Defend your right to own a car.

[David88vert]

I understand you are pointing out the over the top rhetoric that is used, but obviously that does not mean we should ban absolutely everything that has ever killed someone. Or maybe Obama means we should ban water to prevent drowning, ladders to prevent falling from height, and soap to prevent bathroom slips. If we can get past the obvious political hyperbole and focus on the issue of assessing the effectiveness of our laws regarding gun safety, we can actually move forward.

More people are killed by car crashes than firearms. That's an undisputable fact. Banning all forms of motorized transportation and going back to horses and wagons would reduce the amount of deaths far more than banning all privately owned firearms. If you want to pass laws to promote safety and prevent deaths, then look at where you can find the most gains.

Banning cars is not politically correct though, and banning firearms is an easier sale to the general public.

I don't believe dead people have rights under the fourth amendment. There are already rules in place for what you can give to your heirs and what part of it the government gets. This isn't breaking ground in that respect.

When a person dies, their possession become part of their estate, which a living person is appointed as an executor or an administrator over. The estate functions with the same rights and responsibilities as a living individual until all assests have been distributed and the estate is dissolved. I've had to handle them before, and I am handling one currently.
So, yes, the Fourth Amendment, should apply to the living administrator/executor of the estate who is legally responsible for the assest that happens to be a firearm.

[bu villain]

More people are killed by car crashes than firearms. That's an undisputable fact. Banning all forms of motorized transportation and going back to horses and wagons would reduce the amount of deaths far more than banning all privately owned firearms. If you want to pass laws to promote safety and prevent deaths, then look at where you can find the most gains.

Banning cars is not politically correct though, and banning firearms is an easier sale to the general public.

You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response.

When a person dies, their possession become part of their estate, which a living person is appointed as an executor or an administrator over. The estate functions with the same rights and responsibilities as a living individual until all assests have been distributed and the estate is dissolved. I've had to handle them before, and I am handling one currently.
So, yes, the Fourth Amendment, should apply to the living administrator/executor of the estate who is legally responsible for the assest that happens to be a firearm.

So what happens if a person bequeaths their gun to a felon?

[Sinfix_15]

You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response.

Doesnt stop the president from pandering though does it? "if we can save 1 life, then we have to try"

So what happens if a person bequeaths their gun to a felon?

Well, my own personal beliefs would make that a lot less likely to happen...... because felons would stay behind bars. What are the odds of me walking into a prison and selling my gun to an inmate? pretty slim. Think about the irony of the situation............. the possibility of me selling my gun to a felon is one of the major concerns anti-gun activists have. Why do we have so many felons walking the street to begin with?

[David88vert]

You misunderstand. The point is NOT simply to reduce as many deaths as possible, that's an oversimplification. If that was the goal, you would ban pools of water, ladders, and soap as I said in the last response.

Since the public declaration by the officials is that public safety is their top concern while they announce plans to restrict access to assault style weapons, what is the real motive, as you say it is not to reduce deaths?

So what happens if a person bequeaths their gun to a felon?

The felon cannot legally take possession of them, if his right to possess a firmarm has not been previously restored. Someone else can be designated to take possession, or the administrator/executor of the estate can choose to turn them over to the local authorities. That would be the choice of the estate though - and not a seizure. If for some reason the felon did take possession of the firearm(s), he would be committing a crime, which would happen to be a felony also.