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

they should do this
1) strike down all federal gun control on TENTH amendment grounds
2) strike down state laws that prevent lawful persons of age owning, possessing, buying etc any firearm

 

because it's a constitutional right and there are substantive and procedural due process rights

 

I took an oath (twice) to support the constitution of the United States. the rights the constitution establishes are ones I support. those who do not support them are enemies of the US constitution

 

I'm not a fan of gun registries, but I don't think they're unconstitutional.

We make laws to control or exclude people who present a threat. The laws are for "us" to deal with "them."

Yes, and there's more. There's the consent of the governed. Good luck to gun grabbers, anti-abortionists and anti-drug warriors.

Laws banning pot, ecstasy, psilocybin are not respected by the governed. Women won't put up with government telling them if and when to have children. I take it you understand why gun grabbing won't work.

 

It's only a way to avoid a formal process. The state says, "If a doctor says you're good to go, that's enough for us. If you don't have a doctor or you prefer not to wait, you can take the government test."

 

Until SCOTUS says a law infringes on your gun rights, it isn't unconstitutional.

 

We'll see.

We register firearms now.

 

They could be adjudged not to have a right to have a firearm if they're participating in a criminal enterprise.

 

We register machine guns now. SCOTUS has to say it's unconstitutional. If they do, I'll agree.

 

Fine. We establish the guy is participating in a criminal enterprise and say his possession of a firearm is illegal.

I do think the right is more important. Retaliation? I'm not personally favoring gun restrictions except on criminals. I wouldn't have a gun registry. As I said, the anti-gun types I know are sincere in their beliefs.

You must think RICO is unconstitutional.

I said a lot of things appear constitutional that I don't personally favor.

 

May 7, 1992

 

It is this mentality that is exactly why we get so many laws passed every year in this country. Politicians know that SCOTUS cannot possibly hear a case on every single law. So they pass laws knowing that there is a real chance that SCOTUS may never get to it due to the overwhelming amount of cases it receives and knowing that they can only handle so many. And as a result pass laws that wouldn't ordinarily pass Constitutional muster. But hey, "until SCOTUS says its unconstitutional, then its constitutional........". It an intellectually dishonest argument.

 

You are looking for ways to strip people of their rights where procedural safeguards are not in place. The current system has constitutional safeguards.

 

if they are CONVICTED of criminal activities fine-what are you looking for-say an advisory opinion short of a conviction-

sorry that doesn't meet constitutional standards

 

that's why there needs to be sanctions -civil punitive damages and perhaps jail time for politicians who enact unconstitutional violations of our rights

 

I have yet to meet an avid anti gunner who is honest and I have met many of the leaders. I thrashed Sarah Brady so badly, she told the anti gun mayor of Cincinnati she would never return (one of the few promises she kept). I eviscerated Pete Shields and Howard Metzenbaum at Yale in gun debates. Gun banners have a hard time supporting their public position because it's almost always a facade for their real motivation

 

Prosecutorial discretion.

We have to decide.

 

an issue you clearly haven't thought about is this: if someone seeking mental health care-for any reason-be it the death of a spouse, a child or parent, etc-knows that their doctor will rat them out to the bureau of gun banners, then someone who still can engage in rational thought might well avoid seeking help-meaning they may get worse and worse and worse. the current system safeguards those who are not a threat and bans those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent. I have seen lots of anti gun types say anyone who wants a gun for self defense is "mentally ill" and I have heard the same crap about hunters

 

that's why we have so many unconstitutional laws in this country.

 

You didn't address my question

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

Well?

 

Forget leaders. Very few "leaders" on either side are honest.

 

Gun restrictionist types I have dealt with

1) the pillow headed utopians. These are the people who want to make "a statement" against gun violence by banning guns. They don't care that their schemes wont work--they want to virtue signal that they CARE

2) the machiavellian power freaks-like Schumer Soros and Bloomberg. Their goal is purely political-push gun bans to keep the right off balance and hopefully disarm people that might oppose their power grabs in the future

3) the Payback crowd. Gay rights activists are especially prevalent in this group as are abortion rights advocates. They figure pro gun voters and politicians vote against gay rights, abortion rights, animal "rights" etc and need to be punished for their anti progressive voting patterns

4) the low wattage types-often the soccer moms and yuppies who sign on to grifter groups like Everytown or Sandy Hook promise-these people want to do something and actually believe gun bans will stop violent criminals. these people at least aren't dishonest about their goals. they are just ignorant

 

when people say that they won't declare something to be unconstitutional until-and only until-the supreme court strikes the law down-it is almost always because they support that law

 

Of course it does.

 

I'd like to go after gangs (criminal enterprises) and stop them from recruiting more kids.