Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on assault weapons

[eohrnberger]

Seems to be a lot of 2nd amendment infringement going on these days.

Seattle Police Begin Gun Confiscations: No Laws ... - Zero Hedge
https://www.zerohedge.com/.../seattle-police-begin-gun-confiscations-no-laws-broken...
Mar 6, 2018 - The new “red flag” law, which has taken hold in other states already, allows the courts and law enforcement to take away guns from individuals they deem are dangerous and they've just begun the confiscation. A man living in the Belltown neighborhood of Seattle, Washington became the first individual in ...

Indiana Firearm Confiscation | Indiana Firearms Seizure
https://www.ciyoudixonlaw.com/firearms-law/indiana-gun-confiscations/
What are the common legal situations for gun confiscation? Are the firearms later returned, sold or destroyed? The majority of the time, if firearms are observed during a lawful police investigation and in any way related to it, or used during the commission of a crime, or as a tool for self-defense, there will be a firearm ...

Democrats to propose weapons ban, gun confiscation powers in bill ...
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democrats-to-propose-weapons-ban-gun-confis...
Mar 1, 2018 - Senate Democrats said they will introduce a gun control bill that would expand background checks, ban certain weapons, and give the courts the power to temporarily take guns away from people who are deemed to be a threat to themselves or others, after President Trump offered support for these goals in ...

Seattle Police Begin NAZI STYLE Gun Confiscation: No Laws Broken ...
www.shtfplan.com/.../seattle-police-begin-nazi-style-gun-confiscation-no-laws-broken...
Mar 6, 2018 - The new “red flag” law, which has taken hold in other states already, allows the courts and law enforcement to take away guns from individuals they deem are dangerous and they've just begun the confiscation. A man living in the Belltown neighborhood of Seattle, Washington became the first individual in ...

Hand over your weapons - The Boston Globe
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2017/11/10/hand-over-your-weapons/.../story.html
Nov 10, 2017 - Background checks won't end the epidemic of mass killings. Maybe gun control advocates should aim higher.

California gun confiscation law takes effect Jan. 1 | KRCR
krcrtv.com/archive/california-gun-confiscation-law-takes-effect-jan-1-1
The new law will allow family members who believe someone may be violent to apply for a "GunViolence Restraining Order." The law isn't sitting well with gun owners. "I don't think it's a good law," said Ray Abernathy, a longtime Redding Gun Club member. Abernathy said the law has good intentions, but he's worried ...

Makes we wonder how this is going to play out on the courts, as well as how all this gun confiscation it going to be executed when there are some 100M AR15 type sporting rifles already in the hands of private owners, mostly unregistered and undocumented, as was common practice and in compliance with laws existing at the time.

As for myself, I really don't see these confiscation laws as having a legal leg to stand on against the pretty clear language of the 2nd amendment.

 

[TurtleDude]

More 'gun' rubber nonsense... fact is far better lawyers and judges than you have already established the 2nd Amendment can be 'well regulated' by the government as past precedent has set limits on what hand held, commonly used firearms a civilian can legally own and under what circumstances... :doh

All your frothy 'bannerrhoid' BS is far less substance and a lot more stank... eace

no they haven't. we all admit that is what the current law is-none of them can claim its based on either an honest interpretation of the words of the commerce clause or the intent of the founders.

 

[TurtleDude]

You are saying that. I'm calling it unconstitutional.

If the citizens in those states are stupid enough to allow their rights to be stripped from them, that's their problem.

people like him cannot argue why the current state of the law is based on an honest interpretation. I think he's smart enough to understand its not but since he likes the Democrat perversion he won't object to it

 

[TurtleDude]

Footed? Maybe, maybe not; there is Constitutional and Supreme Court precedence allowing the States to do as they please with respect to gun law.

which ignores McDonald. Its funny how the supreme court often works. they often let the states go on and on. Roberts is a big fan of allowing people who vote for idiots to suffer the consequences of idiots in office. But I also know when the state idiots thumb their nose a few too many times at a USSC ruling, those on the majority of the disrespected decision, tend to finally bite back hard

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Well, nonsense is refusing to see that there were no ARs getting sawed up, companies walking away from the NRA, or a massive anti-gun movement prior to the Parkland shooting. Times are changing; and they are changing because people like you refuse to address the simple corrections. And if you don't wish to get ahead of this growing issue, and instead opt to celebrate an irrational denial, then you deserve what "they" eventually do.

I want the state to strip the Second Amendment Right from the mentally-ill and convicted violent criminals, especially those who commit crime with guns. Are you either of those things?
It's a silly thing, I know, but that's the responsibility in me. You may go on to celebrate your Right through that lowest denominator if you wish. But you are to blame for the population's growing anger.

We have drug courts, yes? Why can't we have a 2A court, where judges, and yes even juries, if necessary, make a ruling that an individual's conduct has rendered them unfit to own firearms. People keep saying that mentally ill are unable to own guns.
Really? Explain THIS:

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

We have a NO FLY LIST, why can't we have a NO GUNS LIST? The NO FLY LIST is a national database. A no gun list could also be national.
This, in my humble opinion, might just be the most effective means of curbing, at least to some extent, the rash of mass shootings while simultaneously protecting law abiding people.

Instead, we seem to be going in the opposite direction, letting MORE mentally ill people get guns.
We are now further from solving the problem than ever before.

 

[notquiteright]

no they haven't. we all admit that is what the current law is-none of them can claim its based on either an honest interpretation of the words of the commerce clause or the intent of the founders.

Well again this has all been thrashed out in the courts by lawyers and judges a bit less biased than you.

You use the word 'honest' when you mean 'my'...a common rabid 'gun' rubber substitution.

As far as the intent of the founders rhetoric- only a select few see the Constitution as frozen in time and not flexible. Our Founders couldn't possible envision a super power Republic, massive weaponry, or a time when democracy was well worn and not shiny knew. Theirs was a world of kings and sails, muskets and smallpox.

They were smart enough to allow the Constitution to flex with the times, and the courts have decided the right to keep and bear arms can be regulated... eace

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

As for myself, I really don't see these confiscation laws as having a legal leg to stand on against the pretty clear language of the 2nd amendment.

Then, obviously, you must agree that violent felons and the insane have an absolute right to possess firearms - even in they have been incarcerated or committed.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well again this has all been thrashed out in the courts by lawyers and judges a bit less biased than you.

You use the word 'honest' when you mean 'my'...a common rabid 'gun' rubber substitution.

As far as the intent of the founders rhetoric- only a select few see the Constitution as frozen in time and not flexible. Our Founders couldn't possible envision a super power Republic, massive weaponry, or a time when democracy was well worn and not shiny knew. Theirs was a world of kings and sails, muskets and smallpox.

They were smart enough to allow the Constitution to flex with the times, and the courts have decided the right to keep and bear arms can be regulated... eace

you idiotic comments are just stupid, I get the fact that as a hard core leftist you love it when leftwing judges ignore the constitution and pretend it can mean whatever they want it to without being honest enough to try to amend the constitution-something FDR knew he couldn't do even during the height of his popularity. But to pretend that nonsense was honest or proper really goes way beyond anyone's concept of intellectual integrity

I know it would be a waste of time for you to explain how a negative restriction on the federal government can decrease merely based on what other firearms are available, so I won't, but people who actually understand the concept are laughing at those of you who pretend that the second amendment was intended to allow the federal government to have some power in this area

 

[TurtleDude]

Then, obviously, you must agree that violent felons and the insane have an absolute right to possess firearms - even in they have been incarcerated or committed.

SO you think that violent incarcerated prisoners have an absolute right of association too?

Did it ever occur to you that we have no problem with STATE government banning prisoners or the criminally insane from having arms but we just don't support the federal government's use of the commerce clause to create a power it was never supposed to have without AT Least an Amendment?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Seems to be a lot of 2nd amendment infringement going on these days.



Makes we wonder how this is going to play out on the courts, as well as how all this gun confiscation it going to be executed when there are some 100M AR15 type sporting rifles already in the hands of private owners, mostly unregistered and undocumented, as was common practice and in compliance with laws existing at the time.

As for myself, I really don't see these confiscation laws as having a legal leg to stand on against the pretty clear language of the 2nd amendment.

How many of today's gun owning minority belong to a well-regulated militia?

 

[Hypothetical]

Good gravy, a slave isn't defined by an assault weapon, I don't know too many slaves that own pistols, rifles and shotguns... :roll:

soon, if the anti constitution crowd has their way, you won't know any american "citizens" that own them either.

 

[Hypothetical]

Well again this has all been thrashed out in the courts by lawyers and judges a bit less biased than you.

You use the word 'honest' when you mean 'my'...a common rabid 'gun' rubber substitution.

As far as the intent of the founders rhetoric- only a select few see the Constitution as frozen in time and not flexible. Our Founders couldn't possible envision a super power Republic, massive weaponry, or a time when democracy was well worn and not shiny knew. Theirs was a world of kings and sails, muskets and smallpox.

They were smart enough to allow the Constitution to flex with the times, and the courts have decided the right to keep and bear arms can be regulated... eace

the founders were smart enough to make a way to change the constitution so that it isn't frozen in time, but of course the anti constitution crowd can't be bothered to do it correctly, and that's why the whole thing is soon going to be worthless if this keeps up. a worthless piece of paper based on what is obviously an impossible dream, because too many citizens take it for granted.

keeping political entities from allowing power to go to their heads and restrict the rights of the free individual is what the constitution is for. if people with half a brain can't see that judges who allow it to "flex with the times" are part of what it is supposed to guard against, then the we're in trouble.

 

[Hypothetical]

How many of today's gun owning minority belong to a well-regulated militia?

how many free citizens with guns throughout the entirety of US history belonged to a militia? that's a false precedent.

 

[TurtleDude]

We have drug courts, yes? Why can't we have a 2A court, where judges, and yes even juries, if necessary, make a ruling that an individual's conduct has rendered them unfit to own firearms. People keep saying that mentally ill are unable to own guns.
Really? Explain THIS:

Trump Signs Bill Revoking Obama-Era Gun Checks for People With Mental Illnesses

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221

We have a NO FLY LIST, why can't we have a NO GUNS LIST? The NO FLY LIST is a national database. A no gun list could also be national.
This, in my humble opinion, might just be the most effective means of curbing, at least to some extent, the rash of mass shootings while simultaneously protecting law abiding people.

Instead, we seem to be going in the opposite direction, letting MORE mentally ill people get guns.
We are now further from solving the problem than ever before.

so how would someone get on that list? a pissed off ex wife or girlfriend calls some number? Someone who is upset you cut them off in traffic? Do you understand that congress set the standards and merely being "mentally ill" is not sufficient-just as having once Been ARRESTED or even indicted is not sufficient either?

 

[TurtleDude]

How many of today's gun owning minority belong to a well-regulated militia?

how many of the anti gun posters on this board belong to the a free press?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

so how would someone get on that list? a pissed off ex wife or girlfriend calls some number? Someone who is upset you cut them off in traffic? Do you understand that congress set the standards and merely being "mentally ill" is not sufficient-just as having once Been ARRESTED or even indicted is not sufficient either?

Yeah yeah, I get where you're going with this. Far better we never work on ANYTHING at all.
I'll leave you to your own devices so that you have some more time to cook up some scary scenarios!

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Seems to be a lot of 2nd amendment infringement going on these days.



Makes we wonder how this is going to play out on the courts, as well as how all this gun confiscation it going to be executed when there are some 100M AR15 type sporting rifles already in the hands of private owners, mostly unregistered and undocumented, as was common practice and in compliance with laws existing at the time.

As for myself, I really don't see these confiscation laws as having a legal leg to stand on against the pretty clear language of the 2nd amendment.

Instead of allowing each state to pursue this with more and more bad laws, why not HAVE a national conversation about it?
I don't like a lot of the laws either, primarily because most of them sound confiscatory.
Gun owners pay hard earned money for their guns, and just scooping them up with no compensation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have done nothing wrong. If a gun was purchased legally, and a law suddenly bans ownership of it, the gun owner must be compensated.

 

[eohrnberger]

Then, obviously, you must agree that violent felons and the insane have an absolute right to possess firearms - even in they have been incarcerated or committed.

Not a position that I have taken, nor have ever taken.

Your assertion is that all the legislative actions listed are all specific to restricting firearms from violent felons and the insane?

A quick glance at the headlines wouldn't lead to that conclusion.

 

[eohrnberger]

Instead of allowing each state to pursue this with more and more bad laws, why not HAVE a national conversation about it?

Agreed, should that national conversation be based on facts and reality and sans of emotional arguments.

Public policy based on emotional arguments rarely makes for any good public policy.

I don't like a lot of the laws either, primarily because most of them sound confiscatory.
Gun owners pay hard earned money for their guns, and just scooping them up with no compensation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have done nothing wrong. If a gun was purchased legally, and a law suddenly bans ownership of it, the gun owner must be compensated.

Compensated or grandfathered, preference to grandfathered.

 

[eohrnberger]

How many of today's gun owning minority belong to a well-regulated militia?

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The second 1/2 is not dependent on the first have being a requirement. The first 1/2 is the result of the the second 1/2 being the current state.

 

[Visbek]

Seems to be a lot of 2nd amendment infringement going on these days.

...unless "Red Flag" laws are constitutional.

Even the White House is encouraging the broader use of red flag laws.

These laws are not new, by the way; I believe they date back to at least the 90s. They include due process, and the standards are certainly constitutional (e.g. mental illness, likelihood of harming others etc). I see no indication that they will be *cough* shot down by the courts.

Makes we wonder how this is going to play out on the courts, as well as how all this gun confiscation it going to be executed when there are some 100M AR15 type sporting rifles already in the hands of private owners, mostly unregistered and undocumented, as was common practice and in compliance with laws existing at the time.

So far, implementations of red flag laws have not turned into Waco-style showdowns. Does that disappoint you?

 

[eohrnberger]

...unless "Red Flag" laws are constitutional.

Your assertion is that all the legislative actions listed are all specific to "Red Flag" laws?

A quick glance at the headlines wouldn't lead to that conclusion.

Even the White House is encouraging the broader use of red flag laws.

These laws are not new, by the way; I believe they date back to at least the 90s. They include due process, and the standards are certainly constitutional (e.g. mental illness, likelihood of harming others etc). I see no indication that they will be *cough* shot down by the courts.

If "Red Flag" laws, precedence has already been set, but as posted, a quick glance at the headlines wouldn't lead to that conclusion.

So far, implementations of red flag laws have not turned into Waco-style showdowns. Does that disappoint you?

No, not hardly.

 

[Visbek]

Instead of allowing each state to pursue this with more and more bad laws, why not HAVE a national conversation about it?
I don't like a lot of the laws either, primarily because most of them sound confiscatory.
Gun owners pay hard earned money for their guns, and just scooping them up with no compensation amounts to cruel and unusual punishment for people who have done nothing wrong.

Uh, hello? This is not random seizure. It's taking weapons from people who demonstrate that they are a danger to one's self or others.

The confiscations are temporary, typically up to 1 year, though it's renewable if the court determines that the person is still a danger.

The confiscations require due process.

Red flag laws are kind of a no-brainer.

 

[j-mac]

Gee.

If only we "responsible" gun owners did something about the diagnosed mentally-ill's Right to handle and purchase firearms a few years ago after Sandy Hook.

Or did something about the diagnosed mentally-ill's Right to handle and purchase firearms after Aurora.

Or dealt with bump fires/stocks after Vegas.

Who would have thought that doing nothing and waiting until a diagnosed mentally-disturbed teenager legally bought an AR-15 and wrecked out a High School in Florida would start to come to a head where the anti-gun crowd would eventually gain power, companies would walk from the NRA's apathy, and that people would start sawing their rifles in half.

Self-fulfilling prophesy. We have ourselves to blame.

Oh gee..

If only we could disarm the citizenry, then we could force our agenda unopposed...

What a load of crap.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Visbek]

Your assertion is that all the legislative actions listed are all specific to "Red Flag" laws?

A quick glance at the headlines wouldn't lead to that conclusion.

1st link = red flag law, has "red flag" in the blurb
2nd link = seizure of guns found during/connected to a criminal investigation, plus red flag law
3rd link = red flag law
4th link = red flag law, has "red flag" in the blurb, discussing same thing as 1st link anyway
5th link = paywall
6th link = red flag law

Even from 5 out of 6 blurbs, we can see they're talking about red flag laws.

I suggest you read your own links next time.