Admitting drug use = no guns?

[MaggieMae]

I've lost track of exactly what it is you want to do, M14. Unfettered use of your guns as you see fit?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've lost track of exactly what it is you want to do, M14. Unfettered use of your guns as you see fit?

Peraps you shoud pay better attention.
Under this topic, my 'issue' is clear:
Simply telling a federal official that you have committed a crime does not constitue sufficient due process to allow for the permanent disablement of a fundamental right.

 

[MaggieMae]

I've lost track of exactly what it is you want to do, M14. Unfettered use of your guns as you see fit?

Peraos you shoud pay better attention.
Under this topic, my 'issue' is clear:
Simply telling a federal official that you have committed a crime does not constitue suffcinet due process to allow for the permanent disablement of a fundamental right.

I still don't understand if the Army disqualified him from service, and they apparently did so because they believe Loughner would be unfit because of drug use, why that's not good enough for other government agencies to deny him ownership of a gun for the same reason.

Are you saying it's okay for the Army to strip him of his right to join THEIR community because of drug abuse, but the others will just have to take their chances?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've lost track of exactly what it is you want to do, M14. Unfettered use of your guns as you see fit?

Peraos you shoud pay better attention.
Under this topic, my 'issue' is clear:
Simply telling a federal official that you have committed a crime does not constitue suffcinet due process to allow for the permanent disablement of a fundamental right.

I still don't understand if the Army disqualified him from service, and they apparently did so because they believe Loughner would be unfit because of drug use, why that's not good enough for other government agencies to deny him ownership of a gun for the same reason.

Because owning a gun in a fudamental right. As such, only people --convicted of a felony-- may have theit right removed, just like their right to vote. Telling a federal official that you used drugs is not a felony convicion.

Do you understand what 'due process' means? Under your argument, anyone doing what he did could also then lose his right to vote and be tossed in jail.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK. SO you see the words "fundamental" and "rights" and assume the Supreme COurt held what you think they held.
THey did not.

Sure they did. Read what they wrote.
They spent 12 pages supporting the argument that the right to arms is a fundamental right.

THey did not extend to 2A protection the same protections as 1A or voting rights as "fundamental" in the technical sense.
The opinion itself backs this up:

No, it doesn't.
Everythnig you quoted applies to -all- rights - that no right is unlumited, that all rights have restrctions, especially those on time, place and manner, and tthat not everyone posses that right. These words apply to the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to an abortion, the right to travel - they apply to -all- fundamental rights. That they noted that the right to arms is not unlimited in no way supports the idea that it is not entitled to the same protections as al other constitutionally-protected fundamental rights as ALL rights are similarly limited.

Further, from Heller:

Please note specifically the restrctions that were rejected under ANY standard of scrutiny:
- Banning a class of weapons in common use for legal purposes
- A restriction that renders a weapon useless (with as little as a trigger lock) for the purpose of self-defense
Any similar restriction would then, unquestionably, also be struck.

More, from Heller:

Justice Breyer correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144 , n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments…”). If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect

This throws rational basis out the widnow, and puts the right to arms on the same level as freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, and the right to counsel.

So... there's no support here (or anywhere) for the argument that the 2nd is not a fundamental right, and that it is not entitled to the protection of strict scrutiny.

McDonald did not change the basic framework of the law, that legislatures may pass laws that restrict ownership of firearms in some way or other.

No one questions that ANY right can be restrcited - the question is, to what degree can laws constitutionally restrict the right in question. This is determimed by the relevant standard of scrutiny; fundamental rights protected by the Constitution enjoy the protection of strict scrutiny.

And.. AGAIN....
I see that you cannot actually --counter-- what I said.
Rights are rights - if (x) is sufficent due process to deprive you of one, it is sufficient to deprive you of any.
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

There is no statement, none whatsoever, in McDonald that extends the standard of strict scrutiny to firearms. Merely saying "look at the opinion" doesn't cut it. You would have to provide exact verbiage. And you cannot because it does not exist, except in your head.
I do not need to counter what you say except to point out it is an example of a slippery slope fallacy. That is all the counter-argument needed.
You are dead wrong on this issue. Sorry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no statement, none whatsoever, in McDonald that extends the standard of strict scrutiny to firearms.

You are not payting attention.

The reference to McDonald was the argument that the right to arms is a fundamental right.

The quotes from Heller speaks to that, as well as the proper level of scrutiny to apply to that right.

So... there's no support in anyting you posted (or anywhere else, for that matter) for the argument that the right to arms is not a fundamental right, and that it is not entitled to the protection of strict scrutiny.

That is:
I have shown that am right; we both know you cannot show otherwise.

STILL waiting for you to asnwer this question:
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient due process to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

 

[keee keee]

Senator Schumer is always looking for strange and unusual ways to rape the 2nd Amendment:

WASHINGTON -- If someone admits to a federal official that he's used illegal drugs, that information should be sent to the FBI so that person can be disqualified from purchasing a gun, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Sunday

Schumer Pushes for Military to Report Applicants' Drug Use to Prevent Gun Purchases - FoxNews.com

Way to never let a tragedy go to waste, Chuck!

Asie from the fact that there's no law to this effect - no court anywhere will uphold this as 'due process'.

Just another attempted end run around the constitution.

being a liberal should keep you holdingfor any government office.

 

[keee keee]

paying no taxes=no vote
illegal alien=no vote go back to where you came!!!!

 

[The Rabbi]

There is no statement, none whatsoever, in McDonald that extends the standard of strict scrutiny to firearms.

You are not payting attention.

The reference to McDonald was the argument that the right to arms is a fundamental right.

The quotes from Heller speaks to that, as well as the proper level of scrutiny to apply to that right.

So... there's no support in anyting you posted (or anywhere else, for that matter) for the argument that the right to arms is not a fundamental right, and that it is not entitled to the protection of strict scrutiny.

That is:
I have shown that am right; we both know you cannot show otherwise.

STILL waiting for you to asnwer this question:
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient due process to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

You have not shown anything of the sort. You need to either post explicit language fro the decision or STFU.
If you go to a police station and confess to a murder you will find your rights removed very quickly. It is not a matter of adjudicating a claim: in this case you admitted you are a prohibited person. Thus you are prohibited. Even if you never spoke to a governmetn official in your life and you truthfully answered "Yes" to 11e then you cannot ever buy a gun.
This isn't rocket science.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no statement, none whatsoever, in McDonald that extends the standard of strict scrutiny to firearms.

You are not payting attention.

The reference to McDonald was the argument that the right to arms is a fundamental right.

The quotes from Heller speaks to that, as well as the proper level of scrutiny to apply to that right.

So... there's no support in anyting you posted (or anywhere else, for that matter) for the argument that the right to arms is not a fundamental right, and that it is not entitled to the protection of strict scrutiny.

That is:
I have shown that am right; we both know you cannot show otherwise.

STILL waiting for you to asnwer this question:
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient due process to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

You have not shown anything of the sort. You need to either post explicit language fro the decision or STFU.

I have quoted -more- than enough to make my case; so far all you'be done is put your hands over your ears and yelled "Nuh uh! Nuh uhhhHHH!!" as loud as you can.
You can either provide something to refute my argument, or, well, STFU.

To wit:
-Since you refuse to believe that the right to arms is a constituionally protected fundamental right - even though the court says exactly rhat -- what then is it?
Please be sure to provide the necessary citations.

-Since you refuse to believe that the right to arms, as a constituionally protected fundamental right, enjoys the protection of strict scrutiny -even though the court puts thr right to arms on the same level as all the other constitutionally proteted fundamental rights which enjoy that protectuion- then what standard of protection does it enjoy?
Please be sure to provide the necessary citations.

If you go to a police station and confess to a murder you will find your rights removed very quickly.

No... You will find our rights removed ONLY after the due process of a trial. Schumer's suggestion completely removes that due process.
I have to wonder -- did you pass civics 101?

And... I am STILL waiting for you to asnwer this question:
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient due process to put you in jail and/or forever remove your right to vote?

 

[The Rabbi]

Restating what you've already stated without support is just twisting in the wind.
Firearm rights are rights, they are not "fundamental" rights requiring strict scrutiny. It is a big distinction, one you have failed to grasp.
I have already explained why someone who is a habitual user of drugs is prohibited, regardless of any judicial proceeding.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Restating what you've already stated without support is just twisting in the wind.

Your inability to refute what I said means that what I said stands.
:shrug:

Firearm rights are rights, they are not "fundamental" rights requiring strict scrutiny.

Cite?
Please be sure to show how that cite explains away the language from the court that says -exactly- the opposite.

Also, you'll need to describe exactly what leve of scrutiny -does- apply.
Please be sure to include citations.

I have already explained why someone who is a habitual user of drugs is prohibited, regardless of any judicial proceeding.

I see that the answer to my question is no, you have NOT passed civics 101.

 

[The Rabbi]

Restating what you've already stated without support is just twisting in the wind.

Your inability to refute what I said means that what I said stands.
:shrug:

Firearm rights are rights, they are not "fundamental" rights requiring strict scrutiny.

Cite?
Please be sure to show how that cite explains away the language from the court that says -exactly- the opposite.

Also, you'll need to describe exactly what leve of scrutiny -does- apply.
Please be sure to include citations.

I have already explained why someone who is a habitual user of drugs is prohibited, regardless of any judicial proceeding.

I see that the answer to my question is no, you have NOT passed civics 101.

Well, I'm sick of arguing with a moron. So here is Eugene Volokh making the argument for me. Note the holding:

“The court declines to apply strict scrutiny, since … Heller did not expressly find firearm possession to be a fundamental right.” United States v. Jones, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2009)

McDonald v. City of Chicago and the Standard of Review for Gun Control Laws : SCOTUSblog

And let's just wrap this up:
Do you agree that a person who is a habitual user of, e.g. marijuana, is ineligible to buy a gun?
Because regardless of whether you agree or not, that is the case. Note that no judicial proceeding was necessary here. The mere fact of the matter is enough to prohibit,based on the GCA 1968. Similarly this proposal simply extends that idea. The very fact of the habit renders the person prohibited.

 

[martybegan]

I've lost track of exactly what it is you want to do, M14. Unfettered use of your guns as you see fit?

Peraos you shoud pay better attention.
Under this topic, my 'issue' is clear:
Simply telling a federal official that you have committed a crime does not constitue suffcinet due process to allow for the permanent disablement of a fundamental right.

I still don't understand if the Army disqualified him from service, and they apparently did so because they believe Loughner would be unfit because of drug use, why that's not good enough for other government agencies to deny him ownership of a gun for the same reason.

Are you saying it's okay for the Army to strip him of his right to join THEIR community because of drug abuse, but the others will just have to take their chances?

The issue shooter finds with that (and with which I agree) is that using something like the army denying you entry to deny you the right to buy a firearm contains no due process, which in our system means a judical authority has had the ability to rule on you in a given situation. This could be a conviction, a restraining order, or even a commitment ruling against you.

Once this happens the mechanism to deny you your right to certain things (freedom, gun ownership, publication) is in place, and you certain penalites, such as incarceration in the case of a crime, can be implemented against you.

Just having your name go on some "black book" due to a non judicial action against you is a slippery slope indeed.

 

[martybegan]

Restating what you've already stated without support is just twisting in the wind.

Your inability to refute what I said means that what I said stands.
:shrug:


Cite?
Please be sure to show how that cite explains away the language from the court that says -exactly- the opposite.

Also, you'll need to describe exactly what leve of scrutiny -does- apply.
Please be sure to include citations.


I see that the answer to my question is no, you have NOT passed civics 101.

Well, I'm sick of arguing with a moron. So here is Eugene Volokh making the argument for me. Note the holding:

“The court declines to apply strict scrutiny, since … Heller did not expressly find firearm possession to be a fundamental right.”); United States v. Jones, 673 F. Supp. 2d 1347 (N.D. Ga. 2009)

McDonald v. City of Chicago and the Standard of Review for Gun Control Laws : SCOTUSblog

And let's just wrap this up:
Do you agree that a person who is a habitual user of, e.g. marijuana, is ineligible to buy a gun?
Because regardless of whether you agree or not, that is the case. Note that no judicial proceeding was necessary here. The mere fact of the matter is enough to prohibit,based on the GCA 1968. Similarly this proposal simply extends that idea. The very fact of the habit renders the person prohibited.

I think that shooters point is that if this is the case, it shouldnt be. The only way to ban a person from buying a gun should be the same mechanism you use to jail/commit/penalize them, judicual due process.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, lots of things should be the case.
But that isn't so here. The GCA laid out who is prohibited from purchasing, ipso facto. Pretending that that somehow means people can be incarcerated for nothing is simply false and misleading. They are completely different.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I'm sick of arguing with a moron.

And I, a petulant pre-pubescent that has not the capability to make an argument for himself and either cannot comprehend the issues put to him or is unwilling to do so.


From your source, regarding Heller

A. The incorporation precedents under the Due Process Clause generally hold that the Fourteenth Amendment applies against the states those rights that are “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice.” The plurality held that the Second Amendment is incorporated by concluding that the right is indeed fundamental; and Justice Thomas’s concurrence also referred to the right as fundamental.
...
McDonald’s conclusion that the right is fundamental might change this, and might lead courts to apply strict scrutiny rather than intermediate scrutiny

Now, after stating this, what else is there to say? Nothing.

And let's just wrap this up:

Yes, at this point, if I were you, I'd want to run and hide as well.

Do you agree that a person who is a habitual user of, e.g. marijuana, is ineligible to buy a gun?

If so convicted, yes.
The point you fail to see is that for this plenary and irrevocable restricton to take hold, there must be a conviction to that effect, as per the due process clause of the 5th amendment. Why you fail to see this is so far beyond reason that the only reaonable conclusion is that you have willfully chosen to do so.

 

[The Rabbi]

Do you agree that a person who is a habitual user of, e.g. marijuana, is ineligible to buy a gun?

If so convicted, yes.
The point you fail to see is that for this plenary and irrevocable restricton to take hold, there must be a conviction to that effect, as per the dur process clause of the 5th amendment. Why you fail to see this is so far beyond reason that the only reaonable conclusion is that you have willfully chosen to do so.

No, not if convicted. Conviction has nothing to do with it. Trial has nothing to do with it. The question simply asks, are you an unlawful user of marijuana? If you are an unlawful user of marijuana then you must answer Yes and you are prohibited from purchasing. Period.
Nothing simpler here.
And if you do not believe Eugene Volokh then I can't help you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, not if convicted. Conviction has nothing to do with it. Trial has nothing to do with it. The question simply asks, are you an unlawful user of marijuana? If you are an unlawful user of marijuana then you must answer Yes and you are prohibited from purchasing. Period.
Nothing simpler here.

:shrug:
As I said:
Your failure to see this is so far beyond reason that the only reaonable conclusion is that you have willfully chosen to do so.

Given that, there's no reason whatsoever to give you any further consideration.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, not if convicted. Conviction has nothing to do with it. Trial has nothing to do with it. The question simply asks, are you an unlawful user of marijuana? If you are an unlawful user of marijuana then you must answer Yes and you are prohibited from purchasing. Period.
Nothing simpler here.

:shrug:
As I said:
Your failure to see this is so far beyond reason that the only reaonable conclusion is that you have willfully chosen to do so.

Given that, there's no reason whatsoever to give you any further consideration.

Translation: You are right on all the facts but darn it I want it my way.
Simple question: If someone is an unlawful user of marijuana may he purchase a firearm?