Federal judge rules PRCalif's 10-day waiting period for gun purchase, unconstitutional

[saveliberty]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Protecting yourself from the government isn't going to happen, since we are talking reality. They are better trained and have heavier firepower. I suggest joining a militia and a serious exercise program.

True.


The notion is inane and delusional.


And the First Amendment is more than adequate to defend citizens from government overreach, guaranteeing each American the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court seeking relief, as we saw in the OP case.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Protecting yourself from the government isn't going to happen, since we are talking reality. They are better trained and have heavier firepower. I suggest joining a militia and a serious exercise program.

True.


The notion is inane and delusional.


And the First Amendment is more than adequate to defend citizens from government overreach, guaranteeing each American the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court seeking relief, as we saw in the OP case.

Pay attention the argument presented by this poster is that we should create a "test" to administer to anyone trying to buy a firearm. That is illegal and Unconstitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

Protecting yourself from the government isn't going to happen, since we are talking reality. They are better trained and have heavier firepower. I suggest joining a militia and a serious exercise program.

True.


The notion is inane and delusional.


And the First Amendment is more than adequate to defend citizens from government overreach, guaranteeing each American the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances by filing suit in Federal court seeking relief, as we saw in the OP case.

Really? Recall all those GOP donors who suddenly had their businesses raided by the IRS, the ATF, the Labor Department and who knows who else. What about those orgs that had their applications held up ahead of the election? What about those that suffered from viewpoint bias because the IRS was concerned their viewpoints didnt match the administration's? Yeah, you could sue. That would takes years and millions of dollars. Now, none of that is a reason to break out the rifle and start shooting. But in an extreme circumstance it might happen. And if you say no, citizens could never stand off the government, ask the North Vietnamese and the Afghanis how that went.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Indeed it would be technical violation sir, but I believe Terry would be the prevailing precedent whereby the Court would allow it since a test every 5 years would be a very MINOR inconvenience.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Who said no particular reason? I was very specific about checking more carefully for mental stability. I have no problem with stable responsible people owning a gun or guns. Armed citizens are a help to detering crime and a government intent on removing freedom. What I don't see that some of you apparent ly do, is how a short waiting period damages you. None of you has given a good answer to that. As a general rule many of you agree with me on other issues. Amazing to me how quickly I went from ally to idiot.

In a free society, there are opposing rights or interests. when I was a government attorney. I had to deal with the fact that there were things such as patient-doctor, spousal, priest-penitent and lawyer client privilege. I knew that some mopes I was dealing with had most likely told their attorney, their pastor or their "baby mom" that they had whacked someone or had 30 Keys of cocaine stashed some place but society has decided that society's interest is best served by not allowing the government to make a priest, a doctor, a lawyer etc rat out a criminal's conversation to them

same is true here. If you are adjudicated mentally incompetent, you cannot own or possess a firearm and that information is almost always shared with NCIS or the other data bases. however, if you voluntarily go to your doctor and say "I'm depressed" or I "am angry" and then that doctor has to inform the government and that information leads you to be stripped of all your firearms, I suspect lots of gun owners will not seek treatment for what may be a minor or major mental issue. so its easy for do gooders to demand that medical privacy rights fall away in favor of society being able to prevent "nut cases from getting guns" but its much more complex than that

Spot on. Honestly...even now, I would never THINK of confiding anything to a shrink under any circumstances.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Indeed it would be technical violation sir, but I believe Terry would be the prevailing precedent whereby the Court would allow it since a test every 5 years would be a very MINOR inconvenience.

What would a test every 5 years accomplish, even if it could pass muster legally, which it wont?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Indeed it would be technical violation sir, but I believe Terry would be the prevailing precedent whereby the Court would allow it since a test every 5 years would be a very MINOR inconvenience.

What would a test every 5 years accomplish, even if it could pass muster legally, which it wont?

Thanks for your legal opinion, but as I pointed out the precedent is already there.

What would it accomplish?

1. Anyone with any abnormalities would be discovered. People don't just go nuts , there are medical reasons for it, medical reasons that a CAT scan can pinpoint early These people could get some help AND not own guns.

2 Gun owners would be able to say "look we're doing EVERYTHING we can do to screen legal gun owners" sorry currently it looks like most are inclined to do nothing.

3. It would cut liberal dipshits who want to ban guns off at the knees.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Indeed it would be technical violation sir, but I believe Terry would be the prevailing precedent whereby the Court would allow it since a test every 5 years would be a very MINOR inconvenience.

What would a test every 5 years accomplish, even if it could pass muster legally, which it wont?

Thanks for your legal opinion, but as I pointed out the precedent is already there.

What would it accomplish?

1. Anyone with any abnormalities would be discovered. People don't just go nuts , there are medical reasons for it, medical reasons that a CAT scan can pinpoint early These people could get some help AND not own guns.

2 Gun owners would be able to say "look we're doing EVERYTHING we can do to screen legal gun owners" sorry currently it looks like most are inclined to do nothing.

3. It would cut liberal dipshits who want to ban guns off at the knees.

I am sure your legal opinion is waaay more valid than mine. Not.
It wouldnt stop a single case. Nothing would compel people to go and if they suspected an issue they simply wouldn't. So you'd make lawbreakers out of otherwise law abiding citizens for no purpose.
Gun owners could never do enough to satisfy the scum eating sister-fucker anti gun people short of shooting themselves with their own guns. Fuck them.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Indeed it would be technical violation sir, but I believe Terry would be the prevailing precedent whereby the Court would allow it since a test every 5 years would be a very MINOR inconvenience.

What would a test every 5 years accomplish, even if it could pass muster legally, which it wont?

Thanks for your legal opinion, but as I pointed out the precedent is already there.

What would it accomplish?

1. Anyone with any abnormalities would be discovered. People don't just go nuts , there are medical reasons for it, medical reasons that a CAT scan can pinpoint early These people could get some help AND not own guns.

2 Gun owners would be able to say "look we're doing EVERYTHING we can do to screen legal gun owners" sorry currently it looks like most are inclined to do nothing.

3. It would cut liberal dipshits who want to ban guns off at the knees.

I am sure your legal opinion is waaay more valid than mine. Not.
It wouldnt stop a single case. Nothing would compel people to go and if they suspected an issue they simply wouldn't. So you'd make lawbreakers out of otherwise law abiding citizens for no purpose.
Gun owners could never do enough to satisfy the scum eating sister-fucker anti gun people short of shooting themselves with their own guns. Fuck them.

What are you talking about? They wouldn't HAVE to go. They could choose not to own guns. And if they did refuse to go then their ability to buy more guns would be suspended , simple as that.

Oh, and the attitude of "fuck anyone who doesn't agree with me" is getting old, I don't care the topic. That is why a shit bird like Obama rose to power, he's the epitome of "fuck anyone who disagrees with ME" It withain't any more excusable out of someone whos opinions I share than it is from someone with whom I disagree. Three hundred plus million people live in this country and we need to get back to doing what make sense for the MOST people, not what makes sense for the loudest people.

Sorry if sometimes that means you don't get your way.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And even then one is in no position to offer 'armed resistance' to a government subjectively perceived to be 'tyrannical.'


Moreover, one Amendment doesn't 'trump' another Amendment, a minority of citizens are not at liberty to seek to 'change' or 'destroy' a government otherwise lawfully put in place by the will of the people absent the consent of the majority; the people have the First Amendment right to address government overreach first through the political process, and failing that the legal process. Indeed, the Second Amendment does not authorize citizens to unilaterally engage in armed rebellion, regardless how 'justified' they believe that 'rebellion' to be.


This, therefore, is consistent with Heller, where the Second Amendment enshrines the right of the individual to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with military (militia) service.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Indeed it would be technical violation sir, but I believe Terry would be the prevailing precedent whereby the Court would allow it since a test every 5 years would be a very MINOR inconvenience.

What would a test every 5 years accomplish, even if it could pass muster legally, which it wont?

Thanks for your legal opinion, but as I pointed out the precedent is already there.

What would it accomplish?

1. Anyone with any abnormalities would be discovered. People don't just go nuts , there are medical reasons for it, medical reasons that a CAT scan can pinpoint early These people could get some help AND not own guns.

2 Gun owners would be able to say "look we're doing EVERYTHING we can do to screen legal gun owners" sorry currently it looks like most are inclined to do nothing.

3. It would cut liberal dipshits who want to ban guns off at the knees.

I am sure your legal opinion is waaay more valid than mine. Not.
It wouldnt stop a single case. Nothing would compel people to go and if they suspected an issue they simply wouldn't. So you'd make lawbreakers out of otherwise law abiding citizens for no purpose.
Gun owners could never do enough to satisfy the scum eating sister-fucker anti gun people short of shooting themselves with their own guns. Fuck them.

What are you talking about? They wouldn't HAVE to go. They could choose not to own guns. And if they did refuse to go then their ability to buy more guns would be suspended , simple as that.

Oh, and the attitude of "fuck anyone who doesn't agree with me" is getting old, I don't care the topic. That is why a shit bird like Obama rose to power, he's the epitome of "fuck anyone who disagrees with ME" It withain't any more excusable out of someone whos opinions I share than it is from someone with whom I disagree. Three hundred plus million people live in this country and we need to get back to doing what make sense for the MOST people, not what makes sense for the loudest people.

Sorry if sometimes that means you don't get your way.

Yeah because people who can't pass a background check never have guns.
You have just reached the apex of your stupidity. I had hopes for you and you dashed them.

Yeah, fuck the anti gunners. Yeah, fuck the people wanting "reasonable restrictions". Fuck them all because that shit doesnt work. We have over 100 years' worth of experience with gun control in all kinds of ways and none of it can be shown to reduce crime even one iota. All it does is make criminals out of otherwise law abiding people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And even then one is in no position to offer 'armed resistance' to a government subjectively perceived to be 'tyrannical.'


Moreover, one Amendment doesn't 'trump' another Amendment, a minority of citizens are not at liberty to seek to 'change' or 'destroy' a government otherwise lawfully put in place by the will of the people absent the consent of the majority; the people have the First Amendment right to address government overreach first through the political process, and failing that the legal process. Indeed, the Second Amendment does not authorize citizens to unilaterally engage in armed rebellion, regardless how 'justified' they believe that 'rebellion' to be.


This, therefore, is consistent with Heller, where the Second Amendment enshrines the right of the individual to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with military (militia) service.

And I REPEAT for the slow and ohh so stupid.... The argument presented by this poster is that the Government can create a "test" for mental health and use it to deny people their second amendment rights. At no time did I claim anything about revolution rebellion or attacking by force the US Government.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And even then one is in no position to offer 'armed resistance' to a government subjectively perceived to be 'tyrannical.'


Moreover, one Amendment doesn't 'trump' another Amendment, a minority of citizens are not at liberty to seek to 'change' or 'destroy' a government otherwise lawfully put in place by the will of the people absent the consent of the majority; the people have the First Amendment right to address government overreach first through the political process, and failing that the legal process. Indeed, the Second Amendment does not authorize citizens to unilaterally engage in armed rebellion, regardless how 'justified' they believe that 'rebellion' to be.


This, therefore, is consistent with Heller, where the Second Amendment enshrines the right of the individual to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of self-defense, unconnected with military (militia) service.

Incorrect, the founding fathers were VERY clear in their support of overthrowing a tyrannical government. But they were also clear that if you attempted it and failed, you're fucked.

And CLEARLY they themselves were in the minority when they first began their rebellion. So yes, they believed the minority could rebel.

 

[saveliberty]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Really? Create a test? There already is a test called a background test, which a person can fail. All I said was maybe it could be made better with a mental stability factor.

 

[The Rabbi]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Really? Create a test? There already is a test called a background test, which a person can fail. All I said was maybe it could be made better with a mental stability factor.

You dont strip people of rights because of a random mental stability test.
If the US couldn't identify the shipyard shooter or Maj Hassan the Ft Hood shooter why does anyone think they can identify someone in the public at large?

 

[The Rabbi]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Really? Create a test? There already is a test called a background test, which a person can fail. All I said was maybe it could be made better with a mental stability factor.

And of course you dont strip people of rights based on what they might do in the future.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I wasn't making a Constitutional point. I was noting you are not really preparing to protect yourself from the government unless you train as a group and are in shape.

And I am making a point that your desire to create a "test" to prevent people from buying firearms is illegal and unconstitutional.

Really? Create a test? There already is a test called a background test, which a person can fail. All I said was maybe it could be made better with a mental stability factor.

And there you are implying that in fact you want a "test" administered to people buying firearms to determine their suitability. As for your comment on militias and exercise go back and quote me where I ever made ANY claim in this thread about revolution rebellion or attacking the Government?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Protecting yourself from the government isn't going to happen, since we are talking reality. They are better trained and have heavier firepower. I suggest joining a militia and a serious exercise program.

This statement is nonsensical too. "Inane and delusion." A non sequitur. The statement that the ultimate essence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to resist usurpative government is a fact. That is the reality, historically and practically. That's the people's ultimate check against tyranny.

And of course you did effectively acknowledge that in your suggestion regarding militias. It is you who is niave if you think it is easier to oppress a generally armed citizenry than it is to oppress a disarmed citizenry.