Loughner judge wants gun/magazine confiscation
Gabriel sends us a link to an Associated Press article in which the judge for the Jared Loughner trial, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns, writes in the Los Angeles Times that he supports confiscation of semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines;
So what’s the alternative? Bring back the assault weapons ban, and bring it back with some teeth this time. Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Don’t let people who already have them keep them. Don’t let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don’t care whether it’s called gun control or a gun ban. I’m for it.
I say all of this as a gun owner. I say it as a conservative who was appointed to the federal bench by a Republican president. I say it as someone who prefers Fox News to MSNBC, and National Review Online to the Daily Kos. I say it as someone who thinks the Supreme Court got it right in District of Columbia vs. Heller, when it held that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to possess guns for self-defense. (That’s why I have mine.) I say it as someone who, generally speaking, is not a big fan of the regulatory state.
Blah, blah, blah. I’m not a big fan of regulations…well….except one that ignores the bill of rights. Does the judge relish the idea of making criminals out of people who’ve never broke a law in their life until his wish list of gun control measures take effect? Hiding behind Republican credentials doesn’t make him right, either.
Some generous fellow offered me a “grandfather clause” for my weapons and magazines because I’ve been a good boy for the years since 1984 when I bought my assault rifle – as if my beliefs aren’t a principle and I can be placated because I’m just that selfish.
It’s become vogue in the anti-gun reactionary thugs crowd to call us cowards for clinging to our guns, but people like this judge are the real cowards, wetting their pants and wringing their hands over law abiding citizens with guns – citizens who haven’t committed crimes and have no intention to commit crimes with their guns. Well, until you make the guns illegal, that is.
Some of us have a need for weapons like the ones that the diaper-wearing crowd wants to ban. Prove I don’t.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Oops, forgot California. You see, you can’t “transfer” your registered guns there. So when you die then they come and take them.
Also, we’ve watched it happen in the UK and Australia.
“Who has knocked on your door and told you to hand over your guns?”
No one yet-I am attempting to forestall that with debate, because then I will be faced with the choice of whether or not I need to shoot them, and I’d really rather not have to do so.
If I am “over-reacting” I have threatened no one’s rights, but my opponents have given me reason to fear for mine. Furthermore they have stated that they intend to use the power of the state against me, whereas I am only capable of individual action. Well, a far greater man than myself said that “extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue”.
@52.
“[B]ecause then I will be faced with the choice of whether or not I need to shoot them, and I’d really rather not have to do so.”
Yeah, that very uncomfortable thought has occurred to me too.
@#13, Ex, you said, “Judges are elected in most places. This one can lose his job, just [like] anyone else”. Not true in this judge’s case. He’s a U.S. District judge. He’s appointed for life. He can only lose his job if he’s impeached.
His views are closer to Andrew Cuomo’s than mine. Judge Burns seems to want to confiscate my 30-06 semi-automatic deer rifle. It came with 5 round magazines, I bought a 10 round mag for it. Apparently, that’s too much for the judge. By his definition, that’s a high-capacity magazine.
@52, OK, but your response to this perceived threat is a more emotional one than mine.
These people — all of them, especially the Hollywood idiots in that video — annoy the crap out of me. The rhetoric is loud and noisy now, but it’s one day over a week since the Newtown event, and everything is yap-yap-yap. Most of it is based on fear of what might happen. More people are killed by trains when they run around the cross gates than were killed at that school, but do you see anyone calling for a ban on trains? No.
You feel threatened because you feel the rhetoric is aimed at you. Likewise, they feel threatened because they feel the bullets are aimed at them. Would thet give up their bodyguards for one second? Of course not. But do you see any of the bodyguards taking potshots at the paparazzi on order from the actors? No, you don’t, and the paparats are more of a danger to actors and celebrities than you or I. In a crowd of paparazzi at a film opening or an awards ceremony, someone could just as easily be hiding a gun with a silencer. Who would hear it?
Am I making my point clear? If not, say so. It’s all based on fear, and not much else.
That judge is wrong for publishing a biased opinion. I wouldn’t trust his judgement if I were a victim looking for recompense. I’d ask for another judge.
The actors are wrong, not because they are actors, but because they have created entertaintment that involves violence and earned a living from it, but object to the idea that anyone should have a weapon for personal use. They make large sums of cash from those violent movies. If they want me to believe them, then they should stay out of violent movies.
How can I possibly swallow such hypocrisy from any of these people?
Spade, are you telling me that hunting is not allowed in New York state?
Ex-PH2: I’m not basing my reaction on “what might happen”, I’m responding to those who told me what they wanted to have happen. And twice when I did that you chose to follow my comments with either a “get a grip” or to ask if I (or those who agree with me) are “Over-reacting? This early in the morning?” I wonder why you chose to take those of us who you agree with to task without ever addressing directly the poster yesterday who said that he wanted to “silence” us.
Anyway, I reject that my reaction is more “emotional” than yours. I don’t “feel” threatened, I am choosing to take my adversaries at their words. Please do not presume to know how I feel. It would be just as easy for me to say that you “feel” complacent in this matter-although I do not believe that.
As to why I need my AR10. Feral hog population expolision. I can shoot 3 or 4 sows before the bolts . Some places that I hunt will put me next year list for bringing in a hog. If for some reason I need a second shot, I can with my AR. Joe
@43: Modern firearms vs. muskets is actually not a reach as some would think. For example; what did the military have at the same time? Muskets. Same as the citizens. Also, to think that there hasn’t been gun confiscation to control populations in modern times is naive. We have seen it throughout history and even in the 20th century. We’ve heard that government could never round up citizens in modern times, yet we have seen it happen as soon as they are defenseless, once gun confiscation is completed, in modern times. The 20th century gives us many, many examples of it. The reason the Japanese didn’t invade the American mainland was spelled out by Yamamoto. He knew that they wouldn’t just be fighting the military in this country and why he said “we cannot invade the mainland, because there would be a gun behind every blade of grass”. That sounds like a deterrent that worked. Now, in modern times, we have had school sponsored marksmanship competitions where the rifles were brought to school, kept at school, and the team practiced at school with live ammunition, but there were no shooting rampages because of it. What’s changed? Responsibility is gone. Accountability is gone. Moral relativism has taken over. It’s the high capacity mags that are at fault. It’s the “assault weapon” that’s at fault. No, that’s the tool. Ultimately, it’s the person using the tool. They want to blame video games, or movies, or music (the left doesn’t like it when you use their logic against them by blaming those things). What about the person? They know wrong from right; don’t they? The thing is, they are excused from their behavior by a society that believed the psychology bullshit that everyone is a victim and isn’t responsible for their own actions. Well, of course they believed it, because it sounds really good to be given a pass for being a douchebag. If a person has to lay blame on a tool for the actions of the person using the tool, then they aren’t being honest with themselves and others, about their… Read more »
@57 – 68W58, you appeared to be reacting that way to me. I see all this rhetoric and diatribe, like the poster who wants to silence us all, as mostly people letting off steam, although some of the stuff I’ve seen posted elsewhere contains threats of violence against gun owners as appalling as the Newtown event. How am I supposed to react to that? What am I to say about a politician who wants to slaughter 7 million people because they are members of the NRA? What am I supposed to think of a Federal(?) judge who publishes inappropriate comments about gun owners, which he should not do? Yes, I find what these people say to be threatening, and I’m certainly not complacent about it, but the level of hysteria they have generated is something I took into consideration. They’re more afraid of you than you are of them. They would probably label you a horrible, evil person simply for having a gun, even though you are not. But you are the first person they’d come running to if they were threatened by an invading army or a criminal, so what would you do? I don’t recall these kinds of comments from the public after the Pentagon and the World Trade Center attacks in 2011. So how short do you think their memories are? Believe me, they have VERY short memories. I may seem to be complacent about the screeching anger coming out of that corner of the room, but I’m not. I’m more than aware of how complacent the German people were when the Nazis and SS began seizing property, and not just from Jews, but from anyone who disagreed with them. Same with Stalin. But those societies and different cultures were quite different from ous, always have been. All of you say you will fight to keep your weapons from anyone anyone who wants to take them from you, so think about the logistics of trying to invade every house and apartment and condo in this country. The manpower requirements alone are immense, and don’t count on the… Read more »
Durn proofreading! 2011 should be 2001.
If the founding fathers had meant muskets, I believe the 2nd Amendment would have said “the right of the people to keep and bear muskets shall not be abridged”.
Duh! Same problem, EX.
abridgedinfringed…CAVtastic: regarding your “nobody needs an AR-15” argument, here are a few other things that nobody “needs”:
1. a car that will go faster than 55MPH (or 65MPH, or whatever speed limit you want to agree upon).
2. a car bigger than a Yugo (wastes fuel).
3. a house larger than 1,600 sq ft (an arbitrary limit, but not that long ago the average house was only about that big)
4. choice steak, lobster, cheesecake, chocolate, fine wine, expensive liquor, or any number of other high-end consumer food products (financial waste/not necessary to support life)
5. hamburgers, hot dogs, American cheese, french fries, McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, Dairy Queen, KFC (unhealthy/not necessary to support life)
6. fashionable clothing (a Mao jumpsuit or bib overalls and a work shirt plus socks and work boots, plus a coat and hat in the winter, would suffice)
7. music, poetry, and literature (don’t contribute to human survival)
8. any number of other things that are nice to have but are not strictly necessary to sustain life.
One could infer that you’re OK with a government ban all of these other things that “no one needs” from your comments above. Are you? Are you indeed OK with the government having the power to ban all things that aren’t strictly necessary for survival?
When you get right down to it, all anyone “needs” in life is enough to eat, shelter from the elements, adequate clothing, something meaningful to do, and companionship. All else is merely the “velvet” that makes life more enjoyable.
Communism was based on reducing everyone to the same lowest common denominator existence, with each person’s needs provided by the state. We all know how well that worked out.
As John11B above observed, this nation has never been about the government satisfying the people’s “needs”. Rather, it’s about ensuring an environment where everyone has the freedom to satisfy their wants and desires, limited only by their ability to do so, provided they do not infringe on the liberties of others.
Ex-PH2: a judge is indeed empowered to determine who can an cannot own a firearm. He’s one of the few individuals in our society so empowered.
A judge has the power to issue restraining orders compelling persons to give up any firearms they own. A judge has the power to find a person mentally incompetent, thus rendering them effectively incapable of purchasing a firearm in perpetuity from a registered dealer. A judge can reject a plea bargain, forcing a trial on felony charges that would otherwise not be held – and a felony conviction, in many if not most jurisdictions, indeed renders and individual so convicted permanently ineligible to purchase or lawfully own a firearm. And a judge can order directed verdicts of innocent or dismiss charges with prejudice, thus allowing an individual who would otherwise almost certainly be convicted to retain his/her eligibility to own firearms.
In short: a judge in a criminal court has more authority over what people can and cannot do than most realize. And he’s one of the few individuals in our society who can effectively terminate an individual’s 2nd Amendment rights temporarily – and in some cases, permanently.
I am very wary of granting absolute power over others to one person. But in a court of law, we come very close to doing exactly this in the person of the presiding judge. And when a Federal judge says he’s OK with ignoring the Constitution, it really makes me nervous.
A bit off subject, but here it is! The “military connection”!
http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/us/2012/12/21/erin-bts-ct-shooting-lanza-military-career.cnn
@CAVtastic-I don’t normally just blast someone, but the saying”better to keep quiet and be thought a fool….” you just proved to me which line you stand in. That said, before you do it again by saying anything along the lines of I haven’t seen/heard/read anything about…… do some research. Just little bit. Just as an example, why don’t you google “child killed by tv” before you respond to a thread.
@65– Hondo, I understand exactly what you’re saying, which is the reason I asked, what am I supposed to think of a Federal judge who publishes an inappropriate response to a criminal:
– when it is not in his jurisdiction;
– when it is not presented to him for a legal opinion;
– and when it is done as a private citizen, and not related to anything he is working on?
I agree with you that it’s downright scary when a judge has the right to take away a constitutional right from an individual for no good reason other than he’s afraid of bullets. But saying that as a private citizen reflects his real opinion of firearms in general, and gun owners in particular, even if they are legit. What he said and did are inappropriate.
You may find this interesting, from the Yale Law Journal, Oct 2012: Congress may enact necessary and proper legislation permitting the removal of federal judges upon a finding of misbehavior in the ordinary courts of law.
Here’s the link: http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal/article/how-to-remove-a-federal-judge/
Having read that, I question this judge’s impartiality in any cases he may try and I would petition to have him removed from the bench, based on his published and admitted prejudice.
And for the record, nobody needs butter on their popcorn, but it’s my popcorn and I’ll eat it the way I want to.
@43 CAVTastic – One thing you may notice is that quite a few references to the Revolutionary War era is likely because a lot of people believe in the 2d Amendment and the way it is interpreted, using examples that were eloquently written and as applicable today as it was then.
It’s not that I prefer to be taken back to an era that is long gone, but the things that were written some 240 years ago is as relavent today as it was then – it’s just that some people have twisted them around to meet their agenda, and that is wrong.
The Constitution is only 4 pages long. It discusses more about individual rights than what the government is allowed to do, and has nothing to do with “the greater good” as some people would believe. It was written that way for a reason.
Actually, I am thinking that CAVtastic here, is simply fishing for useable material (research)for an upcoming article or opinion piece he/she is going to publish. Thanks for the video link, Cajun. That Hearst reporter, Marian Gale Brown is lieing like a mofo. Watch the eyes and facial, twittling/twirling/whatever her hands, speech…”um..ah..yea..um..uh..um…yea and um…”! Yea, uh huh sure thing. Right, Marian Gale Brown. Don’t quit your day job.
Also,all modern hunting rifles have came from “service Rifles”. Semi auto shotguns AR 15s and pistols are used in 3 guns competitions . Joe
Cavtastic, don’t forget that it was our very government which wrote our Bill of Rights, including a number of our very first Presidents and Vice Presidents! Saying that the notion of preventing tyranny only applies to GB is to ignore the entire intent of the 2nd Amendment (You’re also ignoring the fact that we have over 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, and that’s larger than any standing army on Earth (Whenever China decides to stop playing games with us, you better believe that these numbers will be of immense importance to our survival (The ChiComms recently called for our own government to disarm us as well!)). Also, please take the time to read our Founding Fathers’/Framers’ written opinions on the matter, and you will see that this is the whole purpose of our right to bear arms. Noting major court rulings dating back to the early 19th Century as well, you will see that Justices agreed upon this concept, and thus they ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies so long as the weapon being discussed is considered to be of common use among both the populace and our military. Therefore, the only truly Constitutional way to ban AR-15s, is to also ban equivalent weapons from the DOD, and all LE agencies (As for the DOD, this would be unrealistic for units in combat, thus the conundrum). Also, if you ever should find an armed assailant breaking into your house, an AR-15 is one of the absolutely ideal go-to firearms, and if you should ever encounter more than one armed assailant, you’ll be very glad to have at least 30 rounds at your disposal (Not to mention protecting yourself against gangbangers, riots, mobs, etc.). Everybody that I know with CT/SMU experience owns semi-auto rifles/carbines, and some of them even own FA ones. There is a reason for this, and leave it to experts in the matter to lead by example (A good sidearm is always ideal too, both as a secondary go-to and a more accessible/portable primary defense weapon when called for). Lastly, this obsession against ARs is ludicrous. I… Read more »
@71, I was thinking that CAVtastic was somewhere between a Moby and a concern troll. He shows up, acts as if he’s interested in our point of view and then starts asking things like “Why do you need this?” just like every other anti gun type.
@73: Thank you for explaining it better than I have. I hope you don’t mind if I use some of your words to explain it to others?
Why do I have a AR10,AK47 and SKS ? Oh, I forgot my semi-auto shotguns. Because I can! Joe
I was watching “Excalibur” this evening, for about the millionth time. The scene where Arthur pulls Excalibur out of the stone always gets me laughing:
Sir Ector: Arthur, did you pull Excalibur out of the stone?
Arthur: Yes, father.
Sir Ector: Well, you’d better put it back!
(Silliest line in any movie.)
But then Arthur goes galloping off to help Leondegrance, and gets into a tussle in the moat with Uriens, who refuses to recognize his authority. So Arthur hands the sword to Uriens and asks him to knight him, which he does. The two-shoulder tap is accompanied by this:
By God, by St. Michael and St. George, I give you the right to bear arms and mete justice.
The right to bear arms used to be the privilege of the upper classes. We have this right because this is supposed to be a classless society. I use that term loosely, but you get the drift. We’re all created equal and we all have the same rights, whether the extremists on the left side of the fence like it or not. We can choose to have guns or not. I choose not to, but should I change my mind in the future, I don’t want someone telling me I can’t have one because a bunch of hysterical fear-mongering lackwits don’t want me to, even though it doesn’t stop criminals from having them.
No matter what criminal will have the best weapons and equipmen t available to take advantage they dont concern themselves with issues like whether it is legal or not. look at the cities where gangs run rampant vs rural adeas where my grandmother carries a 5 shooter in her purse. I am a firefighter and have a conceed handgun permit and when i go into a house it’s not the guns I see that worry me. It makes me feel better that people take upon themselves to defend their families. My father taught me to use a gun as soon as i was tall enough to hold one and instilled a sense of duty in their use. That is what is missing in this country today. I would feel like I let my father down using one in an inappropriate way. As for high cap mags and ARs- see if youre revolver protects you from a group of assaulters larger than 5 or 6 armed with just knives. The reason we fear lefties and their agendas is because without the right to defend ourselves the criminals will take charge and it will be a different world.
@78. There is no fear of lefties, Anonymous. As I like to say, they have voluntarily disarmed but we have not. If there is fear, it is of what the left will be able to accomplish in capitalizing on tragedy and fearmongering among the sheeple.