• 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!

Gun control ruled constitutional in WA State

The sad thing is WA state had 12 sheriffs state they would refuse to enforce the law.

Talk about a blatant misuse of power. You have sheriffs publically saying they will not follow the legislative or judicial branch.

Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law? Now that is outrageous.

How is that different from the judges not following the constitution?
 
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!

Every time legislation like this is passed, more people of color go to prison. Gun control feeds directly into the prison-industrial complex -- longer sentences, lower thresholds for jailing.
 
You seem hostile towards a lot of rules and laws in this country.

If everyone agreed with every law, we wouldn't have politicians.

Are you telling me you agree with all the laws in this country?
 
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!

It's just the start... off to the appeals court it will go!
 
If everyone agreed with every law, we wouldn't have politicians.

Are you telling me you agree with all the laws in this country?

That's funny. We don't have a lot of laws on gun control in this country. That's the problem.
 
AG Ferguson: Court rules against NRA; voter-approved Initiative 1639 is constitutional | Washington State

Bars the sales of semi-autos to people under 21? Check
10-day waiting period for the sales of semi-autos? Check
Requires those who want to buy them to go through a mandatory firearms training course? Check
Charging gun owners if someone not allowed to have a gun get a hold of their firearms because it wasn't safely stored? Check

This is exactly what I am talking about. These are common-sense laws that are not in violation of the Consitution. The NRA and 2nd Amendment Foundation are wrong. They have been exposed as not supporting the Consitution but using it towards their own twisted and perverted ideology.

Hopefully these kind of laws can expand towards more states!

It still isn't constitutional.
 
You still haven't support "vast majority".
lol.... Yes, I have. But since you need more, your bestest buddies at the Brady Center point out:

Since Heller, state and federal courts have heard over a thousand Second Amendment challenges to gun laws. 90% of those cases, the courts have rejected the challenge, essentially adopting the Brady view that Heller does not prohibit common-sense gun laws.

The courts have repeatedly held that Heller does not provide a basis to overturn bans on the public carry of firearms, assault weapons, and large capacity magazines. They have also overwhelmingly held that Heller allows for reasonable restrictions on dangerous people possessing and owning firearms, and has upheld safety regulations regarding firearms training, storage, and design.

https://brady-static.s3.amazonaws.c...SecondAmendmentAndPublicSafetyAfterHeller.pdf

And from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence's 2017 "Post-Heller Litigation Summary":

Since Heller and McDonald, courts have been inundated with claims that various federal, state, and local laws regulating firearms violate the Second Amendment. These claims have been asserted in both civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions—and the vast majority of them have failed. Altogether, in the more than 1,150 state and federal court decisions tracked by the Law Center since Heller, courts have rejected the Second Amendment challenges 94% of the time.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-c...Post-Heller-Litigation-Summary-2017-April.pdf

So yeah. When 90-94% of challenges to gun laws fail, it is reasonable to conclude that "the vast majority of gun laws are constitutional."

I'm reasonably confident this is not the first time I've pointed this out to you.


There was no exhaustive list, which is why any gun control law other than those mentioned needs to be reviewed on its own merits.
In other words: It is not the case that the SCOTUS was "specific in what infringements might be considered as Constitutional." Thanks for agreeing with me.


We've seen Heller used to overturn gun laws in lower courts in cases like Young v Hawaii and Maloney v Singas.
"We've" seen almost no changes to gun laws after Heller. Of course, almost all of those 3 rulings would have been the same without Heller -- e.g. it isn't hard at all to imagine Caetano favoring the defendant based on pre-Heller precedents and legal reasoning.


Regarding the number of cases taken up by SCOTUS... SCOTUS typically only reviews about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases it is asked to review each year.
That's nice. That doesn't change the fundamental fact that even after Heller, the SCOTUS has refused to review the vast majority of challenges to gun regulations.


Yet the City of New York insisted for seven years that the law was both Constitutional and necessary for the safety of its citizens all the way to the 2nd Circuit Court, and only backed down from this position when SCOTUS threatened to review.
Yeah, not so much. As I already pointed out, NYC didn't completely eliminate premises permits. What they did was remove the limitation on transporting a premise-permitted firearm to a domicile or shooting range outside of NYC.

And again... The SCOTUS refused to hear challenges to gun laws for nearly 9 years before that case. That hardly indicates sweeping changes by the courts.


It's the four conservatives and the four liberals who don't trust Roberts. If either side knew which way he'd jump the four justices who would be supported would gladly take up 2A cases.
Please, spare us the Federalist nonsense. If that was true, then why did they take up NYSRPA's case?


I'd say that using terms like "rabid conservatives" and "gun rights extremists" shows who is biased here.
Or, I need to resort to those terms, because your claims are so clearly in conflict with reality.
 
That's funny. We don't have a lot of laws on gun control in this country. That's the problem.

We have lots of gun laws. You just don't think they are strict enough.
 
There is nothing to appeal. Common sense gun regulation is not unconstitutional, it saves lives.

Well Bucky,that common sense ( or seance) is the reason it's not over. When you start with the common sense knee jerk reactions and politicians looking for re-election that's when things get unconstitutional.
 
Yes, an adult also cannot drink until the age of 21.



To determine if the adult is mentally competent and responsible enough to be a gun owner? Duh. What are some things that take more than a few days to complete - buying a house, getting a driver's license, etc.



LOL!. Owning a gun isn't a right, it is a privilege. I'll stand by that statement the rest of my life.

It's the Bill Of Rights, not the Bill of Privileges.
 
Yes, an adult also cannot drink until the age of 21.

Which is also wrong.

To determine if the adult is mentally competent and responsible enough to be a gun owner? Duh. What are some things that take more than a few days to complete - buying a house, getting a driver's license, etc.

Background checks take place almost immediately. The purpose of the delay is to provide a "cooling off" period, because idiot progressives believe people will legally buy guns and immediately go out and shoot someone. Not to mention the fact that most gun buyers already own other guns.

LOL!. Owning a gun isn't a right, it is a privilege. I'll stand by that statement the rest of my life.

Doesn't matter what some room temperature IQ leftist thinks, because the supremes have decided otherwise:


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.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikisource, the free online library
 
=Visbek;1072559475]You probably shouldn't wonder. While support for gun ownership is very high, so is support for these types of gun control laws.

How do you know that support is higher? A poll taken in Seattle and other cities in western WA.? It' not the same in Eastern WA.

View attachment 67293778




Therefore, to increase public safety for all Washingtonians, in
particular our children,


Enter the children. Go for them heart strings.

this measure would, among other things:
Create an enhanced background check system

In other words not do a damn thing except sound like it is.
applicable to semiautomatic assault rifles
similar to what is required for
handguns, require that individuals complete a firearm safety
training course and be at least twenty-one years of age to purchase

What no more assault rifles?

or possess such weapons, enact a waiting period for the purchase of
such weapons, and establish standards for the responsible storage of
all firearms.


Gee wiz does that mean that the WA. NG. will be purging anyone not 21 years of age? Don't go there with "well they are in the Army".



Not all states are the same, and not all ballot initiatives are the same. Plus, these types of ballot initiatives usually have groups advocating yes or no.

No some states are tricky how they do it.

I don't see how this would be so jumbled as to be wildly misinterpreted by the public. There isn't a lot of ambiguity in "require a firearm safety class" or "establish storage standards."

OH there is a lot of "ambiguity" in how things are or aren't worded. Some of the new gun laws in OR. are long winded and confusing as hell if you don't really pay attention. Let alone the few words allowed to describe the measure.
 
You seem hostile towards a lot of rules and laws in this country.

He seems more aware of what they are then you do. You on the other hand do to much thinking where you should have thought.
 
=Batcat;1072560842]I have went shooting with a number of people who owned a gun for self defense for years but were unfamiliar with firearms and firearm safety.

You just picked up people at random or were they friends for years? In which case you should know.

You ask them when they show you their weapon, “Is it loaded.”
They sometimes reply, “I don’t know. It might be.”

Is it sarcasm? Like why would you ask a dumb ass question like that?

I have had that happen more than once.

Had it happen a couple nights ago. My youngest son came by with a box and pulled out a new M&P Shield 9mm and of course I ask him if it was loaded and he said "oh yeah" and handed it to me in a safe manner AND I DROPPED THE MAG. AND RACKED IT, VISUALLY CHECKING.
Even though I knew his "oh yeah" was sarcasm meant in fun.
One time I borrowed a single action revolver from my brother in law at the time. When I returned it he asked me if it was unloaded. After I told him it was he pointed the revolver at me and pulled the trigger seven times. Now this idiot should have known better. He had been a door gunner on a helicopter in Vietnam.

And since he was a door gunner he knew better why? Yes, not a real smart move.
 
How do you know that support is higher?
Poll after poll after poll, and quite a few elections, backs up what I'm saying.


A poll taken in Seattle and other cities in western WA.? It' not the same in Eastern WA.
Oh, you mean the least populated part of the state?

Your link is invalid, btw, and most of the rest of your post is a tad... incoherent.


Gee wiz does that mean that the WA. NG. will be purging anyone not 21 years of age?
You should read the FAQ.
Initiative 1639 | Washington State


No some states are tricky how they do it.
Oh, whatever, dude. No one was deceived. The ballot initiative passed in 2019. There was no massive campaign to repeal it.

Just face it, Americans want both legal gun ownership and regulations on gun ownership.
 
You just picked up people at random or were they friends for years? In which case you should know.



Is it sarcasm? Like why would you ask a dumb ass question like that?


Had it happen a couple nights ago. My youngest son came by with a box and pulled out a new M&P Shield 9mm and of course I ask him if it was loaded and he said "oh yeah" and handed it to me in a safe manner AND I DROPPED THE MAG. AND RACKED IT, VISUALLY CHECKING.
Even though I knew his "oh yeah" was sarcasm meant in fun.

And since he was a door gunner he knew better why? Yes, not a real smart move.

Wow, just wow. If you have a gun, you should know if it is loaded or not.

Making light of gun safety? Maybe someone should take away your guns.
 
We have lots of gun laws. You just don't think they are strict enough.

I just don't know how someone can believe you do not need basic training to operate a firearm.

You need training to operate a boat, car, motorcycle, why not a firearm?
 
=Visbek;1072562127]Poll after poll after poll, and quite a few elections, backs up what I'm saying.

Poll after poll in western WA. cities where the correct result will be obtained.
Oh, you mean the least populated part of the state?

Yeah the least populated being run over rough shod. Some say split the state in half. Same for OR.

Your link is invalid, btw, and most of the rest of your post is a tad... incoherent.

Well it was working. Actually a picture.
WA. STATE VOTERS INFO.JPG






Saw nothing of the Guard, though I'm sure somewhere in all the lingo it may be.
Oh, whatever, dude. No one was deceived. The ballot initiative passed in 2019. There was no massive campaign to repeal it.

Just face it, Americans want both legal gun ownership and regulations on gun ownership.

Probably not so much deceived as fooled.
 
=Bucky;1072562153]Wow, just wow. If you have a gun, you should know if it is loaded or not.

Gosh Bucky you are smart.
Making light of gun safety? Maybe someone should take away your guns.

Where in the make believe world of Bucky was I making light of gun safety? If you can read you should know better. Wait, read and comprehend what you read,yeah that's it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not surprised that the average voters in WA don't understand what "...shall not be infringed" means. After all, in some places the average voter is a blithering idiot. But I am surprised that the judge, who would normally be considered a learned man, would fail to understand that phrase.

I hope this ruling gets appealed to a higher court.

Ninth circuit squashed the California 10 round magazine idiocy.
 
I just don't know how someone can believe you do not need basic training to operate a firearm.

You need training to operate a boat, car, motorcycle, why not a firearm?

should you have basic training before voting or spawning children?
 
The sad thing is WA state had 12 sheriffs state they would refuse to enforce the law.

Talk about a blatant misuse of power. You have sheriffs publically saying they will not follow the legislative or judicial branch.

Sheriffs refusing to enforce the law? Now that is outrageous.

the constitution trumps stupid state laws that morons support
 
Back
Top Bottom