- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Congratulations! Out of all the federal gun laws passed through the years that apply in all states, you finally found one that was ruled unconstitutional, however, "This left the door open for a later Congress, with more complete evidence and justification, to enact a valid Act, based upon a more complete showing of evidence of interstate commerce being sufficiently "affected" to justify the exercise of the federal Commerce power."
Any constitutional challenges to the background check that has been law since 1993?
Roughly ninety percent of Americans support universal background checks. Do you?
I realize this poll isn't even close to being an accruate representaiton of the country, but shouldn't the number of yes votes be a tad higher if over 90% of the country supports universal background checks?
Big Update as of 4 hours ago on the topic of this thread -
Threat to Block Debate on Guns Appears to Fade in Senate
"WASHINGTON — Several Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they would not participate in a filibuster of the first major gun control bill since 1993, as Democrats appeared on the verge of overcoming a blockade threatened by a group of conservatives before a word of debate on the measure was uttered.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, said he would schedule an initial showdown vote for Thursday. If backers of the measure can corral at least 60 votes, the Senate will begin consideration of a series of gun safety proposals — strongly supported by President Obama — that would still face a long and difficult journey across the Senate floor.
The bill, which would increase penalties for illegal gun purchase and greatly expand background checks on gun buyers, would again need 60 votes to end the ensuing debate after consideration of contentious amendments, including a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Should it cross that very high hurdle, 51 votes would be needed to get to final passage. Even with Democrats controlling 55 seats, no majority was assured given the resistance of some Democrats from more conservative states who face re-election campaigns next year.
Even as Mr. Reid scheduled a vote, Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania were very near a deal that would most likely serve as an amendment replacing the background check piece of the measure that Mr. Reid is seeking a vote on. Their measure, which would almost certainly appeal to a broader base of members than the one now at the heart of the debate, would include fewer gun buyers in newly expanded checks, but allow for the record keeping that many Republicans have opposed. The two were expected to announce a deal Wednesday. Mr. Manchin briefed Mr. Reid late Tuesday.
Still, eking out the first 60 votes would represent momentum for the bill’s supporters in the Senate, and an egg-on-the-face moment for those Republican senators, led by some younger conservatives, who chose to highlight their efforts to kill the bill before debate, a procedural move usually done more stealthily."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/u...icans-oppose-filibuster-on-gun-bill.html?_r=0
So because you didn't mention payola to Congress means it doesn't happen? And you will have to show me, since background checks for gun sales was enacted in 1994, when they were ruled to be an infringement of the 2nd Amendment rights. Like I've said, if this Congress can't get it done, the voters will work that problem out over the next couple elections.
1.Just because someone didn't rule background checks an infringement doesn't change the fact it is still an infringement.
2.This still does not change the fact that elected officials are not going to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes if their constituents are telling them not to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes. So your 85% comment is hogwash.
another fail on your part
Only in your opinion, Dude
slavery was legal in the USA for centuries
Being legal or otherwise does not make it right, Turtle
I get the fact you are incapable of proffering a rational argument in favor of the crap you support
The argument is lost when one side resorts to insults and sluts...Why is this so typical of conservatives ?
Is it just "bullying" ??
that is because your support is based on harassing law abiding gun owners....Due to the criminal and semi-criminal element in our society...or you pose to do nothing...
as to FFL's having to do checks
given the FDR expansion of the commerce clause, FFLs are engaged in interstate commerce since they buy and receive firearms in INTERSTATE commerce
so a challenge would be worthless
now making people who only engage in INTRASTATE private sales-no such nexus
but lets see if you have the wattage to make an argument why purely INTRASTATE private transactions have a sufficient nexus with INTERSTATE commerce so as to survive a tenth amendment challenge based on USA v LOPEZ
1.Just because someone didn't rule background checks an infringement doesn't change the fact it is still an infringement.
True, of course, but so what.....
Imagine a world or a nation without so-called infringments....setting man back to day one....
2.This still does not change the fact that elected officials are not going to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes if their constituents are telling them not to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes. So your 85% comment is hogwash.
Are some people so obtuse as to be not capable of imagining "Day One Conditions" ??
1.Just because someone didn't rule background checks an infringement doesn't change the fact it is still an infringement.
2.This still does not change the fact that elected officials are not going to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes if their constituents are telling them not to support any of Obama's anti-2nd amendment schemes. So your 85% comment is hogwash.
Not according to rule of law under the US constitution. Otherwise you could explain how your opinion affects how the law is carried out.
We will see over the course of the next couple elections whether NRA money can top public support.
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?