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

[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.

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.

And Jack Miller (see Post #97) could have done it "right", too. All he had to do was buy a tax stamp, newly mandated by the 1934 NFA. But the Federal court disagreed. It said the 1934 NFA was an unconstitutional restriction on his right to own and carry a gun.

The point here, is that there's a part of the Constitution that says govt can't restrict Abramski's (or Miller's) right to own and carry a gun. It doesn't say, "As long as he obeys whatever laws Congress feels like imposing". It says, Congress can't impose.

With this law against straw purchases, Congress imposed on someone it had no authority to impose on. The law is therefore unconstitutional. Doesn't matter if its intentions were good.

 

[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?

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

I understand that. I am simply offering the logical devil's advocate question. Were I in front of the SCOTUS during arguments, I would have asked that question to the court.

 

[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.

Learn to read the amendment. The purpose of the first clause is to prevent the feds from preventing the states from forming militias. The second part clearly leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people, as in their view, without a freely armed populace, militias would be impossible to form.

Why do you gun nuts never bitch about the restrictions on machine guns, RPG etc.? Now that our state militias are the National Guard, we don't need gun nuts turning out on the town common with their little 9 mm plinkers. You might be interested to know that in the lifetimes of the Sacred Founders, most Americans could not afford to own a gun and relied on the state to supply militia equipment as it does today. Wouldn't it be helpful to the local militia if private citizens could keep and bear tactical nuclear weapons? We had a governor up here in NH named Mel Thompson who wanted the NH National Guard armed with nukes -- he came from SC as you might imagine.

 

[Pennywise]

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.

Then it's a silly ruling. All the would-be transfer owner would have to do is tell the mule he'll buy maybe the gun from him in the future, the two shake on it and wink, and one day the fellow shows up at the front door of the guy who bought the gun and gives him cash for it.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Wouldn't it be helpful to the local militia if private citizens could keep and bear tactical nuclear weapons?

As usual, when a liberal fanatic loses an argument, he starts ranting hysterically.

(yawn)

 

[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.

I understand that. I am simply offering the logical devil's advocate question. Were I in front of the SCOTUS during arguments, I would have asked that question to the court.

I doubt you would have swayed the 4 true lefties on the SC, but maybe it would have worked against CAPTAIN SWINGVOTE.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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.

I understand that. I am simply offering the logical devil's advocate question. Were I in front of the SCOTUS during arguments, I would have asked that question to the court.

I would have asked them where Congress got any authority to pass a law that would prevent a qualified citizen from buying a gun.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Learn to read the amendment. The purpose of the first clause is to prevent the feds from preventing the states from forming militias. The second part clearly leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people, as in their view, without a freely armed populace, militias would be impossible to form.

Why do you gun nuts never bitch about the restrictions on machine guns, RPG etc.? Now that our state militias are the National Guard, we don't need gun nuts turning out on the town common with their little 9 mm plinkers. You might be interested to know that in the lifetimes of the Sacred Founders, most Americans could not afford to own a gun and relied on the state to supply militia equipment as it does today. Wouldn't it be helpful to the local militia if private citizens could keep and bear tactical nuclear weapons? We had a governor up here in NH named Mel Thompson who wanted the NH National Guard armed with nukes -- he came from SC as you might imagine.

Exactly.

Gee, I wonder why the Jews didn't allow the Gestapo to protect them?

I wonder why Southern Blacks didn't file a complaint with the Local Police Department to stop their enslavrment?

I wonder why the Davidians , Cambodians, Filipinos, etc, didn't file a complaint with, or demand protection from , their local militia...........I really wonder why......


.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Even Scalia's extremist decision in Heller said that only a total ban was unlawful...

This is a lie. Scalia said no such thing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Learn to read the amendment. The purpose of the first clause is to prevent the feds from preventing the states from forming militias. The second part clearly leaves the right to keep and bear arms to the people, as in their view, without a freely armed populace, militias would be impossible to form.

Why do you gun nuts never bitch about the restrictions on machine guns, RPG etc.?

What restrictions are those?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Then it's a silly ruling. All the would-be transfer owner would have to do is tell the mule he'll buy maybe the gun from him in the future, the two shake on it and wink, and one day the fellow shows up at the front door of the guy who bought the gun and gives him cash for it.

Yes, that's why the whole idea of a straw purchase is silly. It's so easy to defeat. The only people who got caught on it were total idiots.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's a non issue for me.

I am licensed in CT if I want a pistol from a store out of state all I do is have the out of state store send it to a store in my state. There's a small fee but it's never stopped me from doing it.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a non issue for me.

I am licensed in CT if I want a pistol from a store out of state all I do is have the out of state store send it to a store in my state. There's a small fee but it's never stopped me from doing it.

It's a non issue for everyone. Every dealer has followed ATF guidelines on this, and those haven't changed.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

And Jack Miller (see Post #97) could have done it "right", too. All he had to do was buy a tax stamp, newly mandated by the 1934 NFA. But the Federal court disagreed. It said the 1934 NFA was an unconstitutional restriction on his right to own and carry a gun.

The point here, is that there's a part of the Constitution that says govt can't restrict Abramski's (or Miller's) right to own and carry a gun. It doesn't say, "As long as he obeys whatever laws Congress feels like imposing". It says, Congress can't impose.

With this law against straw purchases, Congress imposed on someone it had no authority to impose on. The law is therefore unconstitutional. Doesn't matter if its intentions were good.

When we talk about "whatever laws Congress feels like imposing," are we talking about any regulation over gun sales and ownership whatsoever? Licenses, background checks, waiting periods, etc?

 

[Paperman299]

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?

I've actually answered that question three or four times now, so let me try it another way.

What is achieved by prohibiting an otherwise lawful person from voting with the ID of an otherwise lawful person?

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

I've actually answered that question three or four times now, so let me try it another way.

What is achieved by prohibiting an otherwise lawful person from voting with the ID of an otherwise lawful person?

What you're describing is voter fraud, which is illegal, because it deprives the legitimate voter of his rights.
How is that analogous to this firearms case?

 

[Little-Acorn]

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?

A violation of his constitutional rights, is achieved. Just as the gun-haters wanted.

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

A violation of his constitutional rights, is achieved. Just as the gun-haters wanted.

What is achieved, as ATF argued, was the inability of the government to track who owns what guns. That's really the subtext here.

 

[Paperman299]

I've actually answered that question three or four times now, so let me try it another way.

What is achieved by prohibiting an otherwise lawful person from voting with the ID of an otherwise lawful person?

What you're describing is voter fraud, which is illegal, because it deprives the legitimate voter of his rights.
How is that analogous to this firearms case?

Well, let's add back in all the criteria from when I first posed this question earlier in the thread:

I think a better example would be if the next day, Abramski's uncle for some reason tried to vote using his nephew's ID. Even if both parties were agreed to it, and the uncle was a registered voter himself, he'd still be guilty of voter fraud.

 

[The Rabbi]

I've actually answered that question three or four times now, so let me try it another way.

What is achieved by prohibiting an otherwise lawful person from voting with the ID of an otherwise lawful person?

What you're describing is voter fraud, which is illegal, because it deprives the legitimate voter of his rights.
How is that analogous to this firearms case?

Well, let's add back in all the criteria from when I first posed this question earlier in the thread:

I think a better example would be if the next day, Abramski's uncle for some reason tried to vote using his nephew's ID. Even if both parties were agreed to it, and the uncle was a registered voter himself, he'd still be guilty of voter fraud.

OK, you have failed not only to answer the question as to what good is served by this rule. You have also failed to defend your analogy. What does this say about you?