Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Anti-Gun Misrepresentation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Persephone View Post
    That's a good question. The bill only say handgun ammunition, that's why it was appealed.
    In that case it should have been appealed; why would you want to restrict the business man/woman that runs a legitimate shooting range from purchasing what they need to run their business? If the bill was aimed at restricting armor piercing ammunition, a very real concern in the enforcement community, then it would be a different story.
    Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

    Initiated Chief Petty Officer
    Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
      Applying regulations is not restricting the Second Amendment, it is applying a level of sanity. Nothing can prevent 100% of anything frankly, but that is not excuse for not doing anything, and perhaps getting the insurance industry in the picture may actually accomplish what laws cannot.

      And I am sorry, I have to disagree in regards to the AR-15. According the manufacturer's own web site:



      You can put lipstick on a pig but at the end of the it's still not Miss America. You can argue that it is not a military grade weapon but clearly Colt itself advertises the AR-15 as such. If we go with that logic, I should be able to buy a fully loaded F-22 because I have a pilot's license.

      The SCOTUS was wrong; Scalia et al viewed the issue from a strictly legal point of view without taking into account the history behind it thus making that a one dimensional decision. Again, I do not believe for a second that you should be able to purchase a firearm. However, firearms should be regulated and the regulations should be consistent across the country.

      To me it makes no sense that in Illinois gun laws are restrictive but all you have to do is go across the border to Kentucky and voila, you just bypassed all those restrictions; keep in that John Lennon's killer bought his gun in Florida. I just cannot buy the idea that in many localities it is harder to get a driver's license and to purchase a car than it is to get a conceal and carry permit and a Desert Eagle.

      http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Military...olt-M4-Carbine


      You can argue SCOTUS was wrong, but they were interpreting a Constitutional right. If the SCOTUS was wrong, then the 2nd amendment is the only right in the "Bill of Rights" that is not an individual right.
      Such a conclusion would be legally inconsistent with the drafting and the intent of the people who drafted the Bill and the Constitution.

      The point of the Constitution and the Bill was to limit government, not individuals.
      I think that the SCOTUS decision on Heller and MacDonald was sound logically, historically and legally.

      It is illegal for me to buy a gun in the next state without the seller doing the paperwork required by law.

      Since I don't know what State you are referring to about CCPs, I can't quibble with you on their being easier to get than a driver's license. That said, a driver's license is not based on an explicit constitutional right and you don't need a DL to drive or own a car, you just need one if you wish to use the public roads.

      The intent of those demanding insurance is to make gun ownership even more expensive and difficult. What that approach ignores is that we already have insurance that will cover "accidents".
      No insurance policy will ever cover for "expected or intended" acts. It is contrary to public policy in all States and no insurance policy would ever accept that risk.
      Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

      Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
        Applying regulations is not restricting the Second Amendment, it is applying a level of sanity. Nothing can prevent 100% of anything frankly, but that is not excuse for not doing anything, and perhaps getting the insurance industry in the picture may actually accomplish what laws cannot.
        Applying additional regulations to the Second Amendment is restricting a right no matter how you look at it. "Shall not be infringed"....the use of 'shall' could imply future... Had they said 'will not be infringed' it could have implied their present.

        Keep in mind, they wrote the Constitution with the knowledge that their world view would be different from future generations. That is why they made sure that the Constitution could be amended.

        If the people think that the Second Amendment is out of sync with today, the only legal course is to amend the Constitution. Applying additional restrictions to our basic rights was never the intent of the founding fathers.

        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
        And I am sorry, I have to disagree in regards to the AR-15. According the manufacturer's own web site:
        The link is to the M-4, that is a rifle for sale to the military, that is why it is in Colt's military section of the catalog.

        A better example would be the 6920:

        http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Rifles/LE6920-Series

        Note in the description;

        "shares many features of its combat proven brother, the Colt M4"

        Keep in mind it isn't the 'same as.' That being said, the only difference between the military M-4 and my 6920 is barrel length and automatic fire capability. Those differences are minor but if we are talking about restricting semi automatic rifles; the minor differences become a major stumbling block in the discussion.

        Sort of like someone saying that CG-47 is the same as CG-52.

        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
        The SCOTUS was wrong; Scalia et al viewed the issue from a strictly legal point of view
        That is exactly what SCOTUS is supposed to do, view it from a strictly legal point of view. SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate from the bench.

        Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
        To me it makes no sense that in Illinois gun laws are restrictive but all you have to do is go across the border to Kentucky and voila, you just bypassed all those restrictions;
        You didn't bypass those restrictions, you broke the law of the state. There are already federal restrictions on out of state residents buying guns. You can buy a gun in Kentucky but it needs to be processed by a FFL in Illinois.
        Last edited by Nichols; 09 Jun 16, 09:56.
        "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

        Comment


        • #34
          Under Federal law, long guns can be bought out of state. Handguns can only be purchased by residents. Some states however, forbid or limit buying or selling long guns out of state. Many, for instance, will only sell to adjoining states.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by johns624 View Post
            Under Federal law, long guns can be bought out of state. Handguns can only be purchased by residents. Some states however, forbid or limit buying or selling long guns out of state. Many, for instance, will only sell to adjoining states.
            Thanks for the course adjustment, I was thinking about handguns because of Mario's reference to Lennon's killer but I should have specified.

            I didn't realize that you could buy long guns that way, I thought that you would have to ship it to a FFL in your state. I had to do this with Atlantic Firearms when I purchased a 6721.....but that was an internet purchase.
            "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Nichols View Post
              Thanks for the course adjustment, I was thinking about handguns because of Mario's reference to Lennon's killer but I should have specified.

              I didn't realize that you could buy long guns that way, I thought that you would have to ship it to a FFL in your state. I had to do this with Atlantic Firearms when I purchased a 6721.....but that was an internet purchase.
              Yeah, internet sales still have to go through a home state FFL. What's somewhat goofy is that, besides handguns, "other" sales are also home state only. The "other" classification is mainly frames/receivers. Therefore, you can buy an AR15 in another state, but you can't buy an AR lower receiver, since it could be used to build a pistol. Many dealers won't sell long guns to out of state purchasers from restrictive states (NY, NJ, IL, MD, CT, CA, etc.) since it's hard to keep up with their rules. It's just not worth the hassle.

              Comment


              • #37
                From: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom...arms-under-gca
                To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

                A person may transfer a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her State, provided the transferor does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the transferee is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. There may be State laws that regulate intrastate firearm transactions. A person considering transferring a firearm should contact his or her State Attorney General’s Office to inquire about the laws and possible State or local restrictions.

                Generally, for a person to lawfully transfer a firearm to an unlicensed person who resides out of State, the firearm must be shipped to a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) within the transferee’s State of residence. The transferee may then receive the firearm from the FFL upon completion of an ATF Form 4473 and a NICS background check.

                A person may loan or rent a firearm to a resident of any State for temporary use for lawful sporting purposes, if he or she or she does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. Another exception is provided for transfers of firearms to nonresidents to carry out a lawful bequest or acquisition by intestate succession. This exception would authorize the transfer of a firearm to a nonresident who inherits a firearm under the will of a decedent.

                A person may transfer a firearm to a licensee in any State. However, a firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector.

                [18 U.S.C 922(a)(5) and 922(d); 27 CFR 478.30, 478.32]
                Too Much To Do Too Little Time

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                  You can argue SCOTUS was wrong, but they were interpreting a Constitutional right. If the SCOTUS was wrong, then the 2nd amendment is the only right in the "Bill of Rights" that is not an individual right.
                  Such a conclusion would be legally inconsistent with the drafting and the intent of the people who drafted the Bill and the Constitution.

                  The point of the Constitution and the Bill was to limit government, not individuals.
                  I think that the SCOTUS decision on Heller and MacDonald was sound logically, historically and legally.

                  It is illegal for me to buy a gun in the next state without the seller doing the paperwork required by law.

                  Since I don't know what State you are referring to about CCPs, I can't quibble with you on their being easier to get than a driver's license. That said, a driver's license is not based on an explicit constitutional right and you don't need a DL to drive or own a car, you just need one if you wish to use the public roads.

                  The intent of those demanding insurance is to make gun ownership even more expensive and difficult. What that approach ignores is that we already have insurance that will cover "accidents".
                  No insurance policy will ever cover for "expected or intended" acts. It is contrary to public policy in all States and no insurance policy would ever accept that risk.
                  Bingo! The Second Amendment is written in the plural therefore, it does not read like an individual right and it is not in fact an individual right. That is why I believe that some members of the SCOTUS played fast and loose with their interpretation. To wit, the historical context was ignored, the word "regulated" was also ignored, and any sixth grader knows that the word people is plural. Your comments also support my contention that gun regulations should be enacted at the national level because as it stands now we have a patch-work of different laws from on state to the next; it's a national issue and it should be addressed at the national level.

                  peo·ple
                  ˈpēpəl/
                  noun
                  plural noun: people; noun: people; plural noun: peoples

                  1.
                  human beings in general or considered collectively.
                  "the earthquake killed 30,000 people"
                  synonyms: human beings, persons, individuals, humans, mortals, (living) souls, personages, men, women, and children; informal folks
                  "crowds of people"
                  the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them.
                  noun: the people
                  "his economic reforms no longer have the support of the people"
                  synonyms: citizens, subjects, electors, voters, taxpayers, residents, inhabitants, (general) public, citizenry, nation, population, populace
                  "the American people"
                  those without special rank or position in society; the populace.
                  noun: the people
                  "he is very much a man of the people"
                  synonyms: common people, proletariat, masses, populace, rank and file, commonality, plebeians; More
                  derogatory hoi polloi, rabble, riffraff, (great) unwashed, (common) herd, proles, plebs;
                  humorous sheeple;
                  historical third estate
                  "a man of the people"
                  a person's parents or relatives.
                  noun: one's people; plural noun: one's peoples
                  "my people live in West Virginia"
                  synonyms: family, parents, relatives, relations, folks, kinsmen, kin, kith and kin, kinsfolk, flesh and blood, nearest and dearest
                  "her people don't live far away"
                  the supporters or employees of a person in a position of power or authority.
                  noun: one's people; plural noun: one's peoples
                  "I've had my people watching the house for some time now"
                  US
                  the state prosecution in a trial.
                  plural noun: People; noun: the People
                  "pretrial statements made by the People's witnesses"
                  2.
                  the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.
                  "the native peoples of Canada"
                  synonyms: race, (ethnic) group, tribe, clan
                  "the peoples of Africa"

                  verb
                  verb: people; 3rd person present: peoples; past tense: peopled; past participle: peopled; gerund or present participle: peopling

                  1.
                  (of a particular group of people) inhabit (an area or place).
                  "an arid mountain region peopled by warring clans"
                  synonyms: populate, settle (in), colonize, inhabit, live in, occupy
                  Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                  Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                  Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                    Bingo! The Second Amendment is written in the plural therefore, it does not read like an individual right and it is not in fact an individual right. That is why I believe that some members of the SCOTUS played fast and loose with their interpretation. To wit, the historical context was ignored, the word "regulated" was also ignored, and any sixth grader knows that the word people is plural. Your comments also support my contention that gun regulations should be enacted at the national level because as it stands now we have a patch-work of different laws from on state to the next; it's a national issue and it should be addressed at the national level.
                    The 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

                    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

                    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

                    Review of the Heller decision reveals that the Court examined the historical context. You may not agree with them, but their review was thorough and resolves the issue once and for all.
                    It is an individual right.
                    Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                    Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Haven't got anything to add to this debate either way, it's not my problem, but I found this pic today and just had to post it somewhere. I'd love to know who, how where or especially why....

                      One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions - Admiral Grace Hopper

                      "The eunuch should not take pride in his chastity."
                      Wu Cheng'en Monkey

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        The gun used in the Orlando shooting is becoming mass shooters’ weapon of choice

                        Originally posted by Nichols View Post
                        Applying additional regulations to the Second Amendment is restricting a right no matter how you look at it. "Shall not be infringed"....the use of 'shall' could imply future... Had they said 'will not be infringed' it could have implied their present.

                        Keep in mind, they wrote the Constitution with the knowledge that their world view would be different from future generations. That is why they made sure that the Constitution could be amended.

                        If the people think that the Second Amendment is out of sync with today, the only legal course is to amend the Constitution. Applying additional restrictions to our basic rights was never the intent of the founding fathers.



                        The link is to the M-4, that is a rifle for sale to the military, that is why it is in Colt's military section of the catalog.

                        A better example would be the 6920:

                        http://www.colt.com/Catalog/Rifles/LE6920-Series

                        Note in the description;

                        "shares many features of its combat proven brother, the Colt M4"

                        Keep in mind it isn't the 'same as.' That being said, the only difference between the military M-4 and my 6920 is barrel length and automatic fire capability. Those differences are minor but if we are talking about restricting semi automatic rifles; the minor differences become a major stumbling block in the discussion.

                        Sort of like someone saying that CG-47 is the same as CG-52.



                        That is exactly what SCOTUS is supposed to do, view it from a strictly legal point of view. SCOTUS does not have the authority to legislate from the bench.



                        You didn't bypass those restrictions, you broke the law of the state. There are already federal restrictions on out of state residents buying guns. You can buy a gun in Kentucky but it needs to be processed by a FFL in Illinois.
                        With all due respect Nick, here is ringing endorsement for your point of view. If it looks like an assault rifle, shoots like and assault rifle and sounds like a GD assault rifle, it must be a ****ing assault rifle!

                        "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," American-born al-Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn said in a video. "You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

                        Gadahn was incorrect on one point — fully automatic weapons, which shoot continuously when you hold down the trigger, have been banned since 1986. But he was correct on other the other points: Most states don't require background checks for firearms purchased via private sales at gun shows. Most states don't require showing ID to purchase a firearm from a private seller.
                        To the best of my knowledge, the USA is the only major industrialized country where mass shootings such as this are such a common occurrence that we may as well keep the flag permanently at half mast.

                        http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/breaki...XH1?li=BBnbcA1
                        Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                        Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                        Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Cambronnne View Post
                          The 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

                          The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

                          https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

                          Review of the Heller decision reveals that the Court examined the historical context. You may not agree with them, but their review was thorough and resolves the issue once and for all.
                          It is an individual right.
                          BS! It is plural, that is why it says people. I may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier but I know plural when I see it.
                          Give me a fast ship and the wind at my back for I intend to sail in harms way! (John Paul Jones)

                          Initiated Chief Petty Officer
                          Hard core! Old School! Deal with it!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                            BS! It is plural, that is why it says people. I may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier but I know plural when I see it.
                            Take it up with the SCOTUS.
                            The SCOTUS has explicit power to interpret the Constitution and they did so.
                            What we think no longer matters. It is an individual right.

                            I may not agree with their thinking when they found the right to an abortion in our right to privacy, but find it they did and the issue is resolved.

                            I linked the Heller case because they explain how they arrived at their decision.
                            Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

                            Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
                              ... I may not be the brightest bulb in the chandelier ...
                              There is a true statement.

                              The USSC defines it as an individual right. Your opinion is moot.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X