- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.
So which Constitution did the Supreme court look at? It was clearly not the US Constitution judging by the ruling.
You think background checks are unconstitutional?
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.
Discussion?
Article is here.
Yes. ..
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
You think background checks are unconstitutional?
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.
Discussion?
Article is here.
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.
Discussion?
Article is here.
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
sorry that has nothing to do with the "yes", voiced.....the federal government has no authority over firearms as a whole for the "people", ...because the bill of rights places a restriction on them to create any such law.
rights for an individual citiznes can be curtailed, if they have broken the law.......
The whole purpose of incarceration is to keep them in jail for the appropriate time of punishment. If they aren't deemed to be safe in society if they own a firearm, they shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.
There shouldn't be any background checks in the first place.To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.
Discussion?
Article is here.
I'm sure the prison-industrial complex would agree.
sorry no...the 2nd is not a power to the federal government ...ITS A RESTRICTION ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENTWell-regulated militia.
Yes. Simply buying a gun is not probable cause to violate my 4th amendment right and perform a background check. Background checks at point-of-sale are unconstitutional.You think background checks are unconstitutional?
Once I buy it, its mine to do with what I want. Period end of story.To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.
Discussion?
Article is here.
And the next law, and the one after that, then the next one?Your birthday gift complaint is easily circumvented by a gift certificate. I have no problem with the ruling. It was the right thing to do.
Just make sure the gun shop has access to these:
Once I buy it, its mine to do with what I want. Period end of story.
You are correct, they don't. So if they purchase one or somehow acquire one, it would have to be by fraudulent means which in theory would be in addition to the illegal possession of a firearm charge they would be facing.Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
Where does it say I cannot buy the gun for a friend or relative. Like I have done before and will continue to do as I like.Not according to form 4473 question 11 part a):
https://www.atf.gov/files/forms/download/atf-f-4473-1.pdf
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.
Discussion?
Article is here.
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?