imyoda
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 6, 2012
- Messages
- 5,731
- Reaction score
- 1,025
- Location
- Sarasota, Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
So basically gun owners are treated like criminals by default. That doesn't violate the constitution in what way exactly?
I can think of at least three ways that treating people like criminals by default violates the constitution.
Hawaii Becomes First State to Put Gun Owners in FBI Database
Hawaii Becomes First State to Put Gun Owners in FBI Database
“Hawaii passed a law making it the first state to put gun owners on a federal criminal record database and monitor them.
Hawaii Governor David Ige signed the bill Thursday, which allows police to enroll firearms applicants and individuals who are registering their firearms into “Rap Back,” a Federal Bureau of Investigation database that monitors criminal activities by people under investigation or in positions of trust, Reuters reported.
The law takes effect immediately. “Rap Back” allows Hawaii police to be notified when a Hawaii firearm owner is arrested anywhere in the U.S. In addition, the law allows Hawaii police to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue owning a gun after being arrested……………
It seems that one state has its “head on its shoulders” and does the right time to help stem crime and catch gun using criminals….
My heart bleeds for yall...........
The same folks who believe suspected terrorists have constitutional right to come to this country legal/illegally buy an assault rifle and then go slaughter Americans at will..........
Yeh.......My heart bleeds for yall
yes , yes .. we understand... you prefer to violate constitutional rights ( such as due process of law) because you're scared....My heart bleeds for yall...........
The same folks who believe suspected terrorists have constitutional right to come to this country legal/illegally buy an assault rifle and then go slaughter Americans at will..........
Yeh.......My heart bleeds for yall
is there no end to the number of lies you will spew? what is a 'suspected terrorist'
what is an assault rifle? apparently you don't have a clue
American started a thread on this subject yesterday. ImYoda doesn't understand that we are talking about American citizens without any disqualifying features being denied their rights.
That law makes little sense to me. Why is it better to get a FBI notification if Joe Blow Carpenter, who used to live in HI and bought/owned a gun, gets busted in Vegas for kiddie porn instead of Sammy Civil Servant who happens to work in a HI public school? Why not put all HI residents, or at least those in sensitive positions of trust, into that DB if public safety is really the goal.
he has no factual answers to your questions.... he's just glad to see even more Constitutional rights being violated..... facts mean nothing to anti-Americans.
nothing makes the day of anti-American leftists more than to see our rights being violated
My heart bleeds for yall...........
The same folks who believe suspected terrorists have constitutional right to come to this country legal/illegally buy an assault rifle and then go slaughter Americans at will..........
Yeh.......My heart bleeds for yall
interesting.... I see this going to court in due course.
federal firearm registries are illegal... and Hawaii just turned "Rap Back" into a federal firearms registry....well done, idiots!
Unless Hawaii found a loophole?is there no end to the number of lies you will spew? what is a 'suspected terrorist'
what is an assault rifle? apparently you don't have a clue
American started a thread on this subject yesterday. ImYoda doesn't understand that we are talking about American citizens without any disqualifying features being denied their rights.
Unless Hawaii found a loophole?
They're not registering the guns in the fed DB, but rather they're posting the individuals themselves - ostensibly to assure notification concerning an individual's fitness with the state law.
And I bet there's no way the currently hobbled 4-4 Court takes cases like this (not that it would get there before next year, anyway).
Unless Hawaii found a loophole?
They're not registering the guns in the fed DB, but rather they're posting the individuals themselves - ostensibly to assure notification concerning fitness with the state law.
And I bet there's no way the currently hobbled 4-4 Court takes cases like this (not that it would get there before next year, anyway).
Honestly do you think this would be a 4-4? It's an 8-0 slam dunk. If it was an abortion database do you think it would be 4-4? If it would really be 4-4 this country is in much worse shape than anyone can imagine.
I don't think we can underestimate the Justices ideologies - though they do surprise us from time-to-time with Justice Robert's 'ObamaCare tax' ruling being such an example.Honestly do you think this would be a 4-4? It's an 8-0 slam dunk. If it was an abortion database do you think it would be 4-4? If it would really be 4-4 this country is in much worse shape than anyone can imagine.
Honestly do you think this would be a 4-4? It's an 8-0 slam dunk. If it was an abortion database do you think it would be 4-4? If it would really be 4-4 this country is in much worse shape than anyone can imagine.
His posts on guns are even less honest than the claim that he is a conservative. They are filled with lies that can no longer be excused as based on ignorance given how many times he has been edified. You cannot buy an "assault rifle" unless it was registered with the ATF before May 19, 1986 and only after a 6-14 month background wait, and the permission of your chief of police if your state even allows you to own Class III firearms. Foreigners cannot own them period unless they are diplomats in their own embassies or military/military law enforcement personnel operating under the authority of US military command.
You're right in that the 4 liberal Justices do not seem to believe in self-defense as a 2A right outside of the militia concept, and they've voted and opined as such. Heller was a narrow 5-4 decision that hinged upon Justice Scalia's vote and majority opinion. He is now gone, and hasn't been replaced.he's right.. it'll be 4-4
the 4 "liberal" justices don't belive American citizens even have an individual right to keep and bear arms, let alone provide any protections though their rulings.
Remember how just not that long ago they ruled that the police doing an illegal search was fine if they had a warrant first? What makes you think this court cares about the constitution?
Then a few years ago they ruled that you have to speak in order to practice your right to remain SILENT. You know, as in your right to not say anything whatsoever.
Then that was Obamacare ruling where they quite literally changed the law stating something to the effect that the change was always meant to be part of the law. As if that changes the fact that they just violated the constitution.
I would say impeaching them would fix the problem, but well, it wouldn't.
I don't think we can underestimate the Justices ideologies - though they do surprise us from time-to-time with Justice Robert's 'ObamaCare tax' ruling being such an example.
Now you are bending the facts and you know it. You know darn well that in that case the defendant spoke words and answered questions and then claimed his was using his right to remain silent. If he had never said a word, that wouldn't have been a case at all.
I'm not bending the facts. They ruled that in order to practice your right to remain silent you must inform that you intend to practice your fifth amendment rights.
Yes agreed, and the courts will determine the Constitutionality, but mark my words: If they do find it legal, it will be through that very loophole I bet. I believe that's why Hawaii specifically wrote the law in this manner, and I believe perhaps they've presented it just now since they're in the 9th circuit which just recently ruled against concealed carry a week ago!well, the courts will have a say in whether they found a loophole or not... but it's quite obvious that these people are being entered into the federal database solely because they own a firearm.
that doesn't' mesh well with federal law at all.
and yes, the current SCOTUS would most likely be deadlocked.... which could be good or bad, depending on the lower courts decision.
the 4 "liberal" justices won't hesitate to deny rights protections for gun owners... the other 4 are a bit more mindful of the Constitution.
Well, just because they have ideologies, doesn't necessarily mean they believe they're being unfaithful to the Constitution. There's a wide range of Constitutional thought.Then we are all ****ed, excuse my french
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?