• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

As Congress Remains Deadlocked on Guns, Action on State Laws Heats Up

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As Congress Remains Deadlocked on Guns, Action on State Laws Heats Up - NBC News
As Congress Remains Deadlocked on Guns, Action on State Laws Heats Up
“………..From Sacramento to Trenton and Tallahassee to Des Moines, lawmakers, interest groups and activists skirmish almost daily over pending legislation to either tighten or loosen restrictions on firearms. These smaller battlegrounds are where both sides in the long-running political battle roll up their sleeves and engage in lobbying and grassroots organizing aimed at tilting the national battle — one law at a time…………. The non-partisan National Conference of State Legislature found that state lawmakers enacted nearly 70 gun-related measures in 2014 alone.

Gun rights groups concede that advocates for tighter gun restrictions are more active at the state level than before — a fact they attribute largely to the entry of Everytown, which is backed by former billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to the playing field. But they say they have more than held their own in getting new state laws passed………. In addition to pushing through new laws, anti-gun-violence groups are turning to ballot initiatives as an end-run around state legislatures where gun rights groups — led by the NRA — have bottled up legislation……….
…….. new tool already has been used successfully in Washington state, where voters in 2014 approved an initiative requiring universal background checks on gun purchases. Similar ballot initiatives are on the November ballot in Nevada and Maine, and California voters will consider a measure known as the "Safety for All" initiative that would significantly strengthen what already are the most-restrictive gun laws in the nation.


It is dreaming if yall think Congress will ever pass any meaningful common sense gun regulation law…….or debate the issue and/or offer a bill to be voted on in either Chamber…….There is no other way to say it……..Most all in Congress are cowards who’s first and only priority is to be reelected……….
The only way sensible gun regulation can happen is by political action in the states where the voice of the people are closer to the ears of those who can make reasonable regulations of guns can be enacted ………Period
ALSO SEE:
With Washington Stymied, It'''s Up to the States to Pass Gun Reform - NBC News
Teaming Up with the Lieutenant Governor to End Gun Violence in California | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
How the NRA Exerts Influence Beyond Political Contributions - NBC News
FixNICS | FixNICS.org
http://www.ncsl.org/
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,168
Reaction score
16,741
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
As Congress Remains Deadlocked on Guns, Action on State Laws Heats Up - NBC News
As Congress Remains Deadlocked on Guns, Action on State Laws Heats Up
“………..From Sacramento to Trenton and Tallahassee to Des Moines, lawmakers, interest groups and activists skirmish almost daily over pending legislation to either tighten or loosen restrictions on firearms. These smaller battlegrounds are where both sides in the long-running political battle roll up their sleeves and engage in lobbying and grassroots organizing aimed at tilting the national battle — one law at a time…………. The non-partisan National Conference of State Legislature found that state lawmakers enacted nearly 70 gun-related measures in 2014 alone.

Gun rights groups concede that advocates for tighter gun restrictions are more active at the state level than before — a fact they attribute largely to the entry of Everytown, which is backed by former billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to the playing field. But they say they have more than held their own in getting new state laws passed………. In addition to pushing through new laws, anti-gun-violence groups are turning to ballot initiatives as an end-run around state legislatures where gun rights groups — led by the NRA — have bottled up legislation……….
…….. new tool already has been used successfully in Washington state, where voters in 2014 approved an initiative requiring universal background checks on gun purchases. Similar ballot initiatives are on the November ballot in Nevada and Maine, and California voters will consider a measure known as the "Safety for All" initiative that would significantly strengthen what already are the most-restrictive gun laws in the nation.


It is dreaming if yall think Congress will ever pass any meaningful common sense gun regulation law…….or debate the issue and/or offer a bill to be voted on in either Chamber…….There is no other way to say it……..Most all in Congress are cowards who’s first and only priority is to be reelected……….
The only way sensible gun regulation can happen is by political action in the states where the voice of the people are closer to the ears of those who can make reasonable regulations of guns can be enacted ………Period
ALSO SEE:
With Washington Stymied, It'''s Up to the States to Pass Gun Reform - NBC News
Teaming Up with the Lieutenant Governor to End Gun Violence in California | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
How the NRA Exerts Influence Beyond Political Contributions - NBC News
FixNICS | FixNICS.org
http://www.ncsl.org/


States ****ting on the 2nd amendment anytime there is a mass shooting is nothing new.A mass shooting happens and the anti-2nd amendment ********ers at the state level pass another law that does nothing to stop mass shootings.
 
Last edited:

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
States ****ting on the 2nd amendment anytime there is a mass shooting is nothing new.A mass shooting happens and the anti-2nd amendment ********ers at the state level pass another law that does nothing to stop mass shootings.


Is there any reason to be crude in sharing your opinion?

But there are many other reason s for passing sensible gun regulations for the health and safety of others...........thos people have rights also.........like the right to life as promised in the Constitution........Or did you miss that one?
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,168
Reaction score
16,741
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Is there any reason to be crude in sharing your opinion?

But there are many other reason s for passing sensible gun regulations for the health and safety of others...........thos people have rights also.........like the right to life as promised in the Constitution........Or did you miss that one?

Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens is not reasonable. Putting people in a database for merely exercising their constitutional rights is not reasonable. Banning firearms that law abiding citizens use and making it harder for them to get what ever is left over is not reasonable.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens is not reasonable. Putting people in a database for merely exercising their constitutional rights is not reasonable. Banning firearms that law abiding citizens use and making it harder for them to get what ever is left over is not reasonable.

James............the NRA spreads these rumors..........but the states and federal governments have the right and duty to pass reasonable and common sense regulations of guns......

As long as those regulations are reasonable and do not make it unnecessarily difficult for a citizen to buy a gun ..........

This has been the law for over 100 years as I recall......
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,168
Reaction score
16,741
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
James............the NRA spreads these rumors..........but the states and federal governments have the right and duty to pass reasonable and common sense regulations of guns......

As long as those regulations are reasonable and do not make it unnecessarily difficult for a citizen to buy a gun ..........

This has been the law for over 100 years as I recall......

How can you sit there and say it is merely rumors spread by the NRA when you are posting articles about states putting people in a database for merely exercising their constitutional rights is not reasonable,banning firearms that law abiding citizens use and making it harder for them to get what ever is left over is not reasonable.

Using your logic someone who wants to ban elective abortion is not anti-choice because that person can still get abortion if their life is in danger and is passing reasonable regulations on abortion.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
How can you sit there and say it is merely rumors spread by the NRA when you are posting articles about states putting people in a database for merely exercising their constitutional rights is not reasonable,banning firearms that law abiding citizens use and making it harder for them to get what ever is left over is not reasonable.

Using your logic someone who wants to ban elective abortion is not anti-choice because that person can still get abortion if their life is in danger and is passing reasonable regulations on abortion.

Sorry James but all laws passed by the state are constitutional.......That is not a feeling.....or failing of logic.........but is a constitutionally appropriate fact
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,168
Reaction score
16,741
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Sorry James but all laws passed by the state are constitutional.......That is not a feeling.....or failing of logic.........but is a constitutionally appropriate fact

The constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Anything to deter or make it harder for someone to keep and bear arms is therefore a violation of the 2nd amendment. It doesn't matter what laws are passed.
 

ocean515

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
36,760
Reaction score
15,464
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Is there any reason to be crude in sharing your opinion?

But there are many other reason s for passing sensible gun regulations for the health and safety of others...........thos people have rights also.........like the right to life as promised in the Constitution........Or did you miss that one?

I think the issue people are rightfully concerned with is how the gun control lobby wants to define sensible. For example, California is likely soon to adopt a number of new laws that includes one that states any rifle with a removable clip, regardless of capacity, is to be defined as an assault weapon.

State Senate approves sweeping new gun control laws for California - LA Times

Also, they appear to have been successful getting a new proposed law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases on the ballot in November.

Background Checks For Ammo? Could Become Law in California
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As Congress Remains Deadlocked on Guns, Action on State Laws Heats Up - NBC News
As Congress Remains Deadlocked on Guns, Action on State Laws Heats Up
“………..From Sacramento to Trenton and Tallahassee to Des Moines, lawmakers, interest groups and activists skirmish almost daily over pending legislation to either tighten or loosen restrictions on firearms. These smaller battlegrounds are where both sides in the long-running political battle roll up their sleeves and engage in lobbying and grassroots organizing aimed at tilting the national battle — one law at a time…………. The non-partisan National Conference of State Legislature found that state lawmakers enacted nearly 70 gun-related measures in 2014 alone.

Gun rights groups concede that advocates for tighter gun restrictions are more active at the state level than before — a fact they attribute largely to the entry of Everytown, which is backed by former billionaire former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, to the playing field. But they say they have more than held their own in getting new state laws passed………. In addition to pushing through new laws, anti-gun-violence groups are turning to ballot initiatives as an end-run around state legislatures where gun rights groups — led by the NRA — have bottled up legislation……….
…….. new tool already has been used successfully in Washington state, where voters in 2014 approved an initiative requiring universal background checks on gun purchases. Similar ballot initiatives are on the November ballot in Nevada and Maine, and California voters will consider a measure known as the "Safety for All" initiative that would significantly strengthen what already are the most-restrictive gun laws in the nation.


It is dreaming if yall think Congress will ever pass any meaningful common sense gun regulation law…….or debate the issue and/or offer a bill to be voted on in either Chamber…….There is no other way to say it……..Most all in Congress are cowards who’s first and only priority is to be reelected……….
The only way sensible gun regulation can happen is by political action in the states where the voice of the people are closer to the ears of those who can make reasonable regulations of guns can be enacted ………Period
ALSO SEE:
With Washington Stymied, It'''s Up to the States to Pass Gun Reform - NBC News
Teaming Up with the Lieutenant Governor to End Gun Violence in California | Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
How the NRA Exerts Influence Beyond Political Contributions - NBC News
FixNICS | FixNICS.org
http://www.ncsl.org/

A better title for the article and this thread would be: Anti-Constitutional forces, not being able to force the Congress to attack the rights of citizens, have predictably taken their attacks to the state level once again.

Ignorance is a danger to freedom, and the fuel to tyranny. Article headlines, like the one in the OP from NBC, do nothing but demonstrate the ignorance of those that portray themselves as the educated elite in the media - Congress is not deadlocked on gun action, but deadlocked over whether or not to attack the 2nd Amendment by destroying the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, in a violation of the 8th Amendment and a further violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the main body of the Constitution, by putting citizens on a No Fly List in the first place without Due Process, and then insultingly saying that anyone that may find that they have been put on the No Fly List or Terrorist Watch List and refused the right to act upon their fundamental rights can then petition the government to have a hearing to ask to be removed from the lists and have their rights restored in violation of the Presumption of Innocence as established by the rights that encompass Due Process in the US Constitution and via the ruling of the US Supreme Court in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

Do some research people - know your rights - stop taking the word of those in the media and politicians on both sides of the isle that only want to place you under the Tyranny of an all powerful central government that has the power to determine that your rights are revocable by a simple act of Congress - the very definition of Tyranny.
 
Last edited:

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
272,539
Reaction score
89,863
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Is there any reason to be crude in sharing your opinion?

But there are many other reason s for passing sensible gun regulations for the health and safety of others...........thos people have rights also.........like the right to life as promised in the Constitution........Or did you miss that one?

sorry-sensible means laws that have a reasonable chance of stopping violent crime NOT laws that people like you crave that are designed to harass gun owners.

You gun banners don't think anyone should own guns so to you, sensible gun laws are ones designed to end gun ownership
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
272,539
Reaction score
89,863
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
James............the NRA spreads these rumors..........but the states and federal governments have the right and duty to pass reasonable and common sense regulations of guns......

As long as those regulations are reasonable and do not make it unnecessarily difficult for a citizen to buy a gun ..........

This has been the law for over 100 years as I recall......

what law for 100 years? Hawaii has not even been a state for 100 years and the first federal gun control laws were dishonestly concocted in 82 years ago
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Anything to deter or make it harder for someone to keep and bear arms is therefore a violation of the 2nd amendment. It doesn't matter what laws are passed.


Yes that it does........But over time there have been disputes as to what various parts of the 2A means .......

These disputes often are settled by SOCTUS........The court which has the constitutional duty to be the final arbiter to interpret the law....in this case the 2A.........

SCOTUS decisions/interpretations of a law is country wide........ a precedent if you would ...............that must be followed by all the courts in the country.......

The issue here does not inhibit anyone from legally buying a gun.......or infringing on anyone having a gun for any lawful purpose.......

The issue here is.......

Does a state have the right to make laws to regulate guns.......

In this case.......

Sending a list of state citizens who have a gun license to the FBI.......

And have the FBI report back to the state if any citizen commits and is convicted of a felony .........

So state can reassess that persons right to have a gun.........Due process provisions are afforded the citizen gun owner

The right of a state or government to pass laws regulating the use of guns is clearly within in its right and is constitutional as long as they are reasonable and/or interfere with a citizen 2 A rights.....

This was affirmed in the SCOTUS decision written by Scalia in the Heller case.......
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think the issue people are rightfully concerned with is how the gun control lobby wants to define sensible. For example, California is likely soon to adopt a number of new laws that includes one that states any rifle with a removable clip, regardless of capacity, is to be defined as an assault weapon.

State Senate approves sweeping new gun control laws for California - LA Times

Also, they appear to have been successful getting a new proposed law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases on the ballot in November.

Background Checks For Ammo? Could Become Law in California


If a law is passed which folks see as interfering with their 2A rights to buy/own a gun the matter will be settled in a court of law.....The court is the final arbiter of what the law means and how it shall be applied......

"Sensible" will be determined by those who yall elect..........and then if necessary reviewed by the court......

That's how our system of justice works
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
A better title for the article and this thread would be: Anti-Constitutional forces, not being able to force the Congress to attack the rights of citizens, have predictably taken their attacks to the state level once again.

Ignorance is a danger to freedom, and the fuel to tyranny. Article headlines, like the one in the OP from NBC, do nothing but demonstrate the ignorance of those that portray themselves as the educated elite in the media - Congress is not deadlocked on gun action, but deadlocked over whether or not to attack the 2nd Amendment by destroying the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, in a violation of the 8th Amendment and a further violation of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the main body of the Constitution, by putting citizens on a No Fly List in the first place without Due Process, and then insultingly saying that anyone that may find that they have been put on the No Fly List or Terrorist Watch List and refused the right to act upon their fundamental rights can then petition the government to have a hearing to ask to be removed from the lists and have their rights restored in violation of the Presumption of Innocence as established by the rights that encompass Due Process in the US Constitution and via the ruling of the US Supreme Court in Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).

Do some research people - know your rights - stop taking the word of those in the media and politicians on both sides of the isle that only want to place you under the Tyranny of an all powerful central government that has the power to determine that your rights are revocable by a simple act of Congress - the very definition of Tyranny.


Several decisions of SCOTUS affirm the right/duty of both state and federal government to pass laws regulating the use of firearms........

AS for who I get my information from sure is not TV ..........the best and only source is decisions of SCOTUS........

I recommend you try using original sources to learn what the law pertaining to the laws regulating guns is.......... because what you say/post is not correct..........
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
272,539
Reaction score
89,863
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Several decisions of SCOTUS affirm the right/duty of both state and federal government to pass laws regulating the use of firearms........

AS for who I get my information from sure is not TV ..........the best and only source is decisions of SCOTUS........

I recommend you try using original sources to learn what the law pertaining to the laws regulating guns is.......... because what you say/post is not correct..........

government doesn't have rights. Try again.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
78,108
Reaction score
33,667
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
13532890_10157048524980494_3593941276374152765_n.jpg

yay...liberal logic....
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Several decisions of SCOTUS affirm the right/duty of both state and federal government to pass laws regulating the use of firearms........

AS for who I get my information from sure is not TV ..........the best and only source is decisions of SCOTUS........

I recommend you try using original sources to learn what the law pertaining to the laws regulating guns is.......... because what you say/post is not correct..........

I've been quoting the Constitution and SCOTUS case rulings in numerous threads for days now. You have just stated that states and the federal government has rights, they do not, and you have proven again that you do not have a clue of which you attempt to opine. People have rights, governments do not. You also said that the SCOTUS ruled that states and the federal government have a duty to pass laws regulating the use of firearms. They have not. Not even close. Care to post the case law that you based that comment upon?
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I've been quoting the Constitution and SCOTUS case rulings in numerous threads for days now. You have just stated that states and the federal government has rights, they do not, and you have proven again that you do not have a clue of which you attempt to opine. People have rights, governments do not. You also said that the SCOTUS ruled that states and the federal government have a duty to pass laws regulating the use of firearms. They have not. Not even close. Care to post the case law that you based that comment upon?


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER


……..the decision, which was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia:

".........The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home .... it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

In Heller v D.C Judge Scalia writing the majority opinion says…….
On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion………. Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
272,539
Reaction score
89,863
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER


……..the decision, which was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia:

".........The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home .... it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

In Heller v D.C Judge Scalia writing the majority opinion says…….
On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion………. Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

its amazing how the members of the Bannerhhoid movement highlight the DICTA and pretend Heller is about supporting gun restrictions while ignoring the ACTUAL holdings-including MILITIA membership has NO relevance to the right and the RIGHT is individual (which all 9 of the justices essentially agreed on though the extent was far different between the honest 5 and the dishonest four)
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,168
Reaction score
16,741
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Yes that it does........But over time there have been disputes as to what various parts of the 2A means .......

These disputes often are settled by SOCTUS........The court which has the constitutional duty to be the final arbiter to interpret the law....in this case the 2A.........

SCOTUS decisions/interpretations of a law is country wide........ a precedent if you would ...............that must be followed by all the courts in the country.......

The issue here does not inhibit anyone from legally buying a gun.......or infringing on anyone having a gun for any lawful purpose.......

The issue here is.......

Does a state have the right to make laws to regulate guns.......

In this case.......

Sending a list of state citizens who have a gun license to the FBI.......

And have the FBI report back to the state if any citizen commits and is convicted of a felony .........

So state can reassess that persons right to have a gun.........Due process provisions are afforded the citizen gun owner

The right of a state or government to pass laws regulating the use of guns is clearly within in its right and is constitutional as long as they are reasonable and/or interfere with a citizen 2 A rights.....

This was affirmed in the SCOTUS decision written by Scalia in the Heller case.......


The bill of rights is plain as day the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just because rats in black robe do not understand that fact does not change the fact that these laws anti-2nd amendment scum in various states have enacted are unconstitutional. And please do not pretend that you care that SCOTUS is the end all when you libs screamed bloody murder at citizens united, and various other supreme court rullings that you libs disagree with.
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The bill of rights is plain as day the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Just because rats in black robe do not understand that fact does not change the fact that these laws anti-2nd amendment scum in various states have enacted are unconstitutional. And please do not pretend that you care that SCOTUS is the end all when you libs screamed bloody murder at citizens united, and various other supreme court rullings that you libs disagree with.

The biggest lie is that there are disagreements in how the constitution is interpreted. It is crystal clear and everyone know exactly what "Shall not be infringed" means. Gun grabbers just oppose the constitution so they try to create the illusion that there is another way to interpret it. It is the equivalent of a stop sign. A person that doesn't want to stop says "I interpreted it to mean a rolling stop".
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
All it takes to get on a watch list is a government agent’s unsubstantiated suspicion. If there were real, credible evidence of terrorist activity, criminal charges would be more appropriate than denying the suspect access to air travel or gun buying.

In the absence of hard evidence, letting the government take action against citizens doesn’t sound like common sense.

And only a small subset of gun homicides involve terrorists, at least in the way that terrorism is thought of in the post-9/11 world. Of the approximately 11,000 U.S. gun homicides in 2015, only 22 meet the common definition of terrorism (six in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and 16 in San Bernadino, California). The other 10,988 or so could not have been affected by the use of a terrorist watch list.

Our Opinion: Use of terror no-fly list won't cut gun deaths much - Central Maine
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
36,689
Reaction score
8,646
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER


……..the decision, which was written by the late Justice Antonin Scalia:

".........The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home .... it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

In Heller v D.C Judge Scalia writing the majority opinion says…….
On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion………. Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

That is Scalia signaling they are not rolling back current restrictions based upon felony convictions and mental illness. It is not meant to open the door to more restrictions and especially not to allow restrictions without due process, as those restrictions occur through a criminal conviction or a competency hearing, both of which involve due process.

Moving on to common use and "dangerous and unusual weapons" the definition of unusual and dangerous weapons comes in two categories. Unusual weapons are esoteric weaponry not in use through either the military or by citizens, the sawed off shotgun would be the SCOTUS definition of such. Dangerous weapons indicates ordinance and explosives as well as fully automatic machine guns.

Those in favor of more restrictions constantly want to distort the meanings used by SCOTUS and expand them to include semi automatic rifles and use quotes they don't address in full. If you read and understand Heller, you understand the LEGAL terms being used, how they apply to each type of weapon, and what legal restrictions they are addressing. As is the case in every person that wants wider restrictions based upon Heller, you have to completely ignore context and attempt to read more into Heller than what it addresses and no more than that.
 

Master PO

Mixed Government advocate
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
32,516
Reaction score
5,321
Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
federal governments have the right and duty to pass reasonable and common sense regulations of guns......

government don't have rights, but powers.

the federal government in original constitutional law has no authority/power

the 2nd is a restriction on government power to make no laws concerning the bearing of firearms...... source - the preamble of the bill of rights.

the federal government has no power to regulate the people - source - james madsion and alexander hamilton state that fact in the federalist papers.
 
Top Bottom