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

true but if Bruen is followed, that should change. If the courts actually followed MILLER, the machine gun and SBR restrictions would have been 86d in 1939

 

Then change it! But that hasn't happened in my lifetime, and I'm in my 50s. They no longer even bother discussing a serious attempt to do so, even when it's probably a good idea, like writing an Amendment authorizing the Air Force to exist!

However, don't ignore it, don't try playing games by redefining words to suit your agenda, allowing alphabet agencies to bypass Congress and make rules that redefine laws, which is outside their power, or other 'tricks' to get around what the Constitution says, and what the USSC has ruled.

 

I personally know at least 8 people in 3 families that would likely be dead today had they not been armed, and of the 3, only 1 had to even pull the trigger. The other 2, including a family of 4, simply exposing their weapon was enough to make the bad guys run.

 

RICO is an effort to break up criminal organizations. Keeping weapons out of their hands may be part of the program.

 

Pretending restricting rights has to do with breaking up criminal organizations that the government created is some third world tinhorn dictator horse ****.

If you want to break up criminal organizations hire some competent police.

Stop making laws banning things like alcohol and marijuana, control the boarder. Quit electing drug users

Flinging open the boarder to let cartel in after the government made sure to arm them (fast and furious scandal) just so they can pretend they need to take guns away from us to protect us is a scam that would make Hitler impressed.

 

Ah, you missed it... the 27th on May 7, 1992. Considering the subject matter, you should be forgiven.

 

you cannot strip people of their rights before they are convicted-or at least indicted.

 

Good grief--all that over RICO? Are you afraid they're going to nab your Orange Friend?

I don't see why we can't make guns radioactive for gang members. Prove the gang exists and that it's a criminal enterprise.

 

Are you going to allege RICO is unconstitutional?

 

I don't agree that measures like gun registration violate the Constitution. BTW, I'm not a fan of gun registries.

 

I'm sorry I don't buy the fraud for 1 minute that we have to limit the rights of people to control criminals.

Obama and Joe Biden gave them the ****ing guns. If you want to stop criminals start with one in the ****ing White House.

If you're not going to recognize that everything to say about criminals is a lie and not to be trusted.

 

The only purpose for gun registration is to confiscate.

If you're a criminal you don't register your gun.

Measures like gun registries are an attempt to take guns away from the people.

Fighting crime by making laws for people who don't obey laws. Is like fighting fire by spring propane on it.

You fight crime with enforcement not gun control.

 

Is any part of this being used to infringe on the rights of the people to keep and bear arms?

Meaning any kind of rifle any kind of pistol any kind of shotgun body armor ammo so forth?

If the right of the people to keep and bear arms is infringed by anything it's unconstitutional.

 

Good morning I'm thinking about this post the more brainless it seems.

You control crime with enforcement. Crime is disobedience of laws so making laws expecting the disobedient to become magically obedient is an exercise in futility or it's a lie to try and trick people to fall for gun control.

Law only controls the law abiding. So punitive measures like restricting your rights to firearms only punishes people who don't do crime.

So you can't sell this as crime prevention and be honest at the same time.

 

If there were no gun registrations in 1791, it is in fact Unconstitutional per Bruen. While I personally don't have to worry about it, as there is no such thing here and never will be, it's important to me ideologically that all Americans enjoy the same basic freedoms I enjoy.

 

why don't you tell us what the difference is for indicting people for criminal activity vs stripping them of their rights before they are convicted or even indicted

 

Delete

 

I'll take "he really doesn't care for the constitution" for 2000 Ken

 

The unsupportability of your belief aside...
You didn't address what I said:

There's nothing "reasonable" about "measures" that violate the constitution; they should be vigorously opposed at every opportunity.
Why do you disagree?

Well?

 

The gang is a criminal enterprise.

Their right to carry a weapon and be a member of a criminal enterprise?

I said be a gang member, not hang out with them.

No, I didn't say that, but a misdemeanor assault of a spouse might get your guns grabbed.

I like the 14th--it should apply to pregnant women seeking an abortion. Violent misdemeanor assault against a spouse justifies pulling access to a firearm.

I was talking about principles, not whether they're being applied. Some gun supporters resist almost every effort to take guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, senile old folks, children, etc. Reasoning with them is no easier than getting gun grabbers to see they're going too far.

 

you dont' seem to understand the concept of the presumption of innocence and the requirement that the state prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. and there's the abortion thing again which further reinforces my argument that you see gun restrictions as some sort of valid retaliation for the GOP restricting a "right" that you see as more important than one enumerated in the second amendment . BEING A GANG member is bullshit when it comes to constitutional rights. You have to CONVICT someone of engaging in a criminal activity first.

BTW Define "senile old folks"

your dislike of substantive and procedural due process is rather disturbing I might add

 

Well, it was passed by Congress and sent to the states in 1789, which most certainly was not within my lifetime. Unless, of course, I'm a vampire and lying about my age... Instead of 50s, what if I'm really 500+ years old?

 

No issues with felony level criminals, not a big fan of stripping a person of their rights for a misdemeanor. For that matter, I would like the length of gun prohibition to be an actual part of a post-conviction sentence, even if it's a lifetime ban. I again am not a fan of blanket policies that apply to anyone, regardless of the crime they have committed. If someone gets convicted for say felony tax evasion... I suspect most people, for a first time offense would not ultimately be charged or convicted of a felony, but if they do it more than once, they probably will. Still, that person is not necessarily dangerous, and I'd have no issues with (just as a hypothetical example, don't get caught up in the details) say 5 years in prison, plus another 2 on probation, and a 10-year ban on owning guns. Or just the 7, or lifetime if there are extenuating circumstances. Regardless, it should be something addressed by the sentence.

Children are not an issue either.

The other two get a bit... Problematic. Define mentally ill, for one. If a woman had a serious case of post-partum depression 12-years ago, but once it went away, they've had no further issues since them, is that OK? Who decides? And what degree of mental illness? Simple anxiety? Minor depression? DID? Where is the line, and again... Who decides? These same questions and problems exist with "senile old folks". How senile? How old?

 

I don't think so.

You can appeal. Your doctor holds a key to the kingdom, not the only key. If he says you're okay, you passed.

Oh, please.

Geez, because we might ask you to have your doctor confirm you're okay to have firearms? You can always take the government test. From Bing:

"Q: Does the government take guns away from senile adults in the United States?

A: That is a complex question that does not have a simple answer. The laws regarding gun ownership and possession by people with mental illness vary by state and by federal regulations. Generally speaking, the federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective” or “committed to any mental institution” from buying or possessing firearms or ammunition. However, the definitions and criteria for these terms are not clear and may depend on the circumstances of each case. Some states have their own laws that may be stricter or more lenient than the federal law, and some states have procedures for restoring gun rights to people who have lost them due to mental illness.

In addition, the legal age for buying a gun in the US also varies by state and by type of firearm. Under the federal law, the minimum age for buying a handgun is 21, while the minimum age for buying a long gun (such as a shotgun or a rifle) is 18. Some states have higher or lower age limits, or different rules for private sales or transfers.

Therefore, whether the government can take guns away from senile adults in the US depends on several factors, such as the state where they live, the type of gun they own, the severity and duration of their mental impairment, and the legal process involved."​

IOW, what I propose is not unconstitutional.

 

sorry concepts of procedural and substantive due process don't allow your scheme. if the doctor is biased, he should get 25 to life in jail. would you support that?