FULL Gun Rights? Uh, Not So Fast Says Supreme Court!

[RetiredGySgt]

Began under Bush, CONTINUED under Obama, unto 2011, no excuses:

"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them."[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7] The Chambers case[who?] began in October 2009, and eventually became known in February 2010 as "Operation Fast and Furious" after agents discovered some of the suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.[1]

And the fact that Obama continued it makes him equally as responsible as Bush. No excuses.

There is a VERY big problem with this narrative. It implies that the program ran from 2004 to 2011. It did NOT. After a few months by 2005 the original program was shut down because even with the assistance of the Mexican Government the weapons could not be tacked in Mexico. about 400 weapons were involved. Th program ENDED due to it not working in 2005.

Fast forward to 2009. The SAME ATF people that KNEW it did not work in 2004/5 start it again. Only this time they don't even bother to notify the Mexican Government and make absolutely no effort to track the weapons in the US as well. Agents were point blank ORDERED not to make arrests and FFL were ordered to sell to straw buyers they knew were illegal. 3000 weapons walk and it does not end until an agent is killed and weapons are tracked back to this program.

Meanwhile the FBI is claiming in the press that 90 percent of the firearms found in Mexican crimes are from US illegal purchases, as in from this program. Another lie as the number was bogus. MOST weapons found in Mexico could not be tracked of the small number that could be tracked the ATF provided the serial numbers from fast and furious to try and make an end run on the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Fishlore]

...BTW, the 2nd amendment says it's flatly illegal for government to make a law interfering with Abramski or his uncle buying a gun. But the Supreme Court carefully didn't address that fact.

The Second Amendment defines the right to "keep and bear" and says nothing about the buying and selling arms. Commercial transactions are covered by other clauses in the Constitution.

The activist Roberts Court has turned its back on many years of precedent and chosen to ignore the "well-regulated militia" clause which seems to establish the guiding justification for the keep-and-bear language. The miraculous finding of a right to keep arms for home self-defense without any connection to the need for a militia is a stunningly awkward bit of judicial activism. You will live to see the ruling of the Roberts Court dumped like the Dred Scott decision. It is very poor law.

 

[Little-Acorn]

...BTW, the 2nd amendment says it's flatly illegal for government to make a law interfering with Abramski or his uncle buying a gun. But the Supreme Court carefully didn't address that fact.

[COLOR="SeaGreen B]The Second Amendment defines the right to "keep and bear" and says nothing about the buying and selling arms.

Here comes the usual twisting, dodging, shucking, and jiving by the usual leftists, desperate to pretend the 2nd amendment doesn't say what it says.

(yawn)

 

[Paperman299]

Cool. Good.

...Honestly, though, I think everyone is fine with this. Is there someone on the board who is pro-straw purchases? I guess that person would be pretty mad right now.

Take that...you!

 

[jon_berzerk]

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns. Fools! This should teach them that they need to Obey The Law, especially with this new High Court ruling!

the ruling does not change anything

No, just helps LE continue to track firearms, after crimes are committed. Yes, most crimes are committed with those in possession of firearms illegally.

had the uncle and nephew lived in the same state

and the nephew knew he was going to gift it to his uncle

and did and did not disclose that information

no law would have been broken

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

Nonsense.

The ruling has nothing to do with "gun rights," and addresses only the appropriate application of the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

Cool. Good.

...Honestly, though, I think everyone is fine with this. Is there someone on the board who is pro-straw purchases? I guess that person would be pretty mad right now.

Take that...you!

Please tell me what interest of public safety is served by prohibiting one lawful person from buying a gun for another lawful person and getting paid back for it. You realize if Abramski had given the gun to his uncle as a gift there would be no case whatsoever, right?

 

[The Rabbi]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

Nonsense.

The ruling has nothing to do with "gun rights," and addresses only the appropriate application of the law.

Yes it quite clearly is a gun rights case. Do you have the right, as a lawful citizen to buy a gun for someone else who is also a lawful citizen and have him pay you back for it? The court answered No.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Cool. Good.

...Honestly, though, I think everyone is fine with this. Is there someone on the board who is pro-straw purchases? I guess that person would be pretty mad right now.

Take that...you!

Please tell me what interest of public safety is served by prohibiting one lawful person from buying a gun for another lawful person and getting paid back for it. You realize if Abramski had given the gun to his uncle as a gift there would be no case whatsoever, right?

he could have sold it to him at a later time as well

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well, well, well, the Conservative Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 recent decision that people need to rethink whether they can buy guns for others. Uh, no, not without full disclosure!

'Straw' purchase ruling a setback for gun-rights advocates - CNN.com

Nonsense.

The ruling has nothing to do with "gun rights," and addresses only the appropriate application of the law.

Yes it quite clearly is a gun rights case. Do you have the right, as a lawful citizen to buy a gun for someone else who is also a lawful citizen and have him pay you back for it? The court answered No.

that is not exactly correct

the uncle paid him for the gun three days before the sale

otherwise they followed the law

 

[Little-Acorn]

the ruling does not change anything

No, just helps LE continue to track firearms, after crimes are committed. Yes, most crimes are committed with those in possession of firearms illegally.

had the uncle and nephew lived in the same state

and the nephew knew he was going to gift it to his uncle

and did and did not disclose that information

no law would have been broken

No, his uncle gave him the money to buy the gun, since Abramski was a cop and could get a discount. It was unquestionably a violation of the written law.

Which means the law was badly written at best, and unconstitutional at worst.

Because there was in fact NOTHING WRONG with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun for that uncle. Didn't threaten anybody, hurt anybody, violate anybody's rights.

Which is why it is illegal (forbidden by the 2nd amendment) for the govt to make a law restricing that purchase.

The Supremes should have declared that, in the case of Abramski, the law was unconstitutional. Whether they simply reversed and remanded, or struck down the law altogether, is a question for a different discussion.

But there is no question that this law violated Abramski's and his uncle's right to keep and bear arms. There is no conceivable reason why those two should not have been able to do what they did. And it is ILLEGAL to make a law preventing them from doing it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The ruling has nothing to do with "gun rights," and addresses only the appropriate application of the law.

And that's what was wrong with this ruling.

Because the law clearly violated Abramski's and his uncle's gun rights. Yet the Supreme Court ignored that fact.

 

[jon_berzerk]

No, just helps LE continue to track firearms, after crimes are committed. Yes, most crimes are committed with those in possession of firearms illegally.

had the uncle and nephew lived in the same state

and the nephew knew he was going to gift it to his uncle

and did and did not disclose that information

no law would have been broken

No, his uncle gave him the money to buy the gun, since Abramski was a cop and could get a discount. It was unquestionably a violation of the written law.

Which means the law was badly written at best, and unconstitutional at worst.

Because there was in fact NOTHING WRONG with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun for that uncle. Didn't threaten anybody, hurt anybody, violate anybody's rights.

Which is why it is illegal (forbidden by the 2nd amendment) for the govt to make a law restricing that purchase.

The Supremes should have declared that, in the case of Abramski, the law was unconstitutional. Whether they simply reversed and remanded, or struck down the law altogether, is a question for a different discussion.

But there is no question that this law violated Abramski's and his uncle's right to keep and bear arms. There is no conceivable reason why those two should not have been able to do what they did. And it is ILLEGAL to make a law preventing them from doing it.

No, his uncle gave him the money to buy the gun, since Abramski was a cop and could get a discount. It was unquestionably a violation of the written law.

yes i know that that is why i wrote

had the uncle and nephew lived in the same state

and the nephew knew he was going to gift it to his uncle

and did and did not disclose that information

no law would have been broken

it is understood that the nephew knew he was not the actual Actual Transferee/Buyer

and lied on the application

 

[PoliticalTorch]

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns.

Name one.

(yawn)

Personally, other than the facts I hear in the news or read about in magazines germane to that issue, I don't have that type of database or I surely would if it was public information! For that you will need to contact a law enforcement office but in the meantime this is certainly worth reading. It is short but to the point and gives much food for thought.

Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended? | A conversation on TED.com

 

[TemplarKormac]

Began under Bush, CONTINUED under Obama, unto 2011, no excuses:

"Gunwalking", or "letting guns walk", was a tactic of the Arizona Field Office of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which ran a series of sting operations[2][3] between 2006[4] and 2011[2][5] in the Tucson and Phoenix area where the ATF "purposely allowed licensed firearms dealers to sell weapons to illegal straw buyers, hoping to track the guns to Mexican drug cartel leaders and arrest them."[6] These operations were done under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner, a project intended to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico by interdicting straw purchasers and gun traffickers within the United States.[7] The Chambers case[who?] began in October 2009, and eventually became known in February 2010 as "Operation Fast and Furious" after agents discovered some of the suspects under investigation belonged to a car club.[1]

And the fact that Obama continued it makes him equally as responsible as Bush. No excuses.

There is a VERY big problem with this narrative. It implies that the program ran from 2004 to 2011. It did NOT. After a few months by 2005 the original program was shut down because even with the assistance of the Mexican Government the weapons could not be tacked in Mexico. about 400 weapons were involved. Th program ENDED due to it not working in 2005.

Fast forward to 2009. The SAME ATF people that KNEW it did not work in 2004/5 start it again. Only this time they don't even bother to notify the Mexican Government and make absolutely no effort to track the weapons in the US as well. Agents were point blank ORDERED not to make arrests and FFL were ordered to sell to straw buyers they knew were illegal. 3000 weapons walk and it does not end until an agent is killed and weapons are tracked back to this program.

Meanwhile the FBI is claiming in the press that 90 percent of the firearms found in Mexican crimes are from US illegal purchases, as in from this program. Another lie as the number was bogus. MOST weapons found in Mexico could not be tracked of the small number that could be tracked the ATF provided the serial numbers from fast and furious to try and make an end run on the 2nd Amendment.

I realize that. But simply using Peach's logic, that would make Obama just as responsible as Bush for gun running, not only would that work against the liberal narrative against Bush, it would implicate Obama in the commission of crime. You would be correct that Obama ran a gun running schtick of his own, I am simply playing on the logical fallacy Peach was employing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You'd be surprised to know how many people believe that the Second Amendment gives them an unequivocal right to do what they want with guns.

Name one.

(yawn)

Personally, other than the facts I hear in the news or read about in magazines germane to that issue, I don't have that type of database or I surely would if it was public information! For that you will need to contact a law enforcement office but in the meantime this is certainly worth reading. It is short but to the point and gives much food for thought.

Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended? | A conversation on TED.com

Are you kidding with this?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Name one.

(yawn)

Personally, other than the facts I hear in the news or read about in magazines germane to that issue, I don't have that type of database or I surely would if it was public information! For that you will need to contact a law enforcement office but in the meantime this is certainly worth reading. It is short but to the point and gives much food for thought.

Has the time come for the U.S Second Amendment to be repealed or amended? | A conversation on TED.com

Are you kidding with this?

No, he's hoping someone will still believe him after he's been caught in a lie.

Stick a fork in him. He's done.

 

[Peach]

And the fact that Obama continued it makes him equally as responsible as Bush. No excuses.

There is a VERY big problem with this narrative. It implies that the program ran from 2004 to 2011. It did NOT. After a few months by 2005 the original program was shut down because even with the assistance of the Mexican Government the weapons could not be tacked in Mexico. about 400 weapons were involved. Th program ENDED due to it not working in 2005.

Fast forward to 2009. The SAME ATF people that KNEW it did not work in 2004/5 start it again. Only this time they don't even bother to notify the Mexican Government and make absolutely no effort to track the weapons in the US as well. Agents were point blank ORDERED not to make arrests and FFL were ordered to sell to straw buyers they knew were illegal. 3000 weapons walk and it does not end until an agent is killed and weapons are tracked back to this program.

Meanwhile the FBI is claiming in the press that 90 percent of the firearms found in Mexican crimes are from US illegal purchases, as in from this program. Another lie as the number was bogus. MOST weapons found in Mexico could not be tracked of the small number that could be tracked the ATF provided the serial numbers from fast and furious to try and make an end run on the 2nd Amendment.

I realize that. But simply using Peach's logic, that would make Obama just as responsible as Bush for gun running, not only would that work against the liberal narrative against Bush, it would implicate Obama in the commission of crime. You would be correct that Obama ran a gun running schtick of his own, I am simply playing on the logical fallacy Peach was employing.

Obama is, no fallacy. A discarded program was dredged up, I excuse no individual, from any party, for failed policy. And many firearms used in crimes are stolen, or purchased illegally from legal owners. I was referencing both local and national LE. Tracking weapons is a big part of apprehending criminals. LE do more than lead parades Acorn.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Abramski clearly violated the law by doing what he did.

But, the law aside, there was nothing wrong with Abramski taking money from his uncle to buy a gun and transfer it to the uncle. It hurt no one, threatened no one, scared no one, violated no one's rights.

And the 2nd amendment says it is flatly illegal for government to make a law forbidding such a transaction.

 

[TemplarKormac]

There is a VERY big problem with this narrative. It implies that the program ran from 2004 to 2011. It did NOT. After a few months by 2005 the original program was shut down because even with the assistance of the Mexican Government the weapons could not be tacked in Mexico. about 400 weapons were involved. Th program ENDED due to it not working in 2005.

Fast forward to 2009. The SAME ATF people that KNEW it did not work in 2004/5 start it again. Only this time they don't even bother to notify the Mexican Government and make absolutely no effort to track the weapons in the US as well. Agents were point blank ORDERED not to make arrests and FFL were ordered to sell to straw buyers they knew were illegal. 3000 weapons walk and it does not end until an agent is killed and weapons are tracked back to this program.

Meanwhile the FBI is claiming in the press that 90 percent of the firearms found in Mexican crimes are from US illegal purchases, as in from this program. Another lie as the number was bogus. MOST weapons found in Mexico could not be tracked of the small number that could be tracked the ATF provided the serial numbers from fast and furious to try and make an end run on the 2nd Amendment.

I realize that. But simply using Peach's logic, that would make Obama just as responsible as Bush for gun running, not only would that work against the liberal narrative against Bush, it would implicate Obama in the commission of crime. You would be correct that Obama ran a gun running schtick of his own, I am simply playing on the logical fallacy Peach was employing.

Obama is, no fallacy. A discarded program was dredged up, I excuse no individual, from any party, for failed policy. And many firearms used in crimes are stolen, or purchased illegally from legal owners. I was referencing both local and national LE. Tracking weapons is a big part of apprehending criminals. LE do more than lead parades Acorn.