Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about a real conversation about the gun issue .
Here's what I think .
Background Checks, no private sale or gun show loopholes . Gun registration so we can follow the gun and prevent straw purchases. Local gun licenses thru the police Those things would help keep guns away from criminals and kooks . That's the majority of the gun problem.
LOL!Wow, Timmy sure did "tear things up" with this thread. So much so that he bailed back at page 3... Guess he recognized his failure...
GREAT JOB TIMMY! Way to make an impression! TEAR IT UP, LITTLE MAN!
Timmy is yet another world class idiot spouting things he heard on Rachel Maddow. When reality collides he hightails it out of town.Wow, Timmy sure did "tear things up" with this thread. So much so that he bailed back at page 3... Guess he recognized his failure...
GREAT JOB TIMMY! Way to make an impression! TEAR IT UP, LITTLE MAN!
These laws pass Constitutional muster because the Heller Court did not specify a particular level of judicial review, leaving that to the lower courts, who have for the most part used intermediate scrutiny, a level of judicial review that decreases the burden on government to demonstrate its gun laws are warranted.The real question I have here is why?The application of firearms regulatory measures consistent with that of the regulation of other rights: that firearms regulatory measures be rationally based, pursue a compelling governmental interest, are supported by objective, documented facts and evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.no thanks Timmy , I want to roll back all gun laws .
so what do u want ? Guns out of vending machines?
In essence what needs to happen is laws that seek to limit or restrict the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment should be subject to strict scrutiny of judicial review, which is currently not the case.
If firearms regulatory measures were subject to strict scrutiny, policies such as waiting periods, magazine capacity restrictions and bans, licensing requirements (save that of concealed carry), permit requirements, registration requirements, and bans on particular types of weapons clearly in common use would be invalidated by the courts.
With the recent SCOTUS rulings, I think there are several laws on the books that are not simply unconstitutional but blatantly so yet they have not fallen. It is not as though these rulings are brand new - how have some of these laws stuck around?
Judges in the Federal and appellate courts have held that as long as a given jurisdiction allows the possession of some type of firearm, the banning of a specific firearm is Constitutional, along with bans and restrictions on types of magazines and their capacity.
First Amendment jurisprudence is nearly 100 years old, Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving, yet to have a post Heller/McDonald ruling by the Supreme Court.Judges in the Federal and appellate courts have held that as long as a given jurisdiction allows the possession of some type of firearm, the banning of a specific firearm is Constitutional, along with bans and restrictions on types of magazines and their capacity.
What an absurd position.
Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the Methodist religion, on the grounds that there are still plenty of other religions that one could choose from?
Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the possession or operation of a Davidson printing press, as long as one can still have an AB Dick press?
Can a jurisdiction ban the expression of a particular opinion, on the basis that one still is free to express a different opinion?
A right isn't really a right, if it's subject to any arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.
The courts are painfully slow (and this is a good thing). Eventually these cases will get there though, as I stated earlier, I am somewhat surprised it is not going a little faster considering all the laws on the books that virtually ignore the second even exists.First Amendment jurisprudence is nearly 100 years old, Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving, yet to have a post Heller/McDonald ruling by the Supreme Court.Judges in the Federal and appellate courts have held that as long as a given jurisdiction allows the possession of some type of firearm, the banning of a specific firearm is Constitutional, along with bans and restrictions on types of magazines and their capacity.
What an absurd position.
Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the Methodist religion, on the grounds that there are still plenty of other religions that one could choose from?
Would it be acceptable for a jurisdiction to ban the possession or operation of a Davidson printing press, as long as one can still have an AB Dick press?
Can a jurisdiction ban the expression of a particular opinion, on the basis that one still is free to express a different opinion?
A right isn't really a right, if it's subject to any arbitrary and unreasonable restrictions.
And the Supreme Court can rule only on the issue or issues before it, where in Heller the appropriate level of judicial review was not at issue.
Moreover, we must assume the various Federal judges are ruling in good faith with regard to the Constitutionality of gun laws – there's nothing in Heller giving a Federal judge license to infer that the application of strict scrutiny is warranted, as the Federal courts have shown deference to state and local jurisdictions who enacted these measures reflecting the will of the people; absent precedent demonstrating the people have willfully erred by enacting measures clearly repugnant to the Constitution, the courts will likely continue to apply intermediate scrutiny.
In time there will likely be a case to come before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of various restrictions and bans, where the focus needs to be on Miller's holding that weapons considered to be 'in common use' are entitled to Second Amendment protections, and the argument is successfully made that AR and AK/M platform rifles are clearly 'in common use,' and indeed entitled to Constitutional protections.
First Amendment jurisprudence is nearly 100 years old, Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, still evolving, yet to have a post Heller/McDonald ruling by the Supreme Court.
I differ from most conservatives in that I believe that with our rights come responsibilities.How about a real conversation about the gun issue .
Here's what I think .
Background Checks, no private sale or gun show loopholes . Gun registration so we can follow the gun and prevent straw purchases. Local gun licenses thru the police Those things would help keep guns away from criminals and kooks . That's the majority of the gun problem.
In return . The law abiding can buy all the guns they want . U can only shoot 2 at a time at best . U want a 20 round clip, go ahead and have a party . License to carry, ok with me .
What's the down side ?
That said, I think a firearms purchase should fall into the same vein as buying a motor vehicle.
In order to purchase a vehicle and then operate it on the public roadways, we must present ID, have a background( credit) check, give out personal information.
I see no reason why a firearm purchase cannot include the same scrutiny.
The majority of the guns in the US are owned by criminals.You are not going to get any kind of compromise from our gun nuts. And I would add the penalties for breaking these laws. If you sell a gun to someone without the background check and approval, you are arrested for a felony, and can never own any kind of firearm again. The same for the person trying to buy a gun without a check. Guns cannot be transferred in any manner, even within families without said background check. To do so incurs a felony conviction. Those with felony convictions cannot own guns. Period. Those judged to have sanity problems with hostility cannot own guns, period.
How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?
So long as there is no gun registration involved i think that this is a great idea.How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?
So long as there is no gun registration involved i think that this is a great idea.How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?
Florida issues concealed carry permits. I would say that anyone who has that kind of certification from their state should be a buyer that a seller can sell to immediately.
The idea is to keep weapons out of the hands of the whack-jobs.
Permit renewal cycles to be adjusted accordingly and the sane will simply have to deal.
The down side is all the shit you listed and think is the pro side. So here's the fuck off side...you get nothing and will like it.How about a real conversation about the gun issue .
Here's what I think .
Background Checks, no private sale or gun show loopholes . Gun registration so we can follow the gun and prevent straw purchases. Local gun licenses thru the police Those things would help keep guns away from criminals and kooks . That's the majority of the gun problem.
In return . The law abiding can buy all the guns they want . U can only shoot 2 at a time at best . U want a 20 round clip, go ahead and have a party . License to carry, ok with me .
What's the down side ?
I think car salesmen should be held to this rule, too. They should run a standardized background check on any auto buyer to make sure they don't have a history of mental illness or DUIs or domestic violence.How about criminal liability for deaths resulting from the sale of a weapon where the seller failed to run a standardized background check?
