Poll: Are import bans a violation of 2A?

[raftman]

... This ban included the inexpensive guns as well as the expensive high end firearms. So unfortunately, by the basis that the law was not created to exclude the access of the everyday american but to just limit foreign commerce so its not in constitutional violation. or that's just how i see it.

Ah but here's the thing, even if expensive high end guns are also kept out by these bans, there's no shortage of expensive high end guns being made in the USA. You don't have to look very hard to find a handgun or rifle priced at $1000 or higher. People aren't being deprived of expensive guns by import bans. In contrast, how many safe, well-made concealed-carry guns, for example, can you find new for under $200?

To me that's what really reveals the intention of these bans.

For example, when they banned Russian handguns during the Clinton era, the anti-gun crowd demonized the Makarov pistol, calling it "the preferred weapon of the KGB." Sounds plenty scary I suppose, but the fact of the matter is, the Mak is just a single stack semi-auto pistol in a caliber falling in between .380 and 9x19, no more deadly or dangerous than any other handgun in its class, and there are plenty of guns made here today that hit harder, and hold more ammo than the Makarov pistol. It may be a relatively concealable pistol (conceal-ability is a bad thing in anti-gun circles), but there are also much more concealable guns out there than the Mak as well. What it really came down to is that the Russians probably made millions of Makarovs over the 50 or so years that it's been the standard issue pistol for them, and so Americans would potentially have access to a durable, concealable gun, FOR CHEAP. That's why they had to put a stop to it.

 

[crosse]

Ah but here's the thing, even if expensive high end guns are also kept out by these bans, there's no shortage of expensive high end guns being made in the USA. You don't have to look very hard to find a handgun or rifle priced at $1000 or higher. People aren't being deprived of expensive guns by import bans. In contrast, how many safe, well-made concealed-carry guns, for example, can you find new for under $200?

To me that's what really reveals the intention of these bans.

Response to: "intention of these bans"
there are many "victims"/affected parties of newly enacted bans, laws, or court verdicts. And they might actually be the only group that suffers. In this case...let's say...americans who don't have lots of cash to buy expensive firearms. however when talking about the intention, it has to be in the context of "did the law as written get drafted to segregate or deprive one particular group of their constitutional right?". The whole argument of not making it affordable does work if it was actually drafted to unfairly deprive a citizen. i.e. blacks for equal public education during segregation. However since the law outlined that ALL foreign guns (cheap soviet bloc as well as premium end Swiss and german guns) for ALL american citizens be restricted, no particular group could be inferred as being intentionally singled out as the ban's text was written.

Remember, Justice doesn't have to make sense. She's blind and only goes by the scale of "truth" and "fairness".

 

[crosse]

I think that I do see it as a violation of the 2nd Ammendment and this is why. In most other things, cars, electronics, food, and pretty much every other item you buy can be imported from foreign countries. We are told that this is a free market system and a world economy. Why would it all of the sudden stop with firearms. It would seem to me that it is 2nd Ammendment specific because special laws are applied to firearms, that aren't applied to other things that are cheaper to import than to buy domestically.

certain electronics have restrictions on importation depending on lots of factors (IR lasers for one, tritium for another) Hawaii is just one state that bans certain types of food/produce do to their sensitive eco-structure. cars can't be imported directly from other countries. they must pass regulations for emissions and safety before they can be used stateside. free market globalization is only a recent trend. tariffs and bans on certain goods have been used in US' trade throughout history.

 

[raftman]

Response to: "intention of these bans"
there are many "victims"/affected parties of newly enacted bans, laws, or court verdicts. And they might actually be the only group that suffers. In this case...let's say...americans who don't have lots of cash to buy expensive firearms. however when talking about the intention, it has to be in the context of "did the law as written get drafted to segregate or deprive one particular group of their constitutional right?". The whole argument of not making it affordable does work if it was actually drafted to unfairly deprive a citizen. i.e. blacks for equal public education during segregation. However since the law outlined that ALL foreign guns (cheap soviet bloc as well as premium end Swiss and german guns) for ALL american citizens be restricted, no particular group could be inferred as being intentionally singled out as the ban's text was written.

Remember, Justice doesn't have to make sense. She's blind and only goes by the scale of "truth" and "fairness".

A law can be written in such a way as to suggest it doesn't discriminate, when it in fact does. Since when do we assume the government's motives are as pure as they would have you believe? For example, after the Civil War, they didn't just draft laws that said, "blacks can't vote" but they did all kinds of things that on paper "affected everyone" but were clearly directed against freedmen. For example, things like certain residency requirements which many freedmen were unable to meet because doing primarily agricultural work caused them to always be moving from place to place. Or poll taxes or literacy tests, for another example.

Likewise, the import bans, are written in such a way as to suggest none of these guns, affordable or not, whether you're rich or poor, are just not available... but the fact of the matter is the access to firearms in general (not specific makes and models) by those who can afford to drop $1000+ on a gun are not affected, but access to firearms who can't even drop $200 is affected.

 

[sprice37]

Not only 2nd issue bot also anti capitalism. Just another way to attempt to control our lives.

 

[keystir]

I'm for anything that keeps cheap foreign chinese (Insert any other country) goods out of the us and puts more americans back to work building and making things whether it be guns or furniture. I personally will only purchase firearms manufactured in the USA.

 

[crosse]

A law can be written in such a way as to suggest it doesn't discriminate, when it in fact does. Since when do we assume the government's motives are as pure as they would have you believe?

Your poll indicates that you're inquiring about the import bans being constitutional. But it seems that you are more or less probing to see if people agree with what big government is doing to intrude on the 2A right. I merely am stating that the ban as it is written is constitutional in that the text does not preclude any group or strip them of their Constitutional right to bear arms.

As it is, I also agree that we should be supporting american industry as much as possible. Banning importation of guns, makes me sad b/c I can't have greater access to parts for my daewoo, or buy a sig-551, but that's still fine by me.

 

[Unka-Boo]

I'm for anything that keeps cheap foreign chinese (Insert any other country) goods out of the us and puts more americans back to work building and making things whether it be guns or furniture. I personally will only purchase firearms manufactured in the USA.

Bah.....I'd love to go back in time to the $69 SKS and the $189 AK, it could happen, the $49 Colt will NEVER be seen again....( adjust prices for inflation, of course...)

 

[raftman]

I'm for anything that keeps cheap foreign chinese (Insert any other country) goods out of the us and puts more americans back to work building and making things whether it be guns or furniture. I personally will only purchase firearms manufactured in the USA.

Then aren't you tacitly admitting American-made guns are a bad value? I mean that position suggests the only thing that keeps American guns popular and keeps Americans at work is the fact that the American consumer doesn't have much of a choice.

I for one think, competition is a healthy thing and that American guns would still be popular and competitive even if foreign-made firearms become more widely available, because they're actually worth what they sell for, at least usually. For example, the Armscor .38 special revolvers and 1911 clones (both made in the Philippines) are available here in the USA, they're not bad quality, and considerably more affordable than any American-made equivalents, I mean where else are you gonna get a Detective Special NIB for $199 or an NIB 1911 for $370?. So they're cheap, they're here, they're foreign, and yet occupy a very minimal part of the market share for .38 snubbies or 1911's. Why? Cuz most people would still rather have an American .38 snubbie or 1911 even if it means paying more, even a lot more, but if you can't afford it, should your only other option be no gun at all?

 

[crosse]

Then aren't you tacitly admitting American-made guns are a bad value? I mean that position suggests the only thing that keeps American guns popular and keeps Americans at work is the fact that the American consumer doesn't have much of a choice.

I for one think, competition is a healthy thing and that American guns would still be popular and competitive even if foreign-made firearms become more widely available, because they're actually worth what they sell for, at least usually.

I think he's implying that supporting American weapons at a higher cost is worth the dollars circulating and ending up in the hands of americans. Sweatshops can produce expensive and high quality clothes but its not ethical.

I personally like supporting American business and foreign corporations that have vested interested in the local economy (BMW, Toyota, and honda all of which have moved some of their production within US borders unlike GM who produces their cars in Mexico)

Or buying Kimber, dan wesson 1911's vs. Springfields (Brazil).

 

[raftman]

I think he's implying that supporting American weapons at a higher cost is worth the dollars circulating and ending up in the hands of americans. Sweatshops can produce expensive and high quality clothes but its not ethical.

I personally like supporting American business and foreign corporations that have vested interested in the local economy (BMW, Toyota, and honda all of which have moved some of their production within US borders unlike GM who produces their cars in Mexico)

Or buying Kimber, dan wesson 1911's vs. Springfields (Brazil).

He spoke it in favor of legislation giving Americans no choice but to buy American. Can people really be said to be supporting anything if they're only doing what's legally required of them?

If a law passed, saying if you don't vote, you go to prison for 6 months, would the nation really be allowed to take pride in its voter turnout? Would we have reason to marvel at what high percentages of the population participate in the system?