Another Carrier Kills an Unarmed Man

[Chillfolks]

Show cause.

In the state of VA cause has to be shown. The state has to show just cause to deny a person a CCW.

I think a happy middle ground between Ca approach verse Va would be a comfortable solution.

Or do you feel it's Califroina standard or bust?

 

[jet57]

In the state of VA cause has to be shown. The state has to show just cause to deny a person a CCW.

I think a happy middle ground between Ca approach verse Va would be a comfortable solution.

Or do you feel it's Califroina standard or bust?

I'm open to suggestions, showing cause on someone's part is a good balance. I like the California law because it keeps it more narrowed down and doesn't stack up the dockets.

 

[Chillfolks]

I'm open to suggestions, showing cause on someone's part is a good balance. I like the California law because it keeps it more narrowed down and doesn't stack up the dockets.

I guess it's all about how you define "cause".

I am a weekend warrior musician that may have to drive a few hours home, usually well after midnight. I carry because alone at 1am with a few grand of gear in an unfamiliar area it offers me protection. Calling 911 saying I have no clue were I am please help in reality is not an option to stop anything only report it after the fact.

 

[jet57]

I guess it's all about how you define "cause".

I am a weekend warrior musician that may have to drive a few hours home, usually well after midnight. I carry because alone at 1am with a few grand of gear in an unfamiliar area it offers me protection. Calling 911 saying I have no clue were I am please help in reality is not an option to stop anything only report it after the fact.

THAT is reason to carry a gun in your car. I posted an appreciation for that some time ago; where've you been? You don't wear it to go get a cup of coffee do you?

 

[Chillfolks]

THAT is reason to carry a gun in your car. I posted an appreciation for that some time ago; where've you been? You don't wear it to go get a cup of coffee do you?

Depends on what all I am doing and going that day. Generally don't wear for the hell of it

 

[jet57]

Depends on what all I am doing and going that day. Generally don't wear for the hell of it

Yeah, I thik that stuff is just kind of rude and unnecessary. Rude to the general population that is.

I think it's beneath us as American and civilized people and only reflects a huge failing.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here's the thesis since it appears you don;t want to rwead teh OP:



So, what's wrong with that statement in your view.

the problem Jet, is that you are on record-dozens of times-wanting far more than merely to keep idiots (most likely In Your mind-REpublicans who don't vote for the creeping crud of collectivism) from having guns.

YOU ARE ON RECORD wanting to ban

10+ round magazines

Any rifle that can use such a magazine

"weapons of war" whatever that means


You want COMPLETE AND TOTAL bans

so pardon us when we reject your bs about merely wanting "some nut who should not have been around guns" to be limited.


Its a LIE

 

[Rucker61]

I'm open to suggestions, showing cause on someone's part is a good balance. I like the California law because it keeps it more narrowed down and doesn't stack up the dockets.

Stack up what dockets?

 

[Rucker61]

Not according to your logic.

The Bill of Rights says the federal government isn't allowed to infringe on our rights. A federal law restricting access/ownership/purchase/use of AR-15s is a restriction. It's certainly not a protection of a right.

 

[jonny5]

That state is thus far impossible to achieve. If there was no alcohol..... if there were no illegal drugs...... Problem is we have really really stupid people who believe it is possible despite the evidence that no ban has ever worked. Beliefs are not bounded by reality or physics. It is impossible for a gun to cause anybody to do anything. Count those here who disregard simple physics and are convinced guns can.

Yes, but its still technically right. No guns, no shootings.

 

[Medusa]

My dad has a glock in his car at all times. He hasn't shot anyone with it.

not everybody shoots someone but everybody may be shot ..........

 

[jet57]

Stack up what dockets?

I guess you don't know your way around a courtroom then.

 

[jet57]

The Bill of Rights says the federal government isn't allowed to infringe on our rights. A federal law restricting access/ownership/purchase/use of AR-15s is a restriction. It's certainly not a protection of a right.

Moving the goal post doesn't count. According to you logic, the bill of rights are forced onto Americans.

 

[Rucker61]

Moving the goal post doesn't count. According to you logic, the bill of rights are forced onto Americans.

Go back and reread what I wrote - infringements of the Bill of Rights have to be forced onto Americans, or at least the ones who value the Constitution. Your proposed restrictions on AR-15s and magazines are infringements of rights, not protections of rights.

 

[Rucker61]

I guess you don't know your way around a courtroom then.

That much is true. Trying to figure out how moving to a shall issue rather than may issue status would "stack up the dockets".

 

[jet57]

That much is true. Trying to figure out how moving to a shall issue rather than may issue status would "stack up the dockets".

Just adds more cases.

 

[jet57]

Go back and reread what I wrote - infringements of the Bill of Rights have to be forced onto Americans, or at least the ones who value the Constitution. Your proposed restrictions on AR-15s and magazines are infringements of rights, not protections of rights.

So the Supreme Court is dead wrong on constitutional issues.

Interesting, I hadn't herd that.

And, since states have such restrictions, as did the federal government for 10 years, that makes you wrong doesn't it.

 

[Rucker61]

So the Supreme Court is dead wrong on constitutional issues.

Interesting, I hadn't herd that.

And, since states have such restrictions, as did the federal government for 10 years, that makes you wrong doesn't it.

If SCOTUS ruled on it, that meant someone fought it. None of your silly California laws have actually been reviewed by SCOTUS, just upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Rubber Stamps. With a more Constitutional court, that is likely to change. Heck, the new magazine ban blatantly violates the Constitutional ex post facto protection.

Specifically, any ban or other restrictions on AR-15s and magazines at the federal level would have to be forced onto the states, as the majority of states would not support one.

 

[jet57]

If SCOTUS ruled on it, that meant someone fought it. None of your silly California laws have actually been reviewed by SCOTUS, just upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Rubber Stamps. With a more Constitutional court, that is likely to change. Heck, the new magazine ban blatantly violates the Constitutional ex post facto protection.

Specifically, any ban or other restrictions on AR-15s and magazines at the federal level would have to be forced onto the states, as the majority of states would not support one.

If the Supreme Court ruled on it that means it's fact: the second amendment is not an unlimited right. Gun control has been going on in this country since 1791 and the 10th amendment guarantees state's powers to govern independently on issues.

Guns are things - not people. So regulations hold up.

You're running with a very old and well long defeated argument. Pick another subject.

 

[Rucker61]

Just adds more cases.

How many more cases? Colorado has been shall issue since 2003. Since that time, VPC has identified just four occasions where a CCW holder was charged with a homicide. One incident occurred at home, where CCW wouldn't have applied. Another occurred at the job of a security guard, who could open carry legally without a permit. That's two extra homicide cases in 13 years. Meanwhile the state has averaged about 15 justifiable homicides each year.

 

[Rucker61]

If the Supreme Court ruled on it that means it's fact: the second amendment is not an unlimited right. Gun control has been going on in this country since 1791 and the 10th amendment guarantees state's powers to govern independently on issues.

Guns are things - not people. So regulations hold up.

You're running with a very old and well long defeated argument. Pick another subject.

Just because the right isn't unrestricted doesn't mean that any restriction can be put into place. Both Miller and Heller protect AR-15s and magazines, and McDonald extends that protections to the state.

The term "gun control" is meaningless without details.

 

[jet57]

How many more cases? Colorado has been shall issue since 2003. Since that time, VPC has identified just four occasions where a CCW holder was charged with a homicide. One incident occurred at home, where CCW wouldn't have applied. Another occurred at the job of a security guard, who could open carry legally without a permit. That's two extra homicide cases in 13 years. Meanwhile the state has averaged about 15 justifiable homicides each year.

That was general comment that doesn't need nit picking.

 

[jet57]

Just because the right isn't unrestricted doesn't mean that any restriction can be put into place. Both Miller and Heller protect AR-15s and magazines, and McDonald extends that protections to the state.

The term "gun control" is meaningless without details.

I never said it meant that anything goes. I agreed with the Heller decision.

I AM a gun owner; you knew that - right?

 

[Rucker61]

I never said it meant that anything goes. I agreed with the Heller decision.

I AM a gun owner; you knew that - right?

Yes, I know that you're a gun owner. Heller protects AR-15s and magazines. If you support Heller, you wouldn't be suggesting any further restrictions.

 

[TurtleDude]

If the Supreme Court ruled on it that means it's fact: the second amendment is not an unlimited right. Gun control has been going on in this country since 1791 and the 10th amendment guarantees state's powers to govern independently on issues.

Guns are things - not people. So regulations hold up.

You're running with a very old and well long defeated argument. Pick another subject.

why don't you edify us as to where in the constitution the second amendment was ever LIMITED

I need a good laugh-so discuss constitutional theory with us