That is how it was intended.As far as dealer transfers I am unclear as to whether this is a transfer between dealers, or a sale ala retail from dealer to consumer. I treated it as a deal between the retail to the consumer, and voted for an instant background check.
Background checks infringe on the rights of the law abiding.
It is a precondition on the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right.How so?
It is a precondition on the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right.
As such, it is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infeingement.
Same for licensing and registration.
If the -concept- applies to one right, it applies to them all.I don't think the ban on prior restraint applies to any of the rights except speech/press
And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.Prior restraint means that you cannot prevent somebody from publishing something, you have to wait and then press charges/file suit
And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.
Prior restraint attempts to prevent an illegal act before it happens by restricting a right. In these terms, guns and free speech are the same thing.
It is a precondition on the exercise of a right that is not inherent to that right.
As such, it is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infeingement.
Same for licensing and registration.
"Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, unquestionably applies to any weapon you'd care to mention within the context of a conversation regarding "gun control".Its not that simple as the definition of "arms" (the term in the Bill Of Rights) also is at question. What about a 16 inch caliber "gun" off an old warship?
What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?Free speech is restricted in many regards. You can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater the most commonly given.
What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?You can't threaten to harm the president. Actually, threatening to violently harm anyone generally is criminal.
What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?You can be economically punished for liable and slander. You can't urge others to do violence or crimes.
What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?There are volumes of restrictions on commercial language. You can't talk for someone else in court unless you are a licensed lawyer. Can't give some types of medical advice unless you are a licensed doctor.
By "registration" I mean the requirement to inform the government that you have such and such a gun.I think I took the registration of the guns incorectly. I thought of it as a form of serial number on the gun similar to a VIN number on vehicles.
I figure that all gun owners can use this number when a gun is stolen etc so that if the gun is discovered by police in the use of a crime, they would be able to have some knowledge as to how th egun was obtained. I figured it would be usefull in tracking thefts and whatnot, and thus could prevent criminals from obtaining guns, whereas it wouldn't infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
I don't really think that was what you meant by registration, though. I might be wrong.
If the -concept- applies to one right, it applies to them all.
And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.
Prior restraint attempts to prevent an illegal act before it happens by restricting a right. In these terms, guns and free speech are the same thing.
How many gun owners have used a gun in any extreme to protect their home and or loved ones? Tell your tale here: Here's mine. I used mine one time when myf ront door was kicked off the hinges by someone who thought someone was going to shoot him. I did not fire but held him at bay until the cops came to sort it out.
By "registration" I mean the requirement to inform the government that you have such and such a gun.
You seem to think that I am arguing that there is precedent that supports my decision. Not sur ehow you came up with that, but....Uhhh...no. That's not how it works. In Near v Minnesota SCOTUS ruled prior restraint in first amendment issues unconstitutional. They ruled on a 1st amd. issue and the ruling applies only to the 1st amd. Not the entire constitution
Tell me the difference, conceptually.That is not how the law or the constitution reads.And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.
This person has commited an action that is not pursuant to this rights.So does taking a person who threatens suicide into protecting custody.
What is "common sense" gun control?
You seem to think that I am arguing that there is precedent that supports my decision. Not sur ehow you came up with that, but....
In fact, I am arguing conceptually. That any given court hasnt ruled that way is meaningless.
Tell me the difference, conceptually.
This person has commited an action that is not pursuant to this rights.
Thus, your example here is non-sequitur.
This has been explained in a prior post.How is "registration" a restriction? I don't see anything in the Constitution saying anything about the right to secretly bear (or own) arms at all.
"Arms", as the term is used in the 2nd, unquestionably applies to any weapon you'd care to mention within the context of a conversation regarding "gun control".
What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?
What is the 2nd amendment equivelant to that?
What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?
What are the 2nd amendment equivelants to these?
If the -concept- applies to one right, it applies to them all.
And so, as applied to gun ownership -- the government cannot prevent someone from exercising their right to own/buy/use a gun until -after- they do something illegal with it.
Prior restraint attempts to prevent an illegal act before it happens by restricting a right. In these terms, guns and free speech are the same thing.
10-4. :mrgreen:I thought that you were saying prior restraint does apply - not that it should, and that it does because it applies to the first. I was just showing this to be false - if it's irrelevant to what you're saying disregard the whole thing
While we were having a small get together some teenagers pulled up in front of our house and jumped out and started beating our car and a neighbor's with baseball bats for no apparent reason. My husband ran in the house, got our gun, and ran out to fire a warning shot. The kid then proceeded to break our back windshield before running back to the car and taking off. When the cops came they then proceeded to act like a bunch of assholes because we brought out our gun to defend ourselves and our property. When we asked one cop to see if they could get fingerprints off of a beer bottle one of the kids had thrown he said "This ain't CSI" and just left it there, giving us a condensending manner the whole time.Also, according to those pricks, who were passing as cops, using a gun to defend yourself against people like that is against the law. One of the so-called cops actually said that unless the guy is bigger than you, you cannot shoot someone who breaks into your house and call that self defense. Because only if someone is bigger than you can they pose a threat. :shock:
You dont understand.You can't make up your mind it seems. If someone makes their view on practical considerations, you argue it is absolute theory that matters. But when someone then responds that your absolute theory comparison to free speech is wrong, then you shift 180 degrees to claim there is no practical comparison.
You dont understand.
I agree that there are limits on the term "free speech" as used in the 1st.
You may, at your lesiure, apply the -concepts- behind those limits to the 2nd amendment.
But, you have to argure apples/apples.
Ever think about relocating? Seriously, some people really don't like where they live for many different reasons, but also won't move. That never made sense to me. There are many urban areas in particular that are so pro-criminal and anti-citizens that you are just victims waiting to happen. Other areas give equally extreme deference to citizens in relation to criminals and crime/ potential crime. Why live where criminals rule law?
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?