Why would anyone object to Virginia’s new gun laws?

[rightwinger]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

What is the purpose of "A limit to one handgun purchase per month"?

Why should people have to have the approval of the government to dispose of their private property?

Why should a person who is not breaking the law be limited in public places?

Because straw buyers can go into a gun shop and buy dozens of guns for resale to whoever has difficulty legally buying a gun

 

[rightwinger]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

What is the point of one gun a month?

Now for my liberty logic sarcastic portion:
For universal background checks, its sounds like your going after people with rap sheets, which makes it racist

The reason is simple

End straw buyers who buy guns for felons

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

 

[DBA]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

What is the point of one gun a month?

Now for my liberty logic sarcastic portion:
For universal background checks, its sounds like your going after people with rap sheets, which makes it racist

The reason is simple

End straw buyers who buy guns for felons

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

What are you trying to reduce? Gun ownership or gun crimes? There are already 400+million guns in the US and the percentage of gun crimes committed by non-felons is astoundingly low.

 

[rightwinger]

How many on this board buy more than one handgun a month?
How many would fail a background check?
How many carry a gun to their kids Little League game?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Define as in constitutionality. Laws aren't interpreted. The constitution is.

Stop crying.

You need to go back to law school, bud.



.

Please explain, professor.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Try reading Scalia's opinion on Heller. That is fact as well.

Where in the second amendment does it say arms are to be regulated?

I've already referred you to the answer.

No you are dodging the question.

As usual

I provided the best explanation of the second as it exists today under the law.

Read it or don't but reserve your bitching for those who make such rulings.

You mean this:

"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)."

Where the Court CLEARLY dismisses the bullshit notion that a "well-regulated militia" gives power regulate firearms?



Also, take a look at this:

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “ ‘It is nothing unusual in acts … for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)). Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose."


.

You mean this

No. Not at all.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's the job of SCOTUS to Define our laws according to the constitution. They have no obligation to take your tearful objections into consideration.

No, it's their job to interpret them with regards to the constitution, not define, and when found wanting to resolve said issue with the least impact possible on our freedoms.

Define as in constitutionality. Laws aren't interpreted. The constitution is.

Stop crying.

The laws are interpreted based on the constitution. They are defined by congress when they are written.

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

The latest ruling is the law. Period.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, it's their job to interpret them with regards to the constitution, not define, and when found wanting to resolve said issue with the least impact possible on our freedoms.

Define as in constitutionality. Laws aren't interpreted. The constitution is.

Stop crying.

The laws are interpreted based on the constitution. They are defined by congress when they are written.

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Define as in constitutionality. Laws aren't interpreted. The constitution is.

Stop crying.

The laws are interpreted based on the constitution. They are defined by congress when they are written.

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, it's their job to interpret them with regards to the constitution, not define, and when found wanting to resolve said issue with the least impact possible on our freedoms.

Define as in constitutionality. Laws aren't interpreted. The constitution is.

Stop crying.

The laws are interpreted based on the constitution. They are defined by congress when they are written.

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

The latest ruling is the law. Period.

No not at all.

 

[rightwinger]

The laws are interpreted based on the constitution. They are defined by congress when they are written.

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

Any law is valid and Constitutional until it is declared invalid by the courts

 

[Blues Man]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

What is the point of one gun a month?

Now for my liberty logic sarcastic portion:
For universal background checks, its sounds like your going after people with rap sheets, which makes it racist

The reason is simple

End straw buyers who buy guns for felons

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

But we already have thousands of gun laws on the books that we do not enforce so what makes you think one more law that will not be enforced is going to make any difference?

 

[Harry Dresden]

Chuck Norris and every other fighter in the day respected and feared lee.

Hollywood talk

is that like your internet talk?....

Hey harry STFU LOL

yea i should have more respect for our top poster...

Do what you want just STFU

if you cant handle the comments to your dumbass posts you can either stop posting....or go to a child friendly forum....or maybe you should STFU yourself.....

 

[Blues Man]

Define as in constitutionality. Laws aren't interpreted. The constitution is.

Stop crying.

The laws are interpreted based on the constitution. They are defined by congress when they are written.

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

You looking in the mirror again?

The point that sailed right over your blunt little head is that SCOTUS isn't always right

 

[rightwinger]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

What is the point of one gun a month?

Now for my liberty logic sarcastic portion:
For universal background checks, its sounds like your going after people with rap sheets, which makes it racist

The reason is simple

End straw buyers who buy guns for felons

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

But we already have thousands of gun laws on the books that we do not enforce so what makes you think one more law that will not be enforced is going to make any difference?

Name one

 

[Blues Man]

How many on this board buy more than one handgun a month?
How many would fail a background check?
How many carry a gun to their kids Little League game?

I already told you when I first started carrying I bought 3 handguns in less than 60 days.

I can pass any BG check you want to throw at me

And I carry when and where I decide to carry and guess what if I was standing right next to you you would have no clue that I was carrying

 

[Blues Man]

What is the point of one gun a month?

Now for my liberty logic sarcastic portion:
For universal background checks, its sounds like your going after people with rap sheets, which makes it racist

The reason is simple

End straw buyers who buy guns for felons

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

But we already have thousands of gun laws on the books that we do not enforce so what makes you think one more law that will not be enforced is going to make any difference?

Name one

Did you know that every instance of illegal firearm possession is a federal crime and punishable by 5 years in federal prison?

That law is NEVER enforced

 

[Norman]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Shall not be infringed...

Why would anyone be fine with it? Well apparently for no reason, since almost no one is.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

LOL... Ok.

Typical SJW sheep.

baaaaaa...

You mean a good citizen who recognizes and respects how our system of government works.

No, a sheep who thinks we work for government instead of the other way around.

It's the job of SCOTUS to Define our laws according to the constitution. They have no obligation to take your tearful objections into consideration.

Where did you read define? Its interpret but that doesn't mean to alter, edit or change.
SCOTUS is subservient and inferior to the constitution, they have each raised their right hand and sworn an oath to that effect.
That's the trouble with simple minds, they're far too easily to brainwash because they can't function on their own.

Define a law as constitutional or not.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

A limit on sales. Govt has no right to know about private sales. Only socialist anti gun people like these kind of laws. Not surprised that you call them sensible.

Government has a right to regulate commerce

You make a practice of selling guns to criminals, government has a right to know

Go after the criminals then. Stay away from law abiding citizens who do private sales.

Go after the criminals then. Stay away from law abiding citizens who do private sales.

It's the private sales with no documentation or checks that make guns available to criminals.

No, not at all. That's the lib go to reason which isn't true.

How do you know? Do you have a full accounting of every transaction?