Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Balog on April 29, 2013, 11:28:12 AM
-
The libertarian Cato Institute has now officially endorsed the abortion that is Manchin-Toomey. http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-sensible-gun-legislation
How disappointing.
-
Wow. Levy is REALLY trying to sugar coat it.
"No, no no! REALLY! It's a GUN RIGHTS bill! With just a SMALL concession to the gun grabbers! And it doesn't affect ANY face to face transaction outside of a gun show!"
(So, sugar coating and blatant lies. Thanks, Cato.)
-
Damn. And they used to be reasonably good.
-
Cato gets the need for border control and the unconstitutionality of gun control mixed up on a regular basis.
-
Is it a blogger offering his opinion or is it a genuine, official position of the CATO institute?
-
Is it a blogger offering his opinion or is it a genuine, official position of the CATO institute?
Don't know but he appears to be Chairman of the Board of Directors of CATO.
http://www.cato.org/people/robert-levy
-
This is what CATO carried:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libertarian-case-expanding-gun-background-checks
As chairman of the board at CATO he carries some clout in this argument.
-
From Levy's column:
Currently, dealers can charge up to $125 for background checks. If these fees are supposed to promote public safety, the taxpayers — and not just law-abiding gun owners — should foot some of the bill.
Since when is is constitutional to charge somebody to exercise their civil rights? I thought poll taxes were unconstitutional specifically for this reason.
Poper
-
Seems like it is his own opinion and not the Cato stance.
This article is the Op-Ed he wrote in the NYT:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libertarian-case-expanding-gun-background-checks
And this article is him expounding on his original article:
http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-sensible-gun-legislation
-
Fourth, Manchin-Toomey reinforces current law permitting interstate transportation of firearms and ammunition—unless a certain weapon or use is barred. Guns have to be unloaded and inaccessible or locked, but the re-write of existing rules helps. Most important, state laws against unlicensed possession are preempted.
Here's some of his sugar coating that just papers over the real problems.
It's his throw-away line that is the problem: "—unless a certain weapon or use is barred."
In other words, "you rubes won't have to worry about whether you are legal while travelling and check out every state law between you and your destination.... OH, yeah, unless one of the states you are driving through and you have no intention of stopping in has banned the gun you are transporting. So, yeah, you have to know the state laws of every state you are driving through. But it's an IMPROVEMENT!... Because... shut up."
-
I'm sorry but I don't see any real improvement for our rights in exchange for giving up so much...despite what supporters of the bill say.
-
I'm sorry but I don't see any real improvement for our rights in exchange for giving up so much...despite what supporters of the bill say.
That, little sister, is no bargain [/rooster cogburn]
;)
-
Off topic.
From the article,
"First, the bill allows interstate handgun sales through dealers—under roughly the same rules that now govern long gun sales. Current law does not permit buying handguns from out-of-state sellers. So the new provision represents a major development. "
I'm not sure I'm understanding what was the law and what this would change. My understanding is that if you are in another state, or are buying online, and want to buy a handgun or long gun it has to be shipped to a dealer. Is this saying that that is true of long guns but not handguns?
???
-
Under federal law you can buy long guns in person, from an FFL, in any state as long as the gun you are buying is legal in your home state.
State laws vary.
-
Long guns can be purchased at any FFL, on location, by walk-in customers regardless of their state of residence. (The legality of taking it home with you is entirely your own concern, depending on your local home state laws.)
In other words, I can drive to Texas from Idaho, buy a rifle or shotgun, and drive home with it.
It used to be that out-of-staters could only buy a long gun in a neighboring state. So a Nevada FFL could sell a long gun, over the counter, to residents of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, California, Oregon, and Idaho.
This is no longer the case, and over-the-counter sales of long guns can be made regardless of one's state of residence.
-
I just don't see how giving up one freedom to get back another freedom that we should have had all along is a good deal =(
-
I just don't see how giving up one freedom to get back another freedom that we should have had all along is a good deal =(
I think the advantage is supposed to be that the other side feels like they've done something, so they will leave us alone. Also, we avoid looking like gun rights absolutists that won't compromise on "sensible" gun legislation, and don't care how many of the children are murdered to death by guns. More importantly, blue-state politicians get to claim they did something about the scary guns.
I say no more compromise. Let's not give them a single thing that makes them think they have any momentum on this issue. Frustrate the extremists at every turn.
-
Seems like it is his own opinion and not the Cato stance.
This article is the Op-Ed he wrote in the NYT:
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/libertarian-case-expanding-gun-background-checks
And this article is him expounding on his original article:
http://www.cato.org/blog/further-thoughts-sensible-gun-legislation
When someone on the board of directors writes an article, and the group publishes it on their website and other media outlets Facebook/etc... How much more official do you want it?
-
Still scratchimg my head and trying to figure out how giving the anti's the UBC in exchange for beimg able to buy a handgun in any state and a "reinforcement"
of the FOPA travel protections that select cities/states will comtinue to ignore is a "big win in exhange for giving up a little bit"
-
Still scratchimg my head and trying to figure out how giving the anti's the UBC in exchange for beimg able to buy a handgun in any state and a "reinforcement"
of the FOPA travel protections that select cities/states will comtinue to ignore is a "big win in exhange for giving up a little bit"
You know, I was as confused as you, and then I realized. It's a "Big Win" because instead of getting absolutely nothing in this loss of freedom, we get some crumbs. Which, I will admit, is better than the usual power grab.
It is, however, NOT a worthwhile trade when doing absolutely nothing is far better.
-
I think the basic premise (which is dead wrong) that the author is going off of is that UBC is a great idea, and this also tacks on some other good stuff as well.
-
When someone on the board of directors writes an article, and the group publishes it on their website and other media outlets Facebook/etc... How much more official do you want it?
"In an op-ed on the New York Times web site yesterday, I voice my belief that the gun control bill authored by Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey, if properly modified, can and should pass with the support of gun rights advocates."
From your link. Emphasis added.
Still the opinion of one man. He's on the Board, of course they're gonna post it their website. To me, that doesn't make it official.
-
What would make it official, in your mind? They don't exactly have a party platform or detailed mission statement.
-
What would make it official, in your mind? They don't exactly have a party platform or detailed mission statement.
While it may not be "official," it would carry more weight, I think, if it had come from John Allison or David Boaz. The guys that really run Cato.
-
That's some pretty fine hairsplitting. "Oh, it's not our real official position, as anyone with a detailed knowledge of our internal power structures would know! We just had a high level member of the org publish it as an oped in the NYT, nothing official about that!"
I mean really...
-
That's some pretty fine hairsplitting. "Oh, it's not our real official position, as anyone with a detailed knowledge of our internal power structures would know! We just had a high level member of the org publish it as an oped in the NYT, nothing official about that!"
I mean really...
So I guess he's speaking for the Institute for Justice, the Federalist Society, and GMU Law school too. He's on the boards of those organizations, as well.
-
So I guess he's speaking for the Institute for Justice, the Federalist Society, and GMU Law school too. He's on the boards of those organizations, as well.
Did those folks publish his articles on their websites and social media?
-
I don't know that it really matters whether it is official. What matters is that Cato is not distancing themselves from Levy's viewpoint. Far from it.