California gun control law mimics Tx abortion law

[Rucker61]

There has to be stricter gun control just as there was for 10 years when the federal ban was in effect or no deal.

Those stricter gun control laws violate the Constitution. The bolded part will always mean "no deal".

 

[Rucker61]

Women had the right to choose to carry a fetus to term for 50 years. Then they didn’t. You seem to have a hard time understanding that things change. Now the SC is far right, but it wasn’t always that way. And it will be left leaning again at some point. Then we can make progress.
Meanwhile hundreds of not thousands of people will die in masks shootings because the gun lobby is recalcitrant. The deaths will be on their heads.

According to Mother Jones, the total number of fatal victims going back to 1982 is under 1,500. That's the same number of people murdered by knives every single year.

 

[rahl]

There has to be stricter gun control just as there was for 10 years when the federal ban was in effect or no deal.

You don’t seem to understand the fact that we don’t need your permission, nor do we need any deals. The constitution is squarely against the things you wish to impose. Amend it if you want to implement them. The problem is you have exactly zero chance of passing such an amendment.

 

[Ethel2]

You don’t seem to understand the fact that we don’t need your permission, nor do we need any deals. The constitution is squarely against the things you wish to impose. Amend it if you want to implement them. The problem is you have exactly zero chance of passing such an amendment.

We don’t need an amendment. Remember the 10 year ban? That was constitutional according to the lower courts. Never even made it to the SC.
That day will be back. It’s what the country wants.

 

[Ethel2]

Those stricter gun control laws violate the Constitution. The bolded part will always mean "no deal".

Depends on the mood of the courts at the time. The ten year ban was constitutional. Then the jackass appointed an extremist activist court and the pendulum swung.
It will swing back, eventually.

 

[Ethel2]

Lol.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to privately do anything you want. You can't privately murder someone. That's the issue here. You cannot take the idea that people have a right to privacy and expand that to the right to do *anything* privately. It's an absurd argument that the SCOTUS correctly shot down. Now, if you want to make it a law, legislate it how you want at the state or federal level. If you want it to be a right, amend the constitution accordingly. I understand you don't *actually* like the process of law and democracy and are willing to subvert the process to reach your objective, but that's not the right, ethical, or moral way to do things. You stand on a soapbox preaching morality while you are the precisely opposite.

In order to commit murder you have to kill a PERSON. The constitution defines a person as someone who has been born. Until then you are a “thing”, a human thing but definitely not a person.

 

[Ethel2]

Those stricter gun control laws violate the Constitution. The bolded part will always mean "no deal".

Your opinion doesn’t matter. The lower courts dismissed cases brought against the ban. Never even made it to the SC.
It didn’t violate the constitution then and it will be law again one day. Your opinion doesn’t matter.

 

[rahl]

We don’t need an amendment.

Of course you do. What you propose is unconstitutional. That means you need an amendment to make it constitutional.

Remember the 10 year ban?

Yes, the one that has since been ruled unconstitutional.

That was constitutional according to the lower courts.

And now unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.

Never even made it to the SC.

4 separate rulings have made it unconstitutional

That day will be back.

If you amend the constitution.

It’s what the country wants.

No it isn’t. It’s why you aren’t able to amend the constitution. You do not have anywhere even remotely close to enough support to do so.

 

[rahl]

Your opinion doesn’t matter. The lower courts dismissed cases brought against the ban. Never even made it to the SC.
It didn’t violate the constitution then and it will be law again one day. Your opinion doesn’t matter.

The Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional, as you’ve been shown.

 

[Noodlegawd]

There is no compromise being offered from the far right gun lobby.

A compromise involves both sides giving the other side something they want. What compromise is the gun control lobby offering?

There's nothing in this law that changes anything meaningful. Ghost guns and assault weapons are already illegal, and the laws banning them are already being challenged in court. So it doesn't "mimic the Texas law" at all.

 

[Rucker61]

We don’t need an amendment. Remember the 10 year ban? That was constitutional according to the lower courts. Never even made it to the SC.
That day will be back. It’s what the country wants.

Remember Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen? AWBs are unconstitutional. Stop depending on what-ifs.

 

[Rucker61]

Your opinion doesn’t matter. The lower courts dismissed cases brought against the ban. Never even made it to the SC.
It didn’t violate the constitution then and it will be law again one day. Your opinion doesn’t matter.

My opinion doesn't matter. SCOTUS's does.

If the law changes you won't need a compromise, will you?

What does it take for a class of firearms to be considered an "assault weapon"?

 

[Ethel2]

Of course you do. What you propose is unconstitutional. That means you need an amendment to make it constitutional.

Yes, the one that has since been ruled unconstitutional.

And now unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court.

4 separate rulings have made it unconstitutional


If you amend the constitution.

No it isn’t. It’s why you aren’t able to amend the constitution. You do not have anywhere even remotely close to enough support to do so.

Doesn’t require an amendment. It was legal according to the courts for ten years. Gun toting idiots tried to end it in the lower courts but all cases were dismissed. Your opinion doesn’t matter, nor does mine.
If it was constitutional then it will be constitutional again. Just like a woman’s right to choose.
It’s what the majority of the country wants.

 

[Ethel2]

Remember Heller, McDonald, Caetano and Bruen? AWBs are unconstitutional. Stop depending on what-ifs.

Read post 438. I explained everything there.

 

[rahl]

Doesn’t require an amendment.

Of course you do. What you propose has been ruled u constitutional.

It was legal according to the courts for ten years.

And then ruled unconstitutional

Gun toting idiots tried to end it in the lower courts but all cases were dismissed. Your opinion doesn’t matter, nor does mine.

I know. You’ve been given the SCOTUS cases which ruled it unconstitutional

If it was constitutional then it will be constitutional again.

It wasn’t then and has been ruled as such.

Just like a woman’s right to choose.
It’s what the majority of the country wants.

Nope. You have to amend the constitution to ban them. You do not have anywhere even remotely close to enough support to do so.

 

[Ethel2]

The Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional, as you’ve been shown.

Lol
There’s still an active ban in California!
There’s no way of knowing the future of that ban. It might be ruled unconstitutional; it might not.
Remember when for fifty years women had the right to choose?
Now they don’t in some backward states. It’s no longer a “right” according to the current activist SC.
Things change.
The public wants stricter gun control and they want women to have the right to choose.

 

[rahl]

Lol
There’s still an active ban in California!

Nope. It was rendered null and void by the Supreme Court.

There’s no way of knowing the future of that ban.

Of course there is.

It might be ruled unconstitutional; it might not.

It already has been

 

[Rucker61]

Doesn’t require an amendment. It was legal according to the courts for ten years. Gun toting idiots tried to end it in the lower courts but all cases were dismissed. Your opinion doesn’t matter, nor does mine.
If it was constitutional then it will be constitutional again.

Slavery used to be Constitutional. Just because something was Constitutional doesn't mean it's coming back.

Just like a woman’s right to choose.
It’s what the majority of the country wants.

This isn't what determines Constitutionality.

 

[Ethel2]

Slavery used to be Constitutional. Just because something was Constitutional doesn't mean it's coming back.


This isn't what determines Constitutionality.

Now you’re getting my point!
Courts change. People will elect representatives based on their stance on the issues, and it’s perfectly clear what the public wants.

 

[Ethel2]

Nope. It was rendered null and void by the Supreme Court.

Of course there is.

It already has been

It’s a fact that the California assault weapons ban remains in force until such time as the lower courts reconsider their ruling that it’s legal.
I don’t discuss facts here, and that’s the end of this discussion with you because despite my best efforts to teach you you will not learn.

 

[rahl]

It’s a fact that the California assault weapons ban remains in force until such time as the lower courts reconsider their ruling that it’s legal.

The Supreme Court has nullified it.

I don’t discuss facts here, and that’s the end of this discussion with you because despite my best efforts to teach you you will not learn.

We know you don’t discuss facts. This is because the facts have curb stomped your position into the ground. Your argument has been completely refuted

 

[Rucker61]

Now you’re getting my point!
Courts change. People will elect representatives based on their stance on the issues, and it’s perfectly clear what the public wants.

Perhaps you've noticed that SCOTUS isn't elected.

 

[Ethel2]

Perhaps you've noticed that SCOTUS isn't elected.

Perhaps YOU’VE noticed that justices don’t live forever.

 

[Ethel2]

The Supreme Court has nullified it.

We know you don’t discuss facts. This is because the facts have curb stomped your position into the ground. Your argument has been completely refuted

It’s a fact that the California assault weapons ban remains in force until such time as the lower courts reconsider their ruling that it’s legal.
I don’t debate facts here.

 

[Rucker61]

Perhaps YOU’VE noticed that justices don’t live forever.

They'll last longer than the AWB.

What does it take for a firearm to become an "assault weapon"?