“The U.S. is seeking a double standard on guns”

I'm surprised Florida has a waiting period of any kind.

 

He could be prosecuted to quite easily and quite quickly for reckless use of a firearm and I think that should mean that his right is suspended.

The problem with this is he can just illegally get a gun so the way you stop somebody from getting a gun is putting them in jail.

Using any kind of law or making any kind of law to disarm this person is a smoke screen. They're already as a law he can be adjudicated.

 

You'd only have a point if the second amendment said the people's right to bear firearms shall not be infringed.

I also don't think when they wrote it that they thought all innovation would stop at that point.

 

They overturn the law.
Bruen was written so it would be the basis to overturn most laws.

 

The USSC -specifically- rejected this argument more than two decades ago.

 

The purpose of the second amendment was to provide the public with a defense against a potential government gone rogue. In my view it has gone rogue but got there slowly and skillfully. It did so by training voters to accept what they do. It worked famously. Voters give government everything it wants. Government repays the voters by overspending on programs voters appear to want. A government that never says no is rogue in my view. But what would I know?

 

The ostensible purpose of these laws is to provide a "cooling off" period for someone wanting a gun with a crime in mind. I assume Florida sees value in that as well. As long as the public knows about the waiting period they can schedule a purchase in advance of when it is needed. I doubt seriously that these laws have had any meaningful effect on anything. The same holds true for all gun laws. All of them ignore the fact that people who misuse guns aren't the people that respect and follow laws. The laws don't actually prevent these people from acquiring the guns. What we need is a law requiring sociopaths to be removed from society like we did in the old days when we had asylums for them.

 

Republicans only frame this going in one direction — they do that with virtually everything. If it benefits their argument then it is the cornerstone of the US. If it doesn’t they ignore the cognitive dissonance entirely

 

Does this mean people who already own guns do not have to wait?

 

this one is up in the air for me. He was not a good test plaintiff

 

at a state level you are right-they never intended the federal government get involved in that area

 

California has had one for decades. When I was a 3L I attended a luncheon at our school featuring "Helter Skelter" Author Vince Bugliosi (he's the guy who won the death penalty case against Manson). He noted that after Sharon Tate was butchered, a bunch of people in the area went out to buy handguns, They had to wait and one of the couples-the LaBiancas, were murdered the following night by Manson's cult

 

this reason is well known bullshit. ask any psychiatrist who is expert on the criminal mindset-if you run to a gun store, buy a gun, fill out the paperwork and waiting for the background check to be completed, you are no longer in "the heat of the moment"

 

Bruen is not part of the Constitution. It is only a misreading, a faulty interpretation of the Constitution, much as our High Court claims was the Roe ruling. But no Amendment was needed, to overturn that-- only a change in Court personnel. I suspect the same thing applies to Bruen-- though I doubt it will stand as long as Roe had, before that happens.

 

LOL. what is the correct interpretation of the constitution-that being the second as incorporated by the fourteenth.

 

I have already provided you a source (which you never rebutted with your own source), explaining that not all of the bill of rights are incorporated under the 14th, and under this partial incorporation, the 2nd Amendment right was never incorporated until 2010. Which means that, for the preponderance of the time since the passage of 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment had NOT been incorporated, under the 14th.

This aberration of the Roberts Court, as I said, was a new, unique, and faulty reading of the Constitution-- which has led to more rulings by the Court, which are already butting heads with common sense, as is described in this thread's OP. These do not represent the traditional reading of the Constitution.
LOL at your idea, that these new interpretations of the Constitution, are all here to stay.


<Google Snip #1>
What is the partially incorporated 14th Amendment?

Thus, the Supreme Court established the principle of "partial incorporation": Only certain "fundamental rights," not the entire Bill of Rights, apply to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
https://www.crf-usa.org › bria-7-4-...
The 14th Amendment and the “Second Bill of Rights”
<End Snip #1>


<Google Snip #2>
Which amendments have been selectively incorporated to the states using the 14th Amendment?
By 1937, freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition had all been "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment's due process clause. This meant that these First Amendment freedoms were now also part of the 14th Amendment, which limited state laws and actions.
https://www.crf-usa.org › bill-of-rig...
The 14th Amendment and the “Second Bill of Rights”
<End Snip #2>


<Snip-- from Cornell Law School>

First Amendment (fully incorporated)
Guarantee against the establishment of religion: Everson v Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Free Exercise of Religion: Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934), Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)

Freedom of Speech: Gitlow v. New York 268 U.S. 652 (1925)

Freedom of the Press: Near v. Minnesota 283 U.S. 697 (1931)

Right of Assembly and Petition: DeJonge v. Oregon 299 U.S. 353 (1937)

Freedom of expressive association: Even though not directly mentioned in the Amendment, See Roberts v. United States Jaycees 468 U.S. 609 (1984) where the court states that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment is a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends.”



Second Amendment (fully incorporated)
Right to keep and bear arms: McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).




Third Amendment (not incorporated)




Fourth Amendment (fully incorporated)
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure: Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
Requirements in a warrant: Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964)



Fifth Amendment (partially incorporated)
Right to indictment by a grand jury (not incorporated): Hurtado v. California, 110 US 516 (1884);

Double Jeopardy: Benton v. Maryland, 395 US 784 (1969)

Right against Self-Incrimination: Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964)

Protection against taking property without due compensation: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).



Sixth Amendment (partially incorporated)
Right to a Speedy Trial: Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)

Right to a Public Trial: In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948 )

Right to an Impartial Jury: Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966)

Right to notice of accusations: In re Oliver 333, U.S. 257 (1948 )

Right to Confront Hostile Witnesses: Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965)

Right to compulsory process to obtain witness testimony: Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)

Right to Confront Favorable Witnesses: Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)

Right to Counsel: Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Right to jury selected from residents of the state and district where the crime occurred (not incorporated)





Seventh Amendment (not incorporated)




Eight Amendment
Protection against excessive bail: Schilb v Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971)
Protection against excessive fine: Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___ (2019)
Protection against cruel and unusual punishments: Robinson v California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962).
Reverse Incorporation
Reverse incorporation under Bolling v. Sharpe, refers to the Supreme Court using state law to fill in the gaps when deciding issues which the Supreme Court itself has not considered before. This doctrine has not been used very often by the Supreme Court. For more on reverse incorporation, see this Southern California Law Review article and this University of Michigan Law Review article.
<End Snip>

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

 

Great plaintiff. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Him being a plaintiff gets the country closer to the rights to be reinstated without limitation.

Soon, convicted felons will be allowed to own guns. They will be allowed in hand luggage on planes. Maybe even convicted felons will be allowed to carry them while they are still in prison.

Because the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

The precedent should be- has the person anulled their rights by breaking the law (or to put another way, have they violated someone else's rights)? That question can only be decided via due process in a court of law. Temporary restraining orders issued to protect potential victims before due process can be served are not a suitable justification to anull someones civil rights. And the right to bear arms IS a civil right in the US.

The main problem here is the often ridiculous amount of time between when a crime is reported and when anyone actually ends up in court for due process of the law to happen. This leaves a lot of suspects in a sort of holding pattern where they arent legally guilty of anything for a long period of time. But a slow court system is not an excuse to suspend civil rights.

 

which means people that are not serving a sentence for a crime.... once you serve your sentence, you have paid your debt to society and are a free person again - punishing people after the sentence has ended is wrong, if we want longer sentences, we just sentence them longer, simple

 

There are people in our society who have served their sentences, but their criminal histories are extensive. Some are committed gang members. Some are pedophiles/sex criminals. Some go right back to using or dealing in street drugs. There is a predictable recidivism rate after release from prison. And so, while a person may have "paid their debt to society", that doesn't mean they are safe in society. Peaceful, law abiding society should have the right to impose restrictions on violent criminals who leave prison.

 

yes, thus longer sentences is the solution for repeat offenders that commit crimes with guns

 

At least it is less harmful than gun bans.

 

Most laws arise not from common sense but from public pressure.

 

I haven't read all those state laws. Please read them and report back to us with the answer.

 

equally unconstitutional