment exists to begin with. lol...

Jaden

reply to post by xedocodex


Explanation: Hmmmm?

The Federal government has the right to taxation and to regulate commerce.

I agree ... and US Citizens can legally butcher/slaughter/kill oppressive tyrants under the 2nd ammendment!

Personal Disclosure: Seems fair to me!

Originally posted by ConspiraCity
If any of these are done.... there will be blood.

Well, something will be done about gun control, it is inevitable.

And I really don't think there will be blood, using guns to kill a politician to protest gun legislation is just kind of proving the point of needing gun legislation. Good luck with that.

And what do we defend ourselves with?

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
All are forms of INFRINGEMENTS. Yes, ammunition is not a firearm per se but it is a part of the firearm system like an arrow is to a bow for without the projectile (bullet) the firearm is useless as designed. Thumbs down.

None of it is infringement. You currently have to buy a gun, is that infringement?

If someone is too poor to buy a gun, should they be given one for free? Wouldn't that be infringement if they aren't given one for free?

Ammo is not a firearm, sorry, it isn't Constitutionally protected. You are free to make your own, but it is Constitutional to ban the sale of them. I would think most people made their own when the Constitution was written, so you are free to do the same the way the founders intended.

edit on 10-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-1-2013 by xedocodex because: (no reason given)

Any moves that would limit the abiltiy to exercise the amendment, prohibitive taxation, would be an infringment. Just ask a lawyer.

As well do you understand that the sort of measures you are proposing are the same type that kicked off the war with england? They tried to use taxes on one product to force americans to buy another.

Originally posted by xedocodex

Originally posted by ConspiraCity
If any of these are done.... there will be blood.

Well, something will be done about gun control, it is inevitable.

And I really don't think there will be blood, using guns to kill a politician to protest gun legislation is just kind of proving the point of needing gun legislation. Good luck with that.

As Jaden noted above, you cannot tax a right, so most of your idea is not constitutional. You are right about commerce and you already pay those taxes when you purchase said items. The problem is the anti-gun people want the US to view defense as a privilage, not a right. And, as in all areas, submit that privilage to the state (LEOs, military). Your option is to abolish the second . . . but, that will expose them for what they are.

As far as your example, I wouldn't think the point would be to kill an opposed ideology. If it ever came to that point . . . The purpose of killing said politician would be to remove one link in the chain of tyranny, and you are right about proving a point.