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

Some people oppose taking their guns.

Public facilities where they sell liquor.

 

Why not leave it up to the owner? (bar was already addressed)

How in the world can you say that with a straight face?

So.... costs too much to protect our kids like we do money and politicians..........Do you have any idea how that sounds? That has got to be the WORST excuse I've ever heard.

Bold: Such as? Government buildings are already gun free zones for civilians. What other public facilities are you suggesting?

Rest: There is already a process for removing guns from mentally ill and senile people. Its just not simple like gun control advocates want it to be. It actually requires due process.

 

Not reasonable to enough for some gun owners.

Malum in se? Anyway, I don't know how you can presume to speak for everyone.

There are restaurants that are more "bar" than restaurant.

 

So...just because they are in a gang means that they get their right to bear arms taken away? You do know that not all gang members commit crimes right?

Its not a matter of what I think. Its a matter of right and wrong and Rights. If a gang member has not committed a crime, then there is no valid reason to strip them of their Rights. They are human beings, just like you and me. Deserving of all the Rights that you and I have.

Its not sensible to ban people who've never committed a crime just because they associate with gang members.

Oh so you want to make it to where even misdemeanors ban people from owning guns? Or just gang members? If its just gang members then you are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. If its for everyone...HELL NO. Speeding is a misdemeanor (depending on the speed and location) yet you want to ban people from owning guns just because they went 5 miles too fast? Graffitiing a location is a misdemeanor, and you want to ban people from owning guns just because of it? Doesn't sound reasonable to me at all. Nor would it to the VAST majority of people.

Baring the ones that are already "the law" (such as banning senile people from owning a gun), you haven't been reasonable yet in any of your examples.

 

I used to basically eat every day at a TGIF-why? 1) I was a young trial attorney working 10 hours a day-didn't have time to cook. 2) I was also a professional shooter-the range where I taught was a mile from the TGIF, and I dated one of the managers. I don't drink-I haven't since I was sworn into the bar in 1984. why should the fact that TGIF have a bar matter.

and most of the anti gun posters on this board want far more than restrictions on people carrying in bars or schools

 

I think the issue is he doesn't think it is reasonable to vote against liberals based on gun issues

 

Some communities might not want to leave it to businesses.

You said it has no effect. Now, that's a stretch.

I worked as a teacher for more than three decades. I know they think it costs too much money.

Bars. Hospitals. Public schools.

When you get older, you should have to present evidence from your doctor that you have the mental capacity to possess and safely use a firearm.

 

Huh?

I'm not a gun grabber.

 

unconstitutional-what are the remedies if you have an anti gun doctor-what is the punishment if the doctor says no. I love how you hate constitutional rights. Maybe we should have doctors determine who should breed and who should vote? how about posting silly stuff on a message board? if it's illegal to drink and pack heat, why should those of us who don't drink be forced to leave our guns in a car where its more likely to be stolen?

 

If I eat in an establishment that has a bar, why should I be banned from carrying when I don't drink booze?

most gun grabbers say they are not. they only want the "next reasonable" restriction on gun owners

 

We're talking about Rights here. It shouldn't be up to the community if a restaurant, which has no inherent danger in them, like a bar does, on whether they want to allow guns inside or not. Do you support communities that got rid of laws baring bars from being able to have guns in them? Considering how much you're pushing on the "bar" thing...I'd guess not.

Not at all considering how many mass shootings we've had in schools. Not to mention the data that shows criminals would rather target people/places that they know does not carry guns.

Same response: So.... costs too much to protect our kids like we do money and politicians..........Do you have any idea how that sounds? That has got to be the WORST excuse I've ever heard.

Again, except is certain areas where local communities have gotten rid of the law (which are very very few), guns generally are barred from being brought into bars.

Guns are already banned from being in hospitals.

Guns are already banned from being in schools.

Presumed guilt is not a part of our justice system. Innocent until proven guilty IS. You want to turn our entire justice system up on its head. No thank you.

 

They aren't gun grabbing as revenge. I'm convinced after working with liberal teachers for decades that they believe gun possession should be restricted.

 

It's too difficult to enforce selective bans.

It's like restrictions on abortion--the more anti-abortion types get, the more they want.

 

It doesn't matter what some people oppose the law is already the law.

Here in Florida it is illegal to have a gun in a bar.

 

This from Bing:

"Q: Is the national firearms act in the United States unconstitutional?

A: The constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA) is a complex and controversial topic. The NFA is a federal law that imposes an excise tax and registration requirements on certain firearms and firearm-related items, such as machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The NFA was enacted in 1934 as a response to the rise of organized crime and the use of firearms in violent crimes.

The NFA has been challenged several times in court, but it has generally been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax and regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court has ruled that the NFA does not violate the Second Amendment when it regulates the possession of weapons that have no law-abiding purpose. However, some critics argue that the NFA infringes on the right to keep and bear arms by imposing burdensome and arbitrary restrictions on certain firearms and firearm-related items that are commonly used for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, hunting, and recreation.

The NFA is currently under review by the Supreme Court in the case of Garland v. Cargill, No. 22-976, 602 U.S. ___ (2024). The case involves a challenge to the NFA’s regulation of silencers, which are devices that reduce the noise and muzzle flash of firearms. The plaintiffs argue that silencers are protected by the Second Amendment and that the NFA’s tax and registration requirements are unconstitutional. The government argues that silencers are not in common use for lawful purposes and that the NFA’s regulation of silencers is a reasonable and longstanding measure to prevent crime and protect public safety. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could have significant implications for the future of the NFA and the scope of the Second Amendment."​

Unconstitutional? The short answer? Not yet.

 

Maybe I spend my time hanging around a better class of folks. Most of the people I know on both sides of the abortion issue appear quite sincere in their beliefs.

 

A sensible regulation if it exists.

This from Bing:

"Q: In what states in the United States is it illegal to carry a gun in a bar?

A: According to my web search results, the legality of carrying a gun in a bar varies by state. Some states prohibit carrying any firearm in a bar, while others allow it with certain restrictions, such as not consuming alcohol or having a concealed carry permit. Here is a summary of the states that ban or allow carrying a gun in a bar:

• States that ban carrying a gun in a bar: Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, and South Carolina.
• States that allow carrying a gun in a bar: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
• States that have mixed regulations on carrying a gun in a bar: California, District of Columbia, and Florida prohibit openly carrying a firearm in public, but not concealed carrying. New York and South Carolina prohibit openly carrying a handgun, but not a long gun. Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey prohibit openly carrying a long gun, but not a handgun.

Please note that this information is based on my web search results and may not reflect the most current or accurate laws in each state. You should always check the local laws and regulations before carrying a firearm in any public place. I hope this helps."​

I'm not arguing for a national law, btw.

 

They're dumb because they're moving to your state? They're dumb because they don't share your understanding (such as it is... ) of how the economy works?

 

They are dumb for voting for idiots who's policies created their leftist utopias, then running in droves from what they created, just to vote for the same idiots and their policies again.

 

oh the grass roots yes-no doubt-the little old Catholic ladies praying the rosary in front of planned parenthood sincerely believed abortion killed innocent "babies". the hateful operation rescue twit who called girls going into the clinic "whores of satan" and screamed "you must be purified by the pain of childbirth or you will burn in hell" NO. and lots of low wattage soccer moms think banning guns will stop murderers People like CHuckie Schumer, Mike Bloomberg, George Soros and the Clintons have far more nefarious motives

 

Ohio is not on that list anymore.

 

Miller held that firearms that are militia useful are protected. If police have weapons they have lawful purposes

 

that's because they tend to be pillow headed low wattage types. but lots of it is cultural.

 

If they strike down the law, we'll see if they go after part of it or all of it.

 

As I said, the NFA, or parts of it, have not be ruled unconstitutional at this point.