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

[blaxshep]

i cant see why the state of Hawaii, would need a law to communicate with the federal government, since states and the federal government have exchanged information since the beginning.

Liberal laws don't have to make sense they just have to feel good.

 

[ocean515]

Sure does......and that's one of the reasons for the 10th Amendment.......


States have the power to pass laws asking the FBI to report back when an Hawaiian citizen and licensed gun owner commits a felony.........

Is that not true?

I believe that is true.

Do states have the right to restrict an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, or for any other lawful purpose?

 

[imyoda]

i cant see why the state of Hawaii, would need a law to communicate with the federal government, since states and the federal government have exchanged information since the beginning.

REad the news report......it answers the questions you should already know

 

[Absentglare]

By that logic, you also don't have a legal right to buy a book, newspaper, religious accessories, or an abortion.

Actually, someone under the age of 18 can buy any of those things (excepting some religious accessories) so, no, apparently you don't understand my logic.

A right is a legal privilege that is granted at birth and cannot be revoked.

 

[blaxshep]

Actually, someone under the age of 18 can buy any of those things (excepting some religious accessories) so, no, apparently you don't understand my logic.

A right is a legal privilege that is granted at birth and cannot be revoked.

A right is not a privilege and it can be revoked by due process.

Although it come as no surprise that a liberal believes in the bill of privileges.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Actually, someone under the age of 18 can buy any of those things (excepting some religious accessories) so, no, apparently you don't understand my logic.

A right is a legal privilege that is granted at birth and cannot be revoked.

A right isn't a privilege, it's inalienable. And no, not being to exercise the right prior to the age of majority does not "prove" it isn't a right.

 

[Absentglare]

A right is not a privilege and it can be revoked by due process.

Although it come as no surprise that a liberal believes in the bill of privileges.

Of course, you are right- a right is a legal entitlement, not a legal privilege.

And no, it cannot be revoked. If it can be revoked, it is a privilege and not a right.

This is using the legal ethics terminology for "right" and "privilege."

 

[Absentglare]

A right isn't a privilege, it's inalienable. And no, not being to exercise the right prior to the age of majority does not "prove" it isn't a right.

Yes it does.

"A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis...These can be revoked in certain circumstances. In modern democratic states, a privilege is conditional and granted only after birth. By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilege_(legal_ethics)

 

[blaxshep]

Of course, you are right- a right is a legal entitlement, not a legal privilege.

And no, it cannot be revoked. If it can be revoked, it is a privilege and not a right.

This is using the legal ethics terminology for "right" and "privilege."

Rights can in fact be revoked through due process. The death penalty is a perfect example...or is life a privilege?

 

[Master PO]

REad the news report......it answers the questions you should already know

what you stated is what i question, "pass a law to ask the government"....... makes no sense

 

[imyoda]

what you stated is what i question, "pass a law to ask the government"....... makes no sense

Doesn't make sense to me either

 

[jamesrage]

Please tell us how a state passing a law infringes on a persons 2 A rights?

Does the law prevent a person's from buying a gun?

Where's the infringement?

If it deters or prevents someone from buying a gun it is an infringement.If a law bans a certain type of semiautomatic it is an infringement for example.Although I guess you are just playing stupid.


So I take it you as a lib agree with citizens united.You weren't one those retard screaming corporations aren't people.Instead you were saying corporations are groups of people and therefore have the rights as other group like the LGBT, a church,NRA,GOA, planned parenthood that still have their 1st amendment rights?

 

[jamesrage]

The second amendment is a restriction on FEDERAL powers. State powers are not federal powers.

Where does it say it only applies to the federal government? Can you point to me where in the bill of rights it says it only applies to federal government and states are free to anything it wants regarding the bill of rights? Because we know because of the latest abortion ruling states do not have a right to restrict the bill of rights.

 

[Crimefree]

Actually, someone under the age of 18 can buy any of those things (excepting some religious accessories) so, no, apparently you don't understand my logic.

A right is a legal privilege that is granted at birth and cannot be revoked.

You mean like the right to keep and bear arms? There is no privilege to any right. The intention is to keep the law from removing the right. Of what use is a right that can be revoked?

 

[TurtleDude]

Where does it say it only applies to the federal government? Can you point to me where in the bill of rights it says it only applies to federal government and states are free to anything it wants regarding the bill of rights? Because we know because of the latest abortion ruling states do not have a right to restrict the bill of rights.

he's actually right in terms of original intent and the jurisprudence through the period where the bill of rights was incorporated to the states. The founders only were given -for the new government-powers that the people and the state would allow it. State powers were ceded in terms of stuff like a national coin, post roads, declaring war, etc. Not over their police powers. but now, the second amendment should prevent restrictions that interfere with people keeping and bearing firearms though no one can argue that state or local government does not have the power to restrict the use of firearms

 

[Absentglare]

Where does it say it only applies to the federal government? Can you point to me where in the bill of rights it says it only applies to federal government and states are free to anything it wants regarding the bill of rights? Because we know because of the latest abortion ruling states do not have a right to restrict the bill of rights.

The constitution describes the three branches of federal government as well as the division of power between the states.

You mean like the right to keep and bear arms? There is no privilege to any right. The intention is to keep the law from removing the right. Of what use is a right that can be revoked?

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying, but i think i agree with you.

Some people have claimed that a right can be forfeited, by some voluntary behavior, meaning that the state does not revoke the right, but the person's behavior can result in forfeiture of that right. I think that smells a little fishy, myself.

 

[MickeyW]

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/

There is no such thing as Common Sense gun legislation, as long as liberals think it up.

 

[MickeyW]

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?

And gun owners have a right to buy what they want, when they want it! There is NOTHING sensible about liberal inspired gun regulations!

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.

Absolutely Correct! :thumbs::thumbs:

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......

The NRA Does Not spread rumors, they talk common sense and follow the Constitution, which of course is wasted on liberals who run purely on emotion instead of logic!

 

[MickeyW]

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

No logic involved...pure emotional claptrap!

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.

Agreed!

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

Yes. These liberal idiots in Calif. are just that....Idiots!

I can see a huge Black market on ammo brought in by the carloads from other states. These idiots think the war on Drugs was lost?....so will be the war on ammo!
The smart folks are hoarding ammo now and friends and relatives visiting, from out of state, will be bringing gifts of ammo all year long!

Idaho, Oregon, Nevada and Az. will be reaping the profits.

"Well sweetheart I think we need to go to Reno this weekend to gamble."
"But honey, you don't gamble."
"I will when I load the suitcases up with ammo and bring them home!"

 

[MickeyW]

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.......

In most states, you don't need a license to own a gun.
And criminals, who all have guns, would not qualify for a license.

Do you see the stupidity of this?

 

[MickeyW]

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

Correct.

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

Correct again.

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

No, it won't be determined by those elected, if you put "sensible" in the mix. I have two non-nonsensical Senators in my State, who I didn't vote for and never would.

government doesn't have rights. Try again.

Yep!

View attachment 67203333

yay...liberal logic....

The epitome of liberal logic!!! :thumbs::thumbs:

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?

Yep.

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)

Sure is....but then they are anti-gun biased to the Max..

 

[imyoda]

If it deters or prevents someone from buying a gun it is an infringement.If a law bans a certain type of semiautomatic it is an infringement for example.Although I guess you are just playing stupid.


So I take it you as a lib agree with citizens united.You weren't one those retard screaming corporations aren't people.Instead you were saying corporations are groups of people and therefore have the rights as other group like the LGBT, a church,NRA,GOA, planned parenthood that still have their 1st amendment rights?

The law does not....

It just decided who is entitled to buy/own a gun

 

[OpportunityCost]

The law does not....

It just decided who is entitled to buy/own a gun

Something guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is not an entitlement!

 

[imyoda]

There is no such thing as Common Sense gun legislation, as long as liberals think it up.

How would you know?

 

[imyoda]

And gun owners have a right to buy what they want, when they want it! There is NOTHING sensible about liberal inspired gun regulations!



Absolutely Correct! :thumbs::thumbs:



The NRA Does Not spread rumors, they talk common sense and follow the Constitution, which of course is wasted on liberals who run purely on emotion instead of logic!

Of course they do........