Best quotes from the Heller case that make Gun Grabbers go total Levithan on you

[The2ndAmendment]

Thank you for proving my points Rabbi and 2nd amendment.

Notice that [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] has totally disregarded the OP and hasn't discussed any of the quotes.

He's gone totally Leviathan on us!

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "Why are you afraid of guns?" and "gone totally Leviathan"

The "Leviathan" and the "fear" is the monsters the right has fabricated...Obama, Democrats and the Federal government.

What citizens need to understand about District of Columbia v. Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Why don't you discuss the quotes mentioned?

The ones that you've mentioned aren't contested by any sane person.

 

[Bfgrn]

Notice that [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] has totally disregarded the OP and hasn't discussed any of the quotes.

He's gone totally Leviathan on us!

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "Why are you afraid of guns?" and "gone totally Leviathan"

The "Leviathan" and the "fear" is the monsters the right has fabricated...Obama, Democrats and the Federal government.

What citizens need to understand about District of Columbia v. Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Why don't you discuss the quotes mentioned?

The ones that you've mentioned aren't contested by any sane person.

True and FALSE.

#1 is NOT being contested by liberals, Obama and Democrats.

#2 IS being contested by psychotic, fear infested people like YOU.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think one problem the left has regarding guns is that they do not like the concept of freedom and, especially, liberty. They despise our founding fathers and the constitution because it goes against their innate need to control. Their mindset was the very thing our forefathers escaped from and the constitution was written the way it was to prevent these kind of people from oppressing the people. Our founders understood well how a tyrannical government could make people lives miserable. They were all about the people and wanted a country where people lived free without dictators causing people to live in fear.

The left has no respect for gun owners or their ability to protect themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

The left sympathizes with criminals while holding decent gun owners in contempt.

Those gangs and other thugs roaming our streets know nothing about patriotism or what it means to live in a free society. They are a lot like dictators, who do as they please and harm anyone who gets in their way. Funny, that the left refuses to discuss gang violence, let alone do anything about it. They find it easier to pick on the law abiding citizens. Free thinkers scare them more than gangs or terrorists.

The left will forever claim that gun control will make people safer, even though they outright ignore the real dangers, such as the gangs in Chicago and other big cities who will not be the least bit deterred by yet another law.

It's never been about making our streets safer. With liberals, it's all about the big picture, which in their case means changing this country from a free capitalist country into a socialist country with a controlling government. The intelligent people know it would be a disaster to disarm the people and to take away more freedom and liberty. The liberals believe that some sort of utopia will be found by forcing people to live the way they see fit. Liberals are the least tolerant among us. They claim to be all about choice, but only if they approve of that choice. We are being smothered with ridiculous laws, from not being able to catch rain water to what kind of toilets we should have in our homes. The more laws they create, the better the odds that virtually everyone is bound to break at least one. There is no better way to go after political enemies than arresting them for breaking some idiotic law.

The gun control is all about disarming the people. Sure, they denied it at first, but at the same time were making claims that only a well regulated militia could own guns and they attempted to re-define things in order to make their point that no one outside of military, police or government militia should have a gun. They would like to take away the only means the people have of preventing a tyrannical government from ruling over us with an iron fist. That is their dream. Of course, there would be no more elections because they would never want their opposition to have the same power they would grant themselves.

While other countries are realizing what a horrible nightmare socialism and communism are, we have politicians anxious to go down that road. It's only appealing to those who will rule, but a true nightmare for those who will be ruled.

This is a perfect example of just how deep the psychosis (an abnormal condition of the mind, often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality") is on the right.

It also proves that conservatism is based on a single pure emotion...FEAR.

No common sense laws can be discussed with these psychotic, fear infested people. No brainer laws like closing the gun show loophole that allows unscrupulous gun dealers to hide behind a exception that was designed to allow uncle Joe to sell his hunting rifle to his nephew, has allowed these unscrupulous gun dealers to move thousands of weapons, and provides felons a safe haven where they can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon they choose.

This gun debate has exposed these sick Americans. They are way past any treatment. They are a cancer on our country.

Translation: "Having no facts to refute anything posted, I will attempt to distract by flinging feces."

 

[Bfgrn]

I think one problem the left has regarding guns is that they do not like the concept of freedom and, especially, liberty. They despise our founding fathers and the constitution because it goes against their innate need to control. Their mindset was the very thing our forefathers escaped from and the constitution was written the way it was to prevent these kind of people from oppressing the people. Our founders understood well how a tyrannical government could make people lives miserable. They were all about the people and wanted a country where people lived free without dictators causing people to live in fear.

The left has no respect for gun owners or their ability to protect themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

The left sympathizes with criminals while holding decent gun owners in contempt.

Those gangs and other thugs roaming our streets know nothing about patriotism or what it means to live in a free society. They are a lot like dictators, who do as they please and harm anyone who gets in their way. Funny, that the left refuses to discuss gang violence, let alone do anything about it. They find it easier to pick on the law abiding citizens. Free thinkers scare them more than gangs or terrorists.

The left will forever claim that gun control will make people safer, even though they outright ignore the real dangers, such as the gangs in Chicago and other big cities who will not be the least bit deterred by yet another law.

It's never been about making our streets safer. With liberals, it's all about the big picture, which in their case means changing this country from a free capitalist country into a socialist country with a controlling government. The intelligent people know it would be a disaster to disarm the people and to take away more freedom and liberty. The liberals believe that some sort of utopia will be found by forcing people to live the way they see fit. Liberals are the least tolerant among us. They claim to be all about choice, but only if they approve of that choice. We are being smothered with ridiculous laws, from not being able to catch rain water to what kind of toilets we should have in our homes. The more laws they create, the better the odds that virtually everyone is bound to break at least one. There is no better way to go after political enemies than arresting them for breaking some idiotic law.

The gun control is all about disarming the people. Sure, they denied it at first, but at the same time were making claims that only a well regulated militia could own guns and they attempted to re-define things in order to make their point that no one outside of military, police or government militia should have a gun. They would like to take away the only means the people have of preventing a tyrannical government from ruling over us with an iron fist. That is their dream. Of course, there would be no more elections because they would never want their opposition to have the same power they would grant themselves.

While other countries are realizing what a horrible nightmare socialism and communism are, we have politicians anxious to go down that road. It's only appealing to those who will rule, but a true nightmare for those who will be ruled.

This is a perfect example of just how deep the psychosis (an abnormal condition of the mind, often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality") is on the right.

It also proves that conservatism is based on a single pure emotion...FEAR.

No common sense laws can be discussed with these psychotic, fear infested people. No brainer laws like closing the gun show loophole that allows unscrupulous gun dealers to hide behind a exception that was designed to allow uncle Joe to sell his hunting rifle to his nephew, has allowed these unscrupulous gun dealers to move thousands of weapons, and provides felons a safe haven where they can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon they choose.

This gun debate has exposed these sick Americans. They are way past any treatment. They are a cancer on our country.

Translation: "Having no facts to refute anything posted, I will attempt to distract by flinging feces."

There is PLENTY of evidence on this board since the Newtown tragedy.

I will be happy to debate you, if you are truly interested in discussing common sense gun laws that need to be passed.

 

[birddog]

This is a perfect example of just how deep the psychosis (an abnormal condition of the mind, often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality") is on the right.

It also proves that conservatism is based on a single pure emotion...FEAR.

No common sense laws can be discussed with these psychotic, fear infested people. No brainer laws like closing the gun show loophole that allows unscrupulous gun dealers to hide behind a exception that was designed to allow uncle Joe to sell his hunting rifle to his nephew, has allowed these unscrupulous gun dealers to move thousands of weapons, and provides felons a safe haven where they can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon they choose.

This gun debate has exposed these sick Americans. They are way past any treatment. They are a cancer on our country.

Translation: "Having no facts to refute anything posted, I will attempt to distract by flinging feces."

There is PLENTY of evidence on this board since the Newtown tragedy.

I will be happy to debate you, if you are truly interested in discussing common sense gun laws that need to be passed.

We have more laws than we need now SFBs! You and the truth are far apart.

 

[Bfgrn]

Translation: "Having no facts to refute anything posted, I will attempt to distract by flinging feces."

There is PLENTY of evidence on this board since the Newtown tragedy.

I will be happy to debate you, if you are truly interested in discussing common sense gun laws that need to be passed.

We have more laws than we need now SFBs! You and the truth are far apart.

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "We have more laws than we need now"

 

[Jarlaxle]

Again: you have no facts whatsoever, so you instead appeal to emotion and engage in personal attacks.

I accept your concession.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again: you have no facts whatsoever, so you instead appeal to emotion and engage in personal attacks.

I accept your concession.

The only concession is on your part.

Care to debate the gun show loophole? No, FIRST...will you even acknowledge it exists?

 

[JoeB131]

Heller is a 5-4 "Opinion".

Which means half the court didn't agree with this bizare intrpretation.

And Scalia can't live forever.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Again: you have no facts whatsoever, so you instead appeal to emotion and engage in personal attacks.

I accept your concession.

The only concession is on your part.

Care to debate the gun show loophole? No, FIRST...will you even acknowledge it exists?

It doesn't, and we both know that. Claiming it does can only be called a LIE. The laws for sales at gun shows are EXACTLY the same as for sales anywhere else.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again: you have no facts whatsoever, so you instead appeal to emotion and engage in personal attacks.

I accept your concession.

The only concession is on your part.

Care to debate the gun show loophole? No, FIRST...will you even acknowledge it exists?

It doesn't, and we both know that. Claiming it does can only be called a LIE. The laws for sales at gun shows are EXACTLY the same as for sales anywhere else.

It DOES exist. Denial is the tool of the psychotic. The LIE is that there is not a loophole that allows gun dealers to POSE as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing background checks.

New York City sent investigators with hidden cameras to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what investigators found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg[/ame]

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be “occasional sellers” are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an “occasional seller” – it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not “engaged in the business” of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Here is some info on the loophole...

What is the gun show loophole?

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.

• Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.
  

• The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks – and there’s no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]

• Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.

...........*ATF concluded that “gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”[iii]

• Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting: In March 2010, John Bedell – who was prohibited by law from possessing guns – shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.

• Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution: Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The only concession is on your part.

Care to debate the gun show loophole? No, FIRST...will you even acknowledge it exists?

It doesn't, and we both know that. Claiming it does can only be called a LIE. The laws for sales at gun shows are EXACTLY the same as for sales anywhere else.

It DOES exist. Denial is the tool of the psychotic. The LIE is that there is not a loophole that allows gun dealers to POSE as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing background checks.

New York City sent investigators with hidden cameras to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what investigators found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg[/ame]

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be “occasional sellers” are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an “occasional seller” – it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not “engaged in the business” of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Here is some info on the loophole...

What is the gun show loophole?

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.

• Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.
  

• The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks – and there’s no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]

• Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.

...........*ATF concluded that “gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”[iii]

• Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting: In March 2010, John Bedell – who was prohibited by law from possessing guns – shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.

• Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution: Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks.

The LIE is that there is not a loophole that allows gun dealers to POSE as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two,

bs why would they want to

why would they jeopardize their business

when legal gun buyers are knocking their doors down

to buy a firearm and or ammo

 

[zeke]

I think one problem the left has regarding guns is that they do not like the concept of freedom and, especially, liberty. They despise our founding fathers and the constitution because it goes against their innate need to control. Their mindset was the very thing our forefathers escaped from and the constitution was written the way it was to prevent these kind of people from oppressing the people. Our founders understood well how a tyrannical government could make people lives miserable. They were all about the people and wanted a country where people lived free without dictators causing people to live in fear.

The left has no respect for gun owners or their ability to protect themselves from criminals or a tyrannical government.

The left sympathizes with criminals while holding decent gun owners in contempt.

Those gangs and other thugs roaming our streets know nothing about patriotism or what it means to live in a free society. They are a lot like dictators, who do as they please and harm anyone who gets in their way. Funny, that the left refuses to discuss gang violence, let alone do anything about it. They find it easier to pick on the law abiding citizens. Free thinkers scare them more than gangs or terrorists.

The left will forever claim that gun control will make people safer, even though they outright ignore the real dangers, such as the gangs in Chicago and other big cities who will not be the least bit deterred by yet another law.

It's never been about making our streets safer. With liberals, it's all about the big picture, which in their case means changing this country from a free capitalist country into a socialist country with a controlling government. The intelligent people know it would be a disaster to disarm the people and to take away more freedom and liberty. The liberals believe that some sort of utopia will be found by forcing people to live the way they see fit. Liberals are the least tolerant among us. They claim to be all about choice, but only if they approve of that choice. We are being smothered with ridiculous laws, from not being able to catch rain water to what kind of toilets we should have in our homes. The more laws they create, the better the odds that virtually everyone is bound to break at least one. There is no better way to go after political enemies than arresting them for breaking some idiotic law.

The gun control is all about disarming the people. Sure, they denied it at first, but at the same time were making claims that only a well regulated militia could own guns and they attempted to re-define things in order to make their point that no one outside of military, police or government militia should have a gun. They would like to take away the only means the people have of preventing a tyrannical government from ruling over us with an iron fist. That is their dream. Of course, there would be no more elections because they would never want their opposition to have the same power they would grant themselves.

While other countries are realizing what a horrible nightmare socialism and communism are, we have politicians anxious to go down that road. It's only appealing to those who will rule, but a true nightmare for those who will be ruled.

This is a perfect example of just how deep the psychosis (an abnormal condition of the mind, often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality") is on the right.

It also proves that conservatism is based on a single pure emotion...FEAR.

No common sense laws can be discussed with these psychotic, fear infested people. No brainer laws like closing the gun show loophole that allows unscrupulous gun dealers to hide behind a exception that was designed to allow uncle Joe to sell his hunting rifle to his nephew, has allowed these unscrupulous gun dealers to move thousands of weapons, and provides felons a safe haven where they can walk into a gun show and buy any weapon they choose.

This gun debate has exposed these sick Americans. They are way past any treatment. They are a cancer on our country.

The above is worth repeating. Unfortunately the ones that need to read it and understand what is being said, will be clueless as to what it is that most people want in the way of gun safety.

Ah well.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It doesn't, and we both know that. Claiming it does can only be called a LIE. The laws for sales at gun shows are EXACTLY the same as for sales anywhere else.

It DOES exist. Denial is the tool of the psychotic. The LIE is that there is not a loophole that allows gun dealers to POSE as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing background checks.

New York City sent investigators with hidden cameras to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what investigators found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg[/ame]

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be “occasional sellers” are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an “occasional seller” – it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not “engaged in the business” of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Here is some info on the loophole...

What is the gun show loophole?

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.

• Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.
  

• The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks – and there’s no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]

• Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.

...........*ATF concluded that “gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”[iii]

• Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting: In March 2010, John Bedell – who was prohibited by law from possessing guns – shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.

• Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution: Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks.

The LIE is that there is not a loophole that allows gun dealers to POSE as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two,

bs why would they want to

why would they jeopardize their business

when legal gun buyers are knocking their doors down

to buy a firearm and or ammo

Because that would destroy his argument...and he knows it! News flash: crooks engage in illegal activities!

Once more, for the slow kids: The laws for sales at gun shows are EXACTLY the same as for sales anywhere else.

 

[Abatis]

Best quotes from the Heller case that make Gun Grabbers go total Levithan on you . . .

I must begin by saying that your page numbering is confusing; it does not correlate with the pdf you linked to. The quotes cited to page 68 and above are from Steven's dissent and stand in opposition to the opinion of the Court.

As far as what liberals ignore, misconstrue, dismiss and completely miss from Heller, that accounting would be very long.

It begins with a belief that Heller broke new ground or deviates from or reworked previous SCOTUS opinion on the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate and distinct things).

That initial self-imposed handicap begets their belief that Heller is a stand-alone "activist decision" that redefined the Court's opinion on the RKBA/2ndA and that previous statements from the Court have been wiped from the slate. An often heard claim is that Heller ignored and discarded 70+/- years of "precedent" to arrive at this "first ever finding of an individual right in the 2nd Amendment" . . .

Of course the only "precedent" Heller invalidated were the "state's right" and "militia right" interpretations that were invented in the federal court system in 1942 by LOWER 1st and 3rd Circuit decisions (Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942)). It shouldn't need to be said but I guess it must, Circuit and District courts do not establish precedent for SCOTUS.

I am surprised that you omitted what I believe to be the most important quote from the opinion of the Court. This statement should have been the foundation of the opinion as it forces the holding that invalidated the DC statutes.

From page 19 of the pdf you linked to:

"t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

That destroys the arguments of liberal statist authoritarians and the Heller dissents because for going on 140 years SCOTUS has re-re-re-affirmed the principles that a), the right of the people to keep and bear arms includes the right to be armed for self defense, b), the right is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2ndA so it is not in any manner dependent upon what the Constitution says (or doesn't say) to exist and c), if one was to draw any definitive imperative/command from a reading of the 2nd Amendment, that could only be that the pre-existing, never surrendered, fully retained right shall not be infringed.

That statement tells us with no equivocation that all the liberal misconstructions of the 2nd Amendment that create conditions and qualifications on the right and that invent powers for government to dictate to private citizens as to the possession and use of their private arms, are illegitimate and invalid.

 

[Bfgrn]

It DOES exist. Denial is the tool of the psychotic. The LIE is that there is not a loophole that allows gun dealers to POSE as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two, and circumvent doing background checks.

New York City sent investigators with hidden cameras to seven gun shows across Ohio, Tennessee and Nevada, and found out just how easy it is for criminals and the mentally ill to walk in and buy guns -- no questions asked.

Investigators told the private sellers that they "probably couldn't pass a background check" -- and at that point, the seller should have sent them away. Because even private sellers are prohibited by federal law from selling to those who they have reason to suspect could not pass a background check.

Instead, 19 out of 30 private sellers made the sale.

These so-called private sellers are supposed to be making only occasional sales. According to federal law, they cannot be "engaged in the business" of selling firearms. But that's exactly what investigators found. They found private sellers with large inventories doing a brisk business. In fact, one private seller acknowledged selling 348 guns in less than a year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQEDvqmAfqg

FACT: Gun sellers who claim to be “occasional sellers” are not required by current federal law to conduct background checks on their customers. Furthermore, there is no clear definition of how many guns a person can sell as an “occasional seller” – it could be dozens, or even hundreds.

The Firearm Owners' Protection Act (FOPA) states: 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)(D), (22). Those not “engaged in the business” of dealing guns are exempt from the licensure requirement.

So, closing the gun show loophole would not punish any law abiding gun owner.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

Here is some info on the loophole...

What is the gun show loophole?

Federal law allows people who sell guns to avoid running background checks or keeping records by calling themselves occasional sellers, and these sellers often congregate at gun shows. The loophole provides criminals with easy access to firearms without having to worry about any background checks.

• Current law requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, because that is the only way to determine whether a person is eligible to buy a gun. Licensed dealers must also keep records about the buyer so ATF can trace the gun if it is recovered at a crime scene.
  

• The law does not, however, require so-called occasional sellers to do these checks – and there’s no clear definition of what qualifies as an occasional seller.[ii]

• Many sellers at gun shows abuse that loophole by calling themselves occasional sellers. Because they concentrate at gun shows, it is easy for felons and other prohibited possessors to find someone who will sell to them without a background check.

...........*ATF concluded that “gun shows and flea markets are a major venue for illegal trafficking.”[iii]

• Gun shows linked to the Pentagon Shooting: In March 2010, John Bedell – who was prohibited by law from possessing guns – shot two Pentagon police officers with a gun purchased from a private seller at a Las Vegas gun show.

• Gun shows were tied to a broad range of violations, including straw purchases and the sale of kits to convert legal guns into illegal machine guns.

Solution: Require occasional sellers to run instant background checks.

The LIE is that there is not a loophole that allows gun dealers to POSE as little uncle Joe selling a gun or two,

bs why would they want to

why would they jeopardize their business

when legal gun buyers are knocking their doors down

to buy a firearm and or ammo

Because that would destroy his argument...and he knows it! News flash: crooks engage in illegal activities!

Once more, for the slow kids: The laws for sales at gun shows are EXACTLY the same as for sales anywhere else.

They don't get any more conservative than Pat Toomey. He understands the gun show loophole, WHY are you denying it exists? Denial is the tool of the psychotic.


Sen. Toomey Brokers Deal to Close Gun Show Loophole


Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey is at the forefront of a bipartisan deal to expand background checks on gun sales. The amendment Toomey crafted with West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin would extend the instant background checks to gun shows and online gun sales. Exemptions would remain for many individuals’ gun sales.

While he’s already catching flak from some fellow Republicans and the NRA, Toomey says he is not swaying from his conservative views. “I don’t think trying to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals is gun control,” Toomey told reporters on a late morning conference call. “I think it’s common sense.”

Pat Toomey (R-PA)

When the gun bill before the US Senate is formally considered, the Toomey/Manchin background check plan will be the first amendment taken up by the chamber. However, it’s still unclear what will ultimately happen with the underlying bill or the amendment.

pamatters.com ? Sen. Toomey Brokers Deal to Close Gun Show Loophole

 

[The Rabbi]

Thank you for proving my points Rabbi and 2nd amendment.

Notice that [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] has totally disregarded the OP and hasn't discussed any of the quotes.

He's gone totally Leviathan on us!

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "Why are you afraid of guns?" and "gone totally Leviathan"

The "Leviathan" and the "fear" is the monsters the right has fabricated...Obama, Democrats and the Federal government.

What citizens need to understand about District of Columbia v. Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

No, "common sense" tells you that if 50 years of gun control doesn't work then why do you want to continue and expand it? "Common sense" tells you that with over 100M guns in the U.S. it is impossible to control any of them. "Common sense" tells you that criminals do not obey gun laws, or any other, therefore they fall on the law abiding--the very people who ought to own guns.
These are "common sense" statements and facts. Why do you deny them? Are you insane?

 

[Bfgrn]

Notice that [MENTION=19018]Bfgrn[/MENTION] has totally disregarded the OP and hasn't discussed any of the quotes.

He's gone totally Leviathan on us!

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "Why are you afraid of guns?" and "gone totally Leviathan"

The "Leviathan" and the "fear" is the monsters the right has fabricated...Obama, Democrats and the Federal government.

What citizens need to understand about District of Columbia v. Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

No, "common sense" tells you that if 50 years of gun control doesn't work then why do you want to continue and expand it? "Common sense" tells you that with over 100M guns in the U.S. it is impossible to control any of them. "Common sense" tells you that criminals do not obey gun laws, or any other, therefore they fall on the law abiding--the very people who ought to own guns.
These are "common sense" statements and facts. Why do you deny them? Are you insane?

How to spot psychosis: "criminals do not obey gun laws, so, gun control doesn't work"

So if we follow your psychotic line of thinking, then there should be NO laws on ANYTHING.

What Is Psychosis? What Causes Psychosis?

Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for an abnormal sign or symptom that affects the mind, causing people to change the way they think, feel, perceive things, and behave. When a person suffers from psychosis they are not able to tell the difference between reality and what is in their imagination - a loss of contact with reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "Why are you afraid of guns?" and "gone totally Leviathan"

The "Leviathan" and the "fear" is the monsters the right has fabricated...Obama, Democrats and the Federal government.

What citizens need to understand about District of Columbia v. Heller:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

No, "common sense" tells you that if 50 years of gun control doesn't work then why do you want to continue and expand it? "Common sense" tells you that with over 100M guns in the U.S. it is impossible to control any of them. "Common sense" tells you that criminals do not obey gun laws, or any other, therefore they fall on the law abiding--the very people who ought to own guns.
These are "common sense" statements and facts. Why do you deny them? Are you insane?

How to spot psychosis: "criminals do not obey gun laws, so, gun control doesn't work"

So if we follow your psychotic line of thinking, then there should be NO laws on ANYTHING.

What Is Psychosis? What Causes Psychosis?

Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for an abnormal sign or symptom that affects the mind, causing people to change the way they think, feel, perceive things, and behave. When a person suffers from psychosis they are not able to tell the difference between reality and what is in their imagination - a loss of contact with reality.

You seem to be describing yourself. Unable to engage in rational discussion. Repeating the same thing over and over. Perhaps you need to be checked out?
As for your argument, the reason we outlaw murder, rape, etc is not necessarily to prevent them (although that's part of it) but to punish the perpetrator. Gun control is built on the wrong idea that we can prevent crime by restricting the tools. That is simply incorrect, as I've pointed out.

 

[Abatis]

Then you should know the OP needs to be reminded that context is important:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Context that you apparently miss if you think that passage (I note it is from the syllabus not the opinion) says that Heller endorses or makes any definitive statement regarding the actual constitutionality of gun control laws (beyond the DC statutes at issue).

Consequently, there is no such thing as a ‘gun grabber,’ as liberals have acknowledged Heller as settled and accepted law,

Thanks for the laugh . . .

For example, Federal law prohibiting owning machine guns and parts, as they meet Heller’s criteria concerning ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’ and are not subject to Second Amendment protection (United States v. Henry (9th Cir.))

Actually, if one were truly following the protection criteria established by SCOTUS, the legal determination of "dangerous" can not be applied to machine guns simply because of their rate of fire.

The multi-pronged test for 2nd Amendment protection demands an examination of the "type" of arm at issue, to determine if it is of the type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

Scalia recognizes that facially, applying this criteria to machine guns, "would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939".

At best Henry's "dangerous" finding is spurious and suspect and the finding of "unusual" even more so but admittedly understandable without further exposition from SCOTUS on the actual constitutionality of the machine gun restrictions of NFA-34 and the closure of the registry by act of Congress in 1986 (FOPA).

To simply hold that machine guns are "unusual" because a law restricting their "common use" has been in force for some time, without a definitive examination of that law's constitutionality, is not a definitive, final statement.

laws requiring the safe storage of handguns and prohibiting the sale of unsafe ammunition ( Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal.)), and laws that require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to be denied a permit if they fail to meet a suitable person requirement (Hightower v. City of Boston (1st Cir.)).

Moreover, Federal and state courts have upheld as constitutional laws requiring permits and licenses to own a handgun, fees for these licenses, and applicants to be state residents. Also upheld are laws disallowing possession of a firearm to those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, possessing firearms in places of worship, public housing dwellings, college campuses and campus events.

And as usual, the real effect of Heller is unacknowledged (either out of ignorance or purposeful).

Heller was a substantial (but very limited) holding that brought 2nd Amendment jurisprudence back into the fold of prior SCOTUS decisions. In 1942 the lower federal courts went off the rails and introduced the "militia right" and "state's right" (and thus the generalized "collective right") interpretations of the 2nd Amendment into 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, the Heller decision only set that straight.

Those lower court decisions, U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and, Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942), birthed those theories in the federal court system and those "precedents" (which actually dismissed and ignored SCOTUS) had been used for 70 some odd years to uphold / affirm hundreds of federal, state and local gun laws contested on 2nd Amendment grounds.

Some existing laws, (like the, "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"), can be supported / affirmed / upheld without any referral to, or reliance on, Tot's or Cases' holding that the 2nd does not secure an individual right. There are though, hundreds if not thousands of gun laws which have been upheld / affirmed using ONLY those now invalid interpretations for support!

This has rendered many, many, many federal, state and local gun laws infirm and subject to easy attack.

So, read that paragraph you quoted and take from it what you will, but filter it through the opinion's footnote 26 which explains that: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

If Scalia is recognizing this limited list of regulatory measures as absolutely unassailable and permanent fixtures of law that render any claim of 2nd Amendment protection impotent, (as you seem to purport), why would he characterize them as only "presumptively lawful"?

Understand that those first couple examples of law probably enjoy the greatest claim of constitutional legitimacy out of say the thousands that constitute the diverse body of, "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

For now these mid-Twentith Century laws are all presumed to be lawful because none have been held to any scrutiny under a holding that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . . " When that happens and is applied to a lower federal decision like Hickman v Block, watch out.

Don't kid yourself, Scalia fully understands the infirmity that Heller is creating in a wide swath of existing federal, state and local gun law and it would serve you better if you didn't lie to yourself about it.

Understand too that as Scalia was writing those words he knew that Gura (lawyer for Dick Heller) would file McDonald in the 7th Circuit the day after Heller is published.

The OP is more interested in exhibiting his ignorance of the law than a serious discussion as to the meaning of Heller and the Second Amendment.

Be careful when you point and accuse, you might be looking in a mirror.