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

[Contumacious]

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

FREEMEN, will ignore any attempt by SCOTUS to amend the Constitution.

......SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED........

Nor will we accept Orwellian definitions of infringe

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You antii-gun loons know that the laws against straw purchaes do not, and are not intended to, prevent straw purchaes; rather. they are a means to punish those that make such purchaes -- right?

 

[Dot Com]

Thanks SCOTUS. The only ones who could be against this are shady gun show dealers & the manufacturers themselves.

 

[Contumacious]

Thanks SCOTUS. The only ones who could be against this are shady gun show dealers & the manufacturers themselves.

The only ones who could be in favor of this are the retards and the fascist disarmers.

.

 

[hjmick]

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

Could you be any more clueless?


Don't answer that...

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks SCOTUS. The only ones who could be against this are shady gun show dealers & the manufacturers themselves.

Actually those who believe in freedom and understand that all this decision does is harm lawful gun owners.

 

[jillian]

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

Even Scalia's extremist decision in Heller said that only a total ban was unlawful and that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

I love how they think it's ok to violate the law if a white guy buys a gun.

i'm pretty sure they wouldn't be saying the same thing if the straw purchase were made by a black guy.

 

[jillian]

Thanks SCOTUS. The only ones who could be against this are shady gun show dealers & the manufacturers themselves.

Actually those who believe in freedom and understand that all this decision does is harm lawful gun owners.

those who understand the law understand that no freedom is without limitation.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I sat back and chewed on your words for a bit, but I still don't feel Abramski's 2nd Amendment rights were violated. In the example you presented, and in the language you used, you suggest the government acted on Abramski. But Abramski was never barred from attaining a firearm.

That's only because Abramski deliberately violated a law that would have kept him from buying the gun. The law would have prevented him from buying it if he had obeyed it, while in fact there was no fundamental reason he should be prevented from buying the gun. Any law that (if obeyed) prevents a qualified citizen from buying a gun, is unconstitutional.

 

[The Rabbi]

Thanks SCOTUS. The only ones who could be against this are shady gun show dealers & the manufacturers themselves.

Actually those who believe in freedom and understand that all this decision does is harm lawful gun owners.

those who understand the law understand that no freedom is without limitation.

Those who understand the law would not include you, poseur.
And your statement is a non sequitur. Nor is it responsive to any point I made.

Can you tell me what public interest is served by preventing one law abiding citizen from buying a gun for anotehr law abiding citizen and getting paid back for it?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Even Scalia's extremist decision in Heller said that only a total ban was unlawful and that reasonable regulation is acceptable.

Nice try. But Scalia said nothing of the kind, of course.

He said that present law allows for so-called "reasonable restrictions", and that the present Heller decision was not going to address the question of whether they were constitutional or not, so they would be allowed to stand for now.

 

[Pennywise]

So how long does one need to wait before either selling their legally purchased pistol to a friend or family member, or simply giving it away as a gift?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

Sorry, you've got it backward.

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

For that reason, the law that Abramski violated by checking "Yes" on that question on the form, is unconstitutional. It was illegal for Congress to make it in the first place.

The Supremes never addressed this matter.

It's not for the Fed to make laws that might catch a few criminals while violating lots of law-abiding people's Constitutional rights.

Since a Constitutional right is involved, the Fed's responsibility is to make sure they don't violate a SINGLE person's constitutional right. With that secure, then the Fed can make laws... as long as no one's constitutional right is violated. Not one.

Or would you say it's OK for the police to beat confessions out of a bunch of people (violating 5th amendment), if it resulted in some criminals being caught, convicted, and sentenced to the punishment they deserved, while the rest turned out innocent?

I sat back and chewed on your words for a bit, but I still don't feel Abramski's 2nd Amendment rights were violated. In the example you presented, and in the language you used, you suggest the government acted on Abramski. But Abramski was never barred from attaining a firearm.

That's only because Abramski deliberately violated a law that would have kept him from buying the gun. The law would have prevented him from buying it if he had obeyed it, while in fact there was no fundamental reason he should be prevented from buying the gun. Any law that (if obeyed) prevents a qualified citizen from buying a gun, is unconstitutional.

 

[whitehall]

It was a 5-4 decision. You can buy just about any product and resell it but it seems that you can't buy a firearm and resell it to someone who is legally entitled to possess a firearm. What sense does that make? You can purchase a firearm as a gift but you can't sell it to a gun club member or a friend who could legally buy it himself. Bureaucratic entanglement it's finest. When are the gun grabbers going to push for the indictment of the A.G. and most of the ATF for their part in the gun running murder of a Border Patrol officer and hundreds of Mexican civilians?

 

[The Rabbi]

It was a 5-4 decision. You can buy just about any product and resell it but it seems that you can't buy a firearm and resell it to someone who is legally entitled to possess a firearm. What sense does that make? You can purchase a firearm as a gift but you can't sell it to a gun club member or a friend who could legally buy it himself. Bureaucratic entanglement it's finest. When are the gun grabbers going to push for the indictment of the A.G. and most of the ATF for their part in the gun running murder of a Border Patrol officer and hundreds of Mexican civilians?

That'snot quite right.
You could buy a gun, walk out the door with it and sell it to the guy in parking lot who said he wanted it. and that's legal.
You could buy a gun with the idea it wil be a gift for someone, that's legal.
What you cannot do is go to a gun shop, see a gun you know your buddy has wanted, call him up and have him tell you "yeah buy it for me and I'll pay you back" and then purchase it. IN the last case you are not the actual purchaser, which according to ATF makes it illegitimate. The fact that neither you nor your buddy are prohibited is irrelevant in their minds.

 

[martybegan]

So how long does one need to wait before either selling their legally purchased pistol to a friend or family member, or simply giving it away as a gift?

its not a question of time, its a question of intent. Here they have evidence that he clearly bought the gun for someone else.

 

[Little-Acorn]

its not a question of time, its a question of intent. Here they have evidence that he clearly bought the gun for someone else.

Yup, someone who paid him in advance to buy it for him.

He clearly violated the law. If he had obeyed it, he would have been prevented from buying the gun.

The actual issue (undiscussed by the Supreme Court) is that there was no reason (outside of that law) to prevent either of these two guys from buying a gun... so this means that law is unconstitutional.

Similarly, Jack Miller also clearly violated Federal law when he bought a shotgun and brought it across a state line in the 1930s. The Federal court in that case, didn't find Miller guilty. Instead, they declared the law to be an unconstitutional violation of Miller's right to keep and bear arms. (US v. Miller, in Federal Court for Western District of Arkansas, Jan. 3, 1939).

That should have been the outcome of this case, too.

 

[Contumacious]

"Opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are simply opinions." So someone says his opinion it is alright to take his neighbors possessions because he wants them.

"And since when do you get to tell others when or if their opinions are right or wrong?" Because everyone has a right to an opinion and tell another person they are right or wrong.

"I can present evidence to back my 'opinion' which makes it a 'fact,'. . ." No, you can't.

The response is that when you make a silly opinion as if it were factual, I will correct you.

HUH?

Which one is your alma mater?

Moscow University
Che Guevara College
Hugo Chavez Academy

.

 

[Paperman299]

I sat back and chewed on your words for a bit, but I still don't feel Abramski's 2nd Amendment rights were violated. In the example you presented, and in the language you used, you suggest the government acted on Abramski. But Abramski was never barred from attaining a firearm.

That's only because Abramski deliberately violated a law that would have kept him from buying the gun. The law would have prevented him from buying it if he had obeyed it, while in fact there was no fundamental reason he should be prevented from buying the gun. Any law that (if obeyed) prevents a qualified citizen from buying a gun, is unconstitutional.

To flatly state Abramski was not allowed to buy a gun is not really representative of what happened. Abramski would have no problem buying a gun, and neither would his uncle. But we have regulations for how you go about it. You can't buy a gun in any way you want, just like you can't vote in any way you want. To allow otherwise would open holes in the system that would undermine the effects of those regulations.

 

[The Rabbi]

I sat back and chewed on your words for a bit, but I still don't feel Abramski's 2nd Amendment rights were violated. In the example you presented, and in the language you used, you suggest the government acted on Abramski. But Abramski was never barred from attaining a firearm.

That's only because Abramski deliberately violated a law that would have kept him from buying the gun. The law would have prevented him from buying it if he had obeyed it, while in fact there was no fundamental reason he should be prevented from buying the gun. Any law that (if obeyed) prevents a qualified citizen from buying a gun, is unconstitutional.

To flatly state Abramski was not allowed to buy a gun is not really representative of what happened. Abramski would have no problem buying a gun, and neither would his uncle. But we have regulations for how you go about it. You can't buy a gun in any way you want, just like you can't vote in any way you want. To allow otherwise would open holes in the system that would undermine the effects of those regulations.

Well he was not allowed to buy THAT gun under THOSE circumstances. Had he explained to the dealer what he was doing the dealer would have stopped the sale.
Again, what is achieved by prohibiting an otherwise lawful person buying a gun for an otherwise lawful person?