That sure worked for DC, Chicago, and the UK, didn't it? Maybe you prefer to rely on others for your safety, but I sure won't.

Since when did the Portland City Council move to Beaverton???????

My first gut reactions were posted yesterday on Metroblogging Portland: http://portland.metblogs.com/archives/2007/01/banning_toys_is.phtml

Followed up by some further thoughts today on Portland Feed:
http://www.portlandfeed.com/2007/01/23/beavertons-toy-gun-ban-misguided-logic/

In short: stupid.

I read some place that gun laws were restricted by state law to the state only.
Am I wrong about that?

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

No mention of the right of the people to keep and bear toys.

oh boy, a "right to bear arms" debate coming.

anybody who's *not* a member of the NRA knows that that was and is not what the constitution means.

Sorry, but a lengthy pro-gun legal dissertation has been removed. You want to write a book? Get your own blog.

In the context of a gun-toting community, a prohibition on toy guns makes good sense. They're just too dangerous. Besides, when somebody brandishes something that looks like it could be a gun, the gun-toters need to be able to shoot first, and classify later. If the threat came from a legal toy, the shooter might be at risk of prosecution. If it's an illegal toy, then, well, hey, no problem! I'm not quite sure where cell phones fit into this picture.

Ulysses: the founding fathers enshrined the right to bear arms in a manner that (they thought) was beyond reproach. They had just fought a war against the most powerful nation on earth, and they understood that an armed populous was the ultimate defense against tyranny.

In drafting and revising the Constitution, many Federalists argued in favor of limiting the right to bear arms (as was already the case in England): the historical record clearly demonstrates they lost that debate.

The NRA has dozens of legal precedents on their side of the "militia" debate.

More information is available at http://www.healylaw.com/brief.htm

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-18.pdf

Jack I hope this doesn't qualify as "a lengthy pro-gun legal dissertation"

If a parent allows there children to play with toy guns. Then they need to do the responsible thing and teach them to be responsible with the toy.

Two simple rules solve most of the issues with these toy guns.

1: You only point the toy gun at the people who are playing the game.

2: IF you Ever see a officer come towards/near you you put it on the ground and use words like. Sir, Officer and my I help?

I know that seems simplistic, however that is the way it is.
My condolences to mothers who have lost children in such a condition.

Why is it that so many current 'progressive' policies of ours seem to take the responsibility off the shoulders of those who should be responsible and place it elsewhere?

Here's a scary term, "Personal Responsibility"

*runs and hides*

Where are the parents? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure a person under the age of 18 can't walk into a store and purchase an Airsoft gun. If I'm wrong, don't you think it'd be more effective to institute a minimum age required for purchase, such as the one for paintball guns?

Jack, I'm really disappointed. Are you serious? I didn't think you'd be the type to remove a post after someone took the time to write it. Is it because it goes against your views? That seems to be the only conclusion I can draw, since I've seen many 'lengthy' posts on this blog which were allowed to remain.

ron, I'm not sure about Oregon, but I know that's not true of California and Illinois (San Fran and Chicago handgun bans). Either way, they're toys and not real firearms and therefore excluded.

"oh boy, a "right to bear arms" debate coming.

anybody who's *not* a member of the NRA knows that that was and is not what the constitution means."

You might want to study up on that, Ulysses. Even the anti-rights constitutional scholars have conceded that the right to bear arms was intended to be an individual right.

You're perfectly welcome to rely on the police for your personal protection if you want to. We all know how effective they are at stopping crime. We sensible people will continue to take responsibility for ourselves and our families, thanks very much.

The Second Amendment made sense way back in the 1780's when people needed guns to feed their family, fight off the natives and deter the British. We now live in a culture of death with the highest murder rate on the planet thanks to a mentality about guns that is better suited to the days of Jesse James and Billy the Kid. I hope I live to see the day where we have an amendment to the Constitution which repeals the Second Amendment.

I have lived in the country for 42 years, and neither I nor anyone I know or met has needed to use a gun to prevent a crime. The occasional random crime that is prevented by a private gun owner is far outweighed by the societal cost associated with the crime caused by ready access to guns. Certain "rights" need to be curtailed by the majority through the democratic process when they no longer make sense and cause more harm than good.

Why isn't it also banning real guns in those places?

Because they can't. And besides, rational logic tells us that banning guns would never keep them out of the hands of criminals. Im all for it if you can guarantee me that the bad guys wont have them either.

Usual Kevin-
Certain "rights" need to be curtailed

Scariest phrase in this whole discussion.
Now you sound like the Bush Administration.

Jon-

If you want to criticize me at least have the intellectual honesty to finish the sentence. Certain "rights" need to be curtailed by the majority [through the democratic process when they no longer make sense and cause more harm than good.] What I propose in terms of a constitutional amendment (i.e. probably not going to happen in my lifetime) is 180 degrees opposite of the way the Bush administration takes care of business. I'm sorry if you are scared by the democratic process, but that's your problem not mine.

The ordinance will regulate possession of replica firearms in public places including highways, streets, schools, places of amusement, parks, playgrounds, public transportation centers and common areas of apartments and hotels.

Common areas of apartments? Thats private property. How can they enforce that? Seems to me that should be up the property owner.

As for the "replica" guns themselves...there are only a couple local specialty stores that sell the "real" looking ones. And they only sell to adults. All the regular stores like BiMart and Freddy's only sell the clear plastic ones. If a cop cant tell a clear plastic gun isnt real (like that Sheriffs Deputy in Hillsboro a couple years ago), he needs to be in another line of work.

FWIW, Im not an NRA member, and I dont own any firearms. But there are a few "Airsoft" guns in my home, as well as a Daisy target competition BB rifle. All the Airsoft guns are clear plastic except one. Its a very real looking HK MP5. (Well, except for the rather striking 4 inches of bright orange paint on the barrel, as required by Federal law.) But my kids are only allowed to use them in the backyard, and only to shoot at paper targets. Just like any other BB gun.

I'm sorry if you are scared by the democratic process, but that's your problem not mine.

Actually, Im not scared at all. Its never gonna happen.

to commenters (not Jack):

the extraordinary number of yearly handgun deaths doesn't seem to support the notion that "a heavily armed populace is safer."

a significant portion of those are children, killing themselves accidentally or each other intentionally.

a simpler, more fundamental question might be--why is it so important for kids to--for god's sake--*play with replicas of GUNS?!*

When fake guns are illegal, only criminals will have fake guns.

NFRA

"When fake guns are illegal, only criminals will have fake guns.

NFRA"

What does their logo look like? Cause Dick Cheney's gonna want to put a sticker of it on the back windshield of his pickup truck..........to show off his macho bad self the next time he goes hunting with his friends.....I just love gun-huggers! Y'all, this is what makes America great....

There's only one way to combat fake guns -- fake leadership.

Well, I'm always glad to see the 2nd amendment debated from time to time.

The fact is we all have the right and the
responsibility to defend ourselves using
reasonable force. Nobody can debate that.
Now we have to determine what tools we
can use to do that. The Constitution
clearly tells us we have the right to bear
arms. Which arms? Any that may be used
against us.

For clarifications read the Federalist
Papers and other writings by the FFs.

Sure, you can vote all of that away using
democratic means, just like the Venezuelans
voted in a dictator who prefers to govern by
decree. That was very democratic, too.

I'll be responsible for my own security, thank you,
and I promise I won't hurt anyone else doing it. If I do,
I'll pay the price for it. That is our system and how
it was designed to work.

Some people feel the need to ban everything in
hopes nobody will ever get hurt. That's not the kind
fo world I want to live in.

the extraordinary number of yearly handgun deaths doesn't seem to support the notion that "a heavily armed populace is safer."

a significant portion of those are children, killing themselves accidentally or each other intentionally.

Depends on the context. Safer from crime? Yeah, if you are armed, I would think you are safer. At least you have a fighting chance. You sure cannot count on the cops to protect you. And thugs (be they adult or not) killing themselves off does make us safer as well IMO. "Thinning the herd" so to speak. And I would guess 100% of criminals with guns are already doing their crimes with illegal weapons. Banning guns wont change that.

And the percentage of accidental deaths among children is pretty minimal. (I believe its around 1/10 of one percent per the CDC.) And surely those still come down to parental responsibility.

I'd like to see this made a local option. Let the majority in each city and town decide what they want. Guns in La Grande may make sense. Guns in Portland don't.

Quote: "the extraordinary number of yearly handgun deaths doesn't seem to support the notion that "a heavily armed populace is safer."

Actually, the data are pretty clear on how many crimes are prevented by the use of a gun, and how many people successfully defend themselves each year using a gun. Also, the research by John Lott showed that counties in the US that allow concealed carry have a lower crime rate.

I think people who support gun bans should put a sign on their lawn saying: "No guns in this household."

That is effectively what they are trying to require everyone else to do.

"Actually, the data are pretty clear on how many crimes are prevented by the use of a gun, and how many people successfully defend themselves each year using a gun. Also, the research by John Lott showed that counties in the US that allow concealed carry have a lower crime rate."

absolutely and positively wrong:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html

http://mediamatters.org/items/200510060011

also:
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
" American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)"

and so on. c'mon, folks. seriously. most of the world laughs at our daily Pledges of Allegiance and burning desire to arm ourselves to the teeth.

"...the extraordinary number of yearly handgun deaths doesn't seem to support the notion that "a heavily armed populace is safer."

Great idea! And while we're at it, let's ban automobiles, motorcycles, ladders, prescription medication, cleaning agents, skis/snowboards, steak…

John Lott is a statistical hack. He knows enough about statistics to use them to his advantage, but not enough to withstand even a cursory review by other academics.

Someone once told me that the best evidence that the 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee an absolute right for an individual to bear arms is that the NRA has never taken a case to the Supreme Court. With all the restrictions in place (background checks, assault weapons bans, permits for concealed carry, and the outright banning of automatic weapons) there are numerous cases that could be pushed through the legal system. Why don't they do it? Because the NRA knows they will lose, even with this Court, thereby setting a damaging legal precedent. Every other advocacy group pushes for Supreme Court review of their issue, but the NRA runs from it. Makes you wonder. . .

And let's face it, folks, even if an individual's right to bear arms is upheld, no right is absolute. We can't yell "fire" in a crowd, we can't slander or libel, we can't use religious freedom to engage in polygamy or have sex with minors. The same issues of regulation will still be before us -- whether or not your "right" to own/carry a gun is trumped by the larger public good.

Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" is thought provoking on this topic: A thesis is that it is our fear of "the other" that leads to gun violence, since there are as many guns per capita in countries that have less gun violence.

Every other advocacy group pushes for Supreme Court review of their issue, but the NRA runs from it. Makes you wonder. . .

Maybe it makes you wonder...

The factoid that the NRA has never had a case before the Supreme Court is NOT a manifestation of their fear of failure. Quite the contrary, it's a measure of their common sense and grasp of tactical political reality.

Whereas other febrile "advocacy group(s)" may "...(push) for Supreme Court review of their issue." The NRA is, quite simply, holding their fire.

With some of the sentiments expressed here, it's no wonder.

Quite the contrary, it's a measure of their common sense and grasp of tactical political reality.

Well yes, exactly. They have the common sense and political tact to avoid an adverse Supreme Court ruling. It's brilliant on their part -- they continue to generate donations from members by arguing that the personal right to bear arms is under attack, but refuse to actually pursue any action that would in fact codify that right in our legal system.

Personally, I'd love to see the Court give a definitive ruling on the 2nd Amendment. If the Court finds that it's an individual right, then we regulate the extremes like we do with all other rights. If the Court finds that it's not an individual right, then we don't have to listen to the NRA misinformation campaign anymore. Either way, moderates like myself win and the extremists on both sides can find something else to fight about.

"We can't yell "fire" in a crowd, we can't slander or libel, we can't use religious freedom to engage in polygamy or have sex with minors. The same issues of regulation will still be before us -- whether or not your "right" to own/carry a gun is trumped by the larger public good."

But each of those rights being exercised actually causes a harm. Hence legislation to bar the right holder from exercising the right. The mere ownership of a firearm does not "necessarily" cause a harm. I understand people who feel that banning guns will cure society's ills, but I don't agree that every single gun owner should have their right to possess a firearm stripped from them. If the populus wants to rise up and ban certain types of ways that gun owners exercise their rights (such as drafting legislation to bar people from carrying them in a car, or on a street) so be it. But I don't think that you need to strip the exercise of the right all the way down to possession.

...then we regulate the extremes like we do with all other rights.

So the absence of a decision that the 2nd is an individual right somehow hampers "regulation"? As Tommy Magliozzi would say: "...bo-o-o-o-gus"! All that does is make some of the existing regulation legally ambiguous. An affirmation of the "individual" right would probably chip away at existing regulation.

How immoderate that would be.

First I want to say that I'm very happy to find that I'm not the only pro-2a person on this blog, which I figured I probably would be.

As for the NRA, why would they risk an unfavorable decision in the Supreme Court to clarify the 2A when so much is at risk (the right for individuals to protect themselves)? These neo-cons are NO friend of gun owners. Bush himself said that if another AWB was put before him, he'd sign it. Their fear-mongering tactics don't work as well when people know they have the right and ability to defend themselves, and they don't like that.

Read the Federalist Papers and do a bit of research into how and why our government is structured the way it is based on the writings of our founding fathers. Are you *still* going to tell us that's not what they intended, though it's written there in plain English? How do we not still face the same threats as they did back when they wrote it? They aren’t talking about wild animals.

I'm also trying to find out where you guys are getting your statistics. Could you please post some links? I get mine from the CDC and contrary to what Rosie and Mr. Moore say the numbers are not nearly as high as they would like you to believe. While you're at it, look up how many times handguns were used to prevent crimes and compare it to how many times they were used to commit them. Do you realize Rosie has armed bodyguards and Diane Feinstien has a concealed handgun license? Classic case of 'Ok for me but not for thee'.

I'm shocked when people say 'If it saves one child's life, it's worth it'. What about the rest of the population who now has to worry about how they're going to defend their homes and person because our method of protection has been outlawed?

Not everyone can afford to live in a nice neighborhood.

As for the NRA, why would they risk an unfavorable decision in the Supreme Court to clarify the 2A when so much is at risk?

Aye, there's the rub. Indeed, why risk an actual Constitutional interpretation when misinformation has been so successful? Look, I don't disagree with you guys that it's smart for the NRA to avoid the courts. I'm just saying that it proves the point that the 2nd Amendment is not what you and the NRA want it to be.

The mere ownership of a firearm does not "necessarily" cause a harm.

The mere ownership of a nuclear weapon does not "necessarily" cause harm either, but I'm sure you would agree with me that the government has a right to prohibit you from owning a nuke. So, we've established that government regulation of weapons is acceptable -- the question is where to draw the line. I suspect that's the only thing we disagree on.

I don't think guns should be banned. I don't care what kind or how many guns you own. I do think guns buyers should have to go through a background check, and I think guns should be licensed and traceable. I think gun owners should have to report lost or stolen guns or be held liable for their later illegal use. My issue with guns is this: ALL guns made in the US are made legally and sold legally -- the first time. Somehow the criminals get them, and we could do a lot to stop them from doing so if only we didn't have the NRA lobby standing in the way, waving the flag and screaming about tyranny.

The NRA objects to basic safeguards that will actually reduce gun violence, and that is what makes them an extremist organization.

Miles - I agree with your entire post with regards to licensing and transfers of firearms. And I'm a gun guy.

I do disagree a bit with your first assertion that the NRA's choice to avoid the courts (remember that bad facts make bad law) is proof that the 2nd Amendment isn't what the NRA wants it to be. Things aren't that bad for gun folks at this point in time. Yet. Why give the Supremes the chance to make it worse?

Pro-Choice folks certainly don't want abortion coming before the Supreme Court again, do they? Does that mean that they don't believe that there is a constitutional right (albeit not directly referenced) somewhere in the Constitution? Nope - it just means they don't want a Court re-interpreting an earlier decision they like.

The NRA objects to basic safeguards that will actually reduce gun violence, and that is what makes them an extremist organization.

I don't know, man. It seems you're more interested in labeling the NRA as "extremist" than addressing some of the issues raised here. The whole point of the 2A is that there may come a time when "government" (you know, Bush and his devils) will come to take your freedoms away. A natural reaction based on that premise just might resemble the NRA's positions on proposed legislation which you describe as "extremist".

And while we're on that subject, (and studiously avoiding the term "red herring"), who proposed that possessing nuclear weapons was a 2A right.

I'm just sayin'...

...think about it.

UsualKevin wrote:

The Second Amendment made sense way back in the 1780's when people needed guns to feed their family, fight off the natives and deter the British.

Change a few words, and VOILA:

The First Amendment made sense way back in the 1780s. But providing for our common defense is the primary obligation of government. Pursuit of this goal may require that constitutional guarantees of free speech and press will be compromised in order to defeat global terrorism.

John Lott is a statistical hack. He knows enough about statistics to use them to his advantage, but not enough to withstand even a cursory review by other academics.

Sorry, Miles...that B.S. has already been floated and refuted. Lott's statistics DO hold water, and academics with contrary political views have repeatedly tried to discredit him, without success. So now they resort to namecalling and howl that Lott, whose academic position is underwritten by the Olin Foundation, must be a firearms apologist, even if what he writes is true. It's laughable, really.

What Lott found was that in places where ordinary folk like you and me were permitted to carry firearms, violent crimes like rape and murder went down. Perhaps instead of calling Lott a hack, you should read his book, "More Guns, Less Crime." I suspect, however, that you won't, because if you did, you would have to admit that Lott's premise is correct and relinquish your view that guns are a net societal bad.

"al",

no. it's been proven, repeatedly, by about a half-dozen organizations, that Lott lied at worst, and practiced hackery at best. even Lott himself resorted to saying that he'd "lost" the original data, etc. nobody, and i mean nobody outside the NRA and gun advocates, believes it to be credible. even the NRA avoids referring to anymore now.

i tried posting links to the half dozen, but they're not appearing here...

So Beaverton banned air-soft guns in 'public' that is in parks and on the streets.

At the request of BPD.

What this gains is that when BPD guns down someone, hopefully it won't turn out to be a criminal sentence for the officer - as a liberal jury determines that the officer should have made a greater effort to find out if it was a toy first.

I say, point anything that looks like a gun at a cop, and die.

Now, come this summer, will squirt guns also be generating revenue (er fines) for Beaverton?

Sorry for a second post, but this just came to me late.

If so many want to ban guns - like trans fat and smoking.

Why not start in Hollywood?

Get rid of Jack Bower and the whole violence of the show that glamorizes guns -- 24.

Not to mention the day time soaps,
Numbers, The Unit and many others.

This is something that could be self-policed.

Ric in Aloha, I agree with both of your posts, and I think this is a good ordinance.

Even if the tip is painted bright orange, the grips and the rest of the gun still look real. I can imagine how an incident where an officer had to shoot a teen because he brandished an airsoft gun could very easily ruin that officers life, in regards to his mental health and him having to live with what happened.

Second, it's amazing how all the liberal studio execs down in Hollywood LOVE to glamorize guns in their movies and television shows, then move to ban them. If they really wanted to help reduce gun violence they'd start with themselves.

How many of us have actually seen someone get shot? I'd be willing to bet those who haven't would think they could describe the scene. I'd also bet that scene was a probably fabricated with images seen in a movie or on television.

And while we're on that subject, (and studiously avoiding the term "red herring"), who proposed that possessing nuclear weapons was a 2A right.

No one did. I used the analogy to establish an area of agreement -- that the government has the power and in fact the OBLIGATION to ban certain weapons in order to maintain public safety. That should allow us to move to the heart of the matter: which weapons should be banned, and why?

The whole point of the 2A is that there may come a time when "government" (you know, Bush and his devils) will come to take your freedoms away.

So let's see -- the NRA uses apocalyptic arguments to get money and loyalty from its followers, and you wonder why I label them extremist? The NRA is almost cult-like in its devotion to this idea that the apocalypse will come, it will be wearing a U.S. military uniform, and you better have your rifle ready to shoot it in the head.

If armed resistance against tyranny was the original point of the 2A, then we're doomed. You and your rifle (and 1,000 of your friends with rifles) cannot have any hope of withstanding an attack by our government. No matter how heavily armed you are, you just can't do it. And besides, tyranny almost never starts with a bang. It starts with a leader assuming the power to detain citizens without cause, hold them indefinitely, suspend long-held rights, usually in the name of defending them against an enemy. All the guns in America haven't stopped Bush, have they?

Al -- Just google "John Lott" and you'll find reams of evidence (both mainstream and not) of his dishonesty/incompetence. But statistical battles are boring. The easiest way to prove that concealed weapons permits do not reduce crime is to look at the number of permit holders. It is very small. While it has increased with the advent of "shall issue" laws, Lott's theory that this small number of weapons carriers is having a marked downward impact on crime rates just fails the common sense test.

Miles: I'm not revolutionary, by nature. That said, it appears that a fairly small number of dedicated Iraqi/foreign insurgents have managed to fight the U.S. Armed Services to a stalemate.

I can only imagine that a much larger contingent of well armed Americans could achieve a similar stalemate in a few years of trying. Obviously, the guns are merely instruments of their owners willingness to die. What the Iraqi insurgency lacks in numbers or sophistication they make up for with zeal and religious fervor.

If the good ol' USA is ever ruled by a tyrant, it will result from our unbridled laziness and blind pursuit of self interest instead of any collective gain. Americans simply aren't interested is self-sacrifice these days: not where loss of life is concerned anyway.

Al Qaeda et al benefit from the comparison. They want power more than we do. And they are willing to pay any price to achieve their goals.