California Noticed That The Second Amendment Provides No Right To Ammunition

[Timmy]

Ever hear of stop n frisk ?

A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967).

Stop and frisk

It doesn't sound like they are setting a very high bar for "reasonable"

in

NEW YORK CITY

that was Timmy's argument, classic

T-I-M-M-Y ...

I admit the term "reasonable" is subjective, but it has been upheld by the highest court in the land.

Stop and frisk did in fact help lower crime in NYC and now that is has been repealed crime has increased.

It's still not legal without reasonable probable cause and if they don't have it any evidence can be tossed, just like any other search

Where did I say it was legal without reasonable suspicion? Oh, I didn't. As a matter of fact I explicitly stated " The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect".

Stop And Frisk Law & Legal Definition

Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a hunch.

A "frisk" by definition is a type of search that requires a lawful stop. It is best thought of as a separate act, but in practice, a suspect who refuses to answer questions in a stop may be providing the officer with sufficient justification to frisk. A frisk should not be for anything other than a dangerous weapon or contraband. However, if other evidence, like a suspected drug container, is felt, it can be seized by the officer under the "plain feel" doctrine. The test for plain feel is that the item's contraband nature be "immediately apparent".

Stop and Frisk Law & Legal Definition

It's considered "reasonable" to frisk because u are in a bad part of town.

The constitution changes depending on the neighborhood .

 

[kaz]

A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967).

Stop and frisk

It doesn't sound like they are setting a very high bar for "reasonable"

in

NEW YORK CITY

that was Timmy's argument, classic

T-I-M-M-Y ...

I admit the term "reasonable" is subjective, but it has been upheld by the highest court in the land.

Stop and frisk did in fact help lower crime in NYC and now that is has been repealed crime has increased.

It's still not legal without reasonable probable cause and if they don't have it any evidence can be tossed, just like any other search

Where did I say it was legal without reasonable suspicion? Oh, I didn't. As a matter of fact I explicitly stated " The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect".

Stop And Frisk Law & Legal Definition

Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a hunch.

A "frisk" by definition is a type of search that requires a lawful stop. It is best thought of as a separate act, but in practice, a suspect who refuses to answer questions in a stop may be providing the officer with sufficient justification to frisk. A frisk should not be for anything other than a dangerous weapon or contraband. However, if other evidence, like a suspected drug container, is felt, it can be seized by the officer under the "plain feel" doctrine. The test for plain feel is that the item's contraband nature be "immediately apparent".

Stop and Frisk Law & Legal Definition

It's considered "reasonable" to frisk because u are in a bad part of town.

The constitution changes depending on the neighborhood .

So you're thinking blue states have an issue following the Constitution? You could be right on that.

Is there at some point a point regarding my actual point?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The point is that serach n seizure has limits . U make it seem like the 2nd has no limitations . Like guns can be sold out of vending machines and no law could say different .

What gun law would you like to see?

I think guns should be treated like cars. Registered by the owner, if sold then a new "title" with the new owner .

I also like background checks .

Is that so bad? By 10 guns if u like , have a 20 round clip , I don't care . License to carry? Ok!


I think the above is a resonable compromise .

We already have background checks.

Guns are basically registered when purchased.

A bill of sale if the gun is sold privately should be sufficient.

Nothing you mentioned would do anything to decrease gun violence it only makes it more of a hindrance to law abiding citizens.

Private sales are a problem because the line of ownership is broken. U end up with straw purchases and the guns end up with bad people.

That is the big problem.

If a gun has an attached owner , that owner now is responsible when it ends up in a crime . They have explaining to do .

I see right now you have no idea what you are talking about.

Straw purchase is a criminal act in which a person who is prohibited from buying firearms uses another person to buy a gun on their behalf.

When a firearm is purchased a record is made, if the weapon is then sold, a bill of sale will record the transfer.

BTW I co-own a gun store.

 

[Lakhota]

The bottom line is that the Second Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time. As we already know - Conservatives and Liberals interpret it differently. The Second Amendment has been restricted in the past and will continue to be restricted in the future. The Constitution evolves.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

hey!!! There's no requirement to count votes in Democrat districts either!

OMFG!!!

You can vote as many times as you want, we just won't count them!!

Funny. Conservatives are really big on state issued voter ID for REGISTERED voters to fight non existent voter fraud.

sure change your tune when we talk guns .

Voter fraud non existent?

There Are Nearly 300 Cases of Voter Fraud in America

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

Don’t Think Voter Fraud Happens?

Republican National Lawyers Association | (RNLA)

North Carolina Identifies 36,000 Possible Voter Fraud Cases

A Federal Judge Searches for Voter Fraud in Wisconsin and Finds None

Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina

 

[kaz]

The bottom line is that the Second Amendment means whatever SCOTUS says it means at any given point in time. As we already know - Conservatives and Liberals interpret it differently. The Second Amendment has been restricted in the past and will continue to be restricted in the future. The Constitution evolves.

Yes, liberals interpret it as a suggestion, and a bad one at that.

Here's an idea, let's treat it as equal to other rights in the Bill of Rights, would that be a hoot?

 

[kaz]

Ever hear of stop n frisk ?

A brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspect. The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect. If the police reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous, they may conduct a frisk, a quick pat-down of the person’s outer clothing. See Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1967).

Stop and frisk

It doesn't sound like they are setting a very high bar for "reasonable"

in

NEW YORK CITY

that was Timmy's argument, classic

T-I-M-M-Y ...

I admit the term "reasonable" is subjective, but it has been upheld by the highest court in the land.

Stop and frisk did in fact help lower crime in NYC and now that is has been repealed crime has increased.

It's still not legal without reasonable probable cause and if they don't have it any evidence can be tossed, just like any other search

Where did I say it was legal without reasonable suspicion? Oh, I didn't. As a matter of fact I explicitly stated " The Fourth Amendment requires that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed before stopping a suspect".

Stop And Frisk Law & Legal Definition

Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a hunch.

A "frisk" by definition is a type of search that requires a lawful stop. It is best thought of as a separate act, but in practice, a suspect who refuses to answer questions in a stop may be providing the officer with sufficient justification to frisk. A frisk should not be for anything other than a dangerous weapon or contraband. However, if other evidence, like a suspected drug container, is felt, it can be seized by the officer under the "plain feel" doctrine. The test for plain feel is that the item's contraband nature be "immediately apparent".

Stop and Frisk Law & Legal Definition

OK, i'm not sure what our point of actual difference is

 

[kaz]

hey!!! There's no requirement to count votes in Democrat districts either!

OMFG!!!

You can vote as many times as you want, we just won't count them!!

Funny. Conservatives are really big on state issued voter ID for REGISTERED voters to fight non existent voter fraud.

sure change your tune when we talk guns .

Voter fraud non existent?

There Are Nearly 300 Cases of Voter Fraud in America

A comprehensive investigation of voter impersonation finds 31 credible incidents out of one billion ballots cast

Don’t Think Voter Fraud Happens?

Republican National Lawyers Association | (RNLA)

North Carolina Identifies 36,000 Possible Voter Fraud Cases

A Federal Judge Searches for Voter Fraud in Wisconsin and Finds None

Hundreds of cases of potential voter fraud uncovered in North Carolina

Voter fraud is only fraud when it helps Republicans

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The far left wants abortion....wants no compromise.

The far right wants total gun access....wants no compromise.

I love listening to the two of them squeal at each other about how wrong they are on each issue.

When, in many ways, it's really the same issue.

Perceived rights.

The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.

So is it really the same issue?

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

 

[kaz]

The far left wants abortion....wants no compromise.

The far right wants total gun access....wants no compromise.

I love listening to the two of them squeal at each other about how wrong they are on each issue.

When, in many ways, it's really the same issue.

Perceived rights.

The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.

So is it really the same issue?

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

You realize many of the State Constitutions were written before the 14th amendment?

 

[2aguy]

The point is that serach n seizure has limits . U make it seem like the 2nd has no limitations . Like guns can be sold out of vending machines and no law could say different .

What gun law would you like to see?

I think guns should be treated like cars. Registered by the owner, if sold then a new "title" with the new owner .

I also like background checks .

Is that so bad? By 10 guns if u like , have a 20 round clip , I don't care . License to carry? Ok!


I think the above is a resonable compromise .

Why do you want them registered...first, that would be unconstitutional, second, it doesn't do anything to stop illegal gun use, felons are not required to register illegal firearms, and last, registering guns does not help to solve crimes.

It is easy to know who a gun belongs to when they commit a crime with it.....no registration is needed.

Background checks...I will live with current background checks...how about that...universal background checks...unnecessary. First, criminals do not undergo background checks, only law abiding people do....so what is the point to them? Criminals get their guns by stealing them, getting them from people who passed the background check and sold or gave them the gun, or they get them from illegal sellers, other criminals or bad gun dealers...

At no point in any of those methods do background checks, or universal background checks keep them from getting a gun.

So the two things you have listed, registration of guns, and background checks.....do nothing to stop criminals from getting or using guns.....

Isn't that why you want them...to stop criminals from getting and using guns?

And if they don't stop either one...in any way....what is their purpose?

 

[2aguy]

hey!!! There's no requirement to count votes in Democrat districts either!

OMFG!!!

You can vote as many times as you want, we just won't count them!!

Funny. Conservatives are really big on state issued voter ID for REGISTERED voters to fight non existent voter fraud.

sure change your tune when we talk guns .

Nope...all a voter i.d. does is say you are who you say you are.....I don't think anyone in the Pro 2nd side would object to showing a drivers license at a gun store....we show it for banking, and everything else.

So that isn't the right comparison....the right comparison is having to go through a criminal background check to vote.....just like you guys want to exercise the Right to bear arms....

What is wrong with requiring a criminal background check to vote....?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The far left wants abortion....wants no compromise.

The far right wants total gun access....wants no compromise.

I love listening to the two of them squeal at each other about how wrong they are on each issue.

When, in many ways, it's really the same issue.

Perceived rights.

The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.

So is it really the same issue?

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

You realize many of the State Constitutions were written before the 14th amendment?

Yes...and why did they do that if they thought they were covered by the surpremacy clause ?

 

[kaz]

The point is that serach n seizure has limits . U make it seem like the 2nd has no limitations . Like guns can be sold out of vending machines and no law could say different .

What gun law would you like to see?

I think guns should be treated like cars. Registered by the owner, if sold then a new "title" with the new owner .

I also like background checks .

Is that so bad? By 10 guns if u like , have a 20 round clip , I don't care . License to carry? Ok!


I think the above is a resonable compromise .

Why do you want them registered...first, that would be unconstitutional, second, it doesn't do anything to stop illegal gun use, felons are not required to register illegal firearms, and last, registering guns does not help to solve crimes.

It is easy to know who a gun belongs to when they commit a crime with it.....no registration is needed.

Background checks...I will live with current background checks...how about that...universal background checks...unnecessary. First, criminals do not undergo background checks, only law abiding people do....so what is the point to them? Criminals get their guns by stealing them, getting them from people who passed the background check and sold or gave them the gun, or they get them from illegal sellers, other criminals or bad gun dealers...

At no point in any of those methods do background checks, or universal background checks keep them from getting a gun.

So the two things you have listed, registration of guns, and background checks.....do nothing to stop criminals from getting or using guns.....

Isn't that why you want them...to stop criminals from getting and using guns?

And if they don't stop either one...in any way....what is their purpose?

Timmy's not into facts, that's why he's a Democrat

 

[kaz]

The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.

So is it really the same issue?

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

You realize many of the State Constitutions were written before the 14th amendment?

Yes...and why did they do that if they thought they were covered by the surpremacy clause ?

I'm not sure why you asked me that, I never said the Supremacy clause covered it. In fact, I said the 14th amendment covered it. The supremacy clause actually did not cover it. Here's the difference.

Say by the commerce clause, the Federal government passes a law that says States can't charge tariffs on other State's goods when they are imported into the State. The Commerce Clause gives the Federal government that positive right to say that, it's an "enumerated right" of the Federal government in the Constitution. So if California passes a tariff anyway, they lose by the Supremacy Clause, the tariff is struck down.

However, with guns, all the Constitution said was the Federal government had no say, they cannot "infringe" on the right to bear arms. There was no such limit on States, and the Federal government had no power to say otherwise, there was no power at all regarding guns granted to the Federal government. It was in fact forbidden.

The 14th said that rights protected under the Bill of Rights and other Amendments also apply to the States, they must respect those rights as well. So before that, States would need to add the right to their own Constitution to protect that right for their citizens.

 

[hazlnut]

To those who said the U.S. should just "dump" or get rid of California.

The U.S. economy would collapse. California may be the only state that could survive on it's own.

You would all starve with out food.

 

[paulitician]

Ammo Licenses are coming. The 'good ole days' of criminals walking in and buying all the ammo they desire, will become a thing of the past. Sorry, but it is where we're headed as a Society.

How'd that work out with drugs and booze?

Criminals won't be legally allowed to purchase ammunition. Just as they're not currently allowed to purchase firearms. Sorry, but that is the way it's gonna be eventually. We are headed that way.

 

[kaz]

To those who said the U.S. should just "dump" or get rid of California.

The U.S. economy would collapse. California may be the only state that could survive on it's own.

You would all starve with out food.

It's always an odd assumptions leftists always make is that you don't grasp trade. If California didn't sell the food, they would starve. There's a lot more option for the rest of the country for us to grow food then for them to replace the commerce

 

[jon_berzerk]

Lakkoka is still smarting the white man had repeating rifles

white man had repeating rifles

and actually out of the stone age

 

[2aguy]

Ammo Licenses are coming. The 'good ole days' of criminals walking in and buying all the ammo they desire, will become a thing of the past. Sorry, but it is where we're headed as a Society.

How'd that work out with drugs and booze?

Criminals won't be legally allowed to purchase ammunition. Just as they're not currently allowed to purchase firearms. Sorry, but that is the way it's gonna be eventually. We are headed that way.

So...criminals and mass shooters can't get guns..............realllllly?