NRA torches Biden admin for plan to change rules for gun buyers, sellers

And you apparently don't care if its Constitutional or not.

And if you break it down even further you'll find that its Democrats cities that holds the most crime. With 9 out of the top 10 being run by Democrats.

It technically is. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not. But its gun control that Republicans do not mind. What you apparently want goes far beyond that and is not Constitutional.

"contributing" can be as innoxious as feeding her husband. Yet you still want to make her a criminal.

And you come off as someone who's arguments continually shift when an argument doesn't go your way.

And I've already told you my plan for dealing with senile seniors. And its Constitutional. You just don't like it because it doesn't allow the government to confiscate guns willy nilly.

 

more nonsense. fentanyl and heroin are banned and millions of people have OD on them. We already have 400 million firearms-many of them semi autos. Police and military "lose" thousands of weapons each year. If drug gangs can import millions of dollars of heroin or cocaine, what kind of silliness suggests they couldn't do it with guns. And unlike drugs that are used up constantly, a well made firearm will last over a century. The 1911 Colt handgun my grandfather carried while earning the Army Cross and several other medals still shoots a two inch group at 25 yards

 

Let's work through the test and find out: Are cannons weapons? Yes. Were cannons in common use for lawful purposes during the Founding? Also yes.
Seems like they're in under the prima facie wire, and the burden PER THE ACTUAL RULE should go to DOJ.
Without handwaiving, without an analog, anything analogous to a cannon is good to go. That's not chem weapons, nukes, or bio weapons. That's not fire and forget munitions, minefields or anything like them. That's point, shoot, indirect fire or direct fire capable projectile weapons.
Now, if the supremes want to handwaive and not follow the ****ing rule they already announced, that's on them. But the rule's intrinsic logic demands a certain result.

 

The logic that protects, for example, a nice select fire M4, or a suppressor, when contemplating an NFA contest, protects grenades, man portable rocket and mortar tubes, and a whole bunch of other fun ****.
You can't divorce them from each other and maintain a logically consistent rule that cannot be thrown out for being non-****ing sensical.

 

These two posts taken in context together are ****ing hilarious.

 

Robbery with a gun is illegal. What more do you want, double secret probation?

Pretty sure in most places its illegal to be a banger and carry. That might need tweaking, freedom of association and all that. https://www.rbisenberg.com/texas-pe...llegal to,possessing firearms under Texas law.

We are perfectly serious about putting people in jail for malum in se offenses. I wonder, then, why restrictions move the other way? Could it have anything to do with what your fellow travelers do with your vote?

 

As a person that works there? No it shouldn't be against the law.
As a guest on the premises? Guests have all kinds of rights restricted because they don't have a right to be where they are. See how that works?

Sure, just have their next of kin move for conservatorship as is proper to divest someone of all legal rights to make any decision for themselves. The full Britney Spears is what we call it in shorthand.

 

Some communities might want to lynch folks.
Some communities might want to ban gays.
Some communities might want to do a lot of things that violate people's rights.
Some communities might want to do that isn't a reason, or a justification.
As a private business? You can offer terms to guests, such as disarm yourself. The law? Can disarm a person actively intoxicated. But a designated driver? The law can't touch them.
YOU COULD as the business owner, but they have a right to not patronize your business.
But that's not what you're wanting. YOU want a law. Which is the issue. The law is incredibly limited in scope in this area, by explicit design.

It costs too much to lock the ****ing doors and have a single open airlock door main entrance with an armed guard at a reinforced desk with eyes on camera monitors?
LOL. No it doesn't. And if it did? There are hella extracurriculars that have a budget that is now part of the security budget.

There are historic analogs for polling places and courthouses.
You can have those.

 

Name anyone saying taking the guns of those ADJUDICATED MENTALLY UNFIT is an issue.
Do not cite an ex parte red flag law, that's not what I asked for.

Governments run bars now? Bars are a private business.

 

You DO realize if you've got the line on the gang you COULD use RICO to try them all at which point they'd be imprisoned?

WHY is it that you won't charge them under RICO for participation in an organized criminal concern but you DO want to treat them like they have already been convicted?

 

And some people in hell want ice water. But what has that to do with the price of butter?

Ah removing someone's rights based upon age discrimination.... you're going to have to pass a constitutional test to pull that ****, even if it doesn't smack the 2a's nuts.
Can you tell the class what the proper test for age discrimination is?
Note: I asked YOU, not an AI, for the answer.

 

You just said based upon a protected class status persons should be required to prove their innocence so they may exercise a right.

You sure do sound like one though. You get that right?

 

And I'm convinced after knowing my mother in law for more than a decade that she earnestly believes the cult she's in. That doesn't mean she's being reasonable or should be taken seriously.

 

If Miller's corrupt, dumbfuck incompetent of a lawyer had bothered to present ANY evidence the Court would've had SOME evidence to consider if sawed offs were useful in service.
Seeing as how more than one sitting justice had been in WW1, you'd think they'd know.

 

RICO is a criminal liability statute wherein one charges all members of a gang with the crimes of all the other members because they act as a conspiracy.
You don't swing by and disarm them 'as part of the program'. You charge them, and jail them, and you deny them bond as flight risks. Then you monitor their phone calls and visits with girlfriends and wives and hope to get some good intel on someone ready to snitch.

 

You mean someone who didn't get the point of the cases and needed correction multiple times?
Nah, I'm tickled you provided a perfect segue to ask that question.

Seeing as how your comment was in a line discussing my post which did, its perfectly relevant.
Seeing as how you want to talk about the standard, and whether or not cannons and the like meet them, its perfectly relevant.

You just don't want to answer because you know where its going to go

 

You realize your link says ADJUDICATED MENTALLY UNFIT OR ACTUALLY COMMITTED, and you're talking about making all people over a certain age report and prove their innocence.... right? You DO see how those are different things right? In another you're suggesting cold calling the doctor and removing HIPPA protection.

Likewise: IN THE QUOTE YOU CUT, the fed makes clear his position on that is PRE CONVICTION or AT MINIMUM pre indictment and confinement without bond.

 

You do realize prison wardens don't go arrest people or investigate crimes right?

Why don't you just trigger RICO and successfully prosecute the gang to get it off the street? Then you don't need to randomly ban people's rights, you can just enforce the law against criminals who actually break it. Novel concept, I'm sure.

 

For their free association and speech, recall.

 

We can, you just have to have a person petition a court to do it. And the person you're ****ing with has the right to be told the accusation, assemble a defense, have notice, the right to be heard etc.
Most people like you? Those that say "if we'd just follow the rules and take the guns"? They don't WANT to follow the established rules. They want a shortcut. And they will not stop whining about it.

 

Don't forget the protections for not being discriminated against or targeted by a statute based on protected class status, age being one.

 

See what I mean?

 

No, unless a court rules that way I can't get relief. But it is or isn't constitutional based upon the intrinsic logic of the primary source.

 

Then how is it perfectly legal that while dicking around on this thread in my garage shop on vacation I built a firearm and don't have to tell the gubment about it?
Weird.

 

And if they've been ADJUDICATED that means they've been convicted dude.

So what would be the difference between awaiting such a conviction (which is followed by incarceration) and not?