You mean aside from the fact they are unconstitutional?Originally Posted by Grindelwald
Member
You mean aside from the fact they are unconstitutional?
Member
They are not, you are misinformed badly.
Member
Think a little harder. Or provide some evidence that Walmart is not complying with existing federal and state laws - including those requiring background checks.
If you have such evidence, why don't you feel the responsibility to report illegal sales to the authorities?
Member
This is the single most ironic post of the thread.
Member
That's not true.
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/...illing-629219/
So tell me about the odious "legal hurdles" again. What's funny is you will read the link and continue to insist this sort of thong doesn't happen. Irrational.
Member
"Odious" is subjective. What some consider "reasonable" others may consider "odious".
I object to the state requirement that I demonstrate (via background check) my eligibility to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
Member
You are free to object, don't buy the gun. If I object to being patted down before I board a plane, nobody is forcing me to fly.
No rights are absolute, and the idea that somehow the right to bear arms, alone is absolute is absurd.
Member
Your example in the article was between private individuals. For Karnis, selling guns was an avocation (hobby).
OldBay's example was
"If a legal gun dealer in a neighboring state has a handgun that I would like to legally purchase, it must be first transferred to another FFL dealer in my state of MD - who conducts a background check. A waiting period also applies."
Karnis, from reading the article was not a FFL gun dealer. The article says the buyer showed Karnis a New Mexico ID.
How are background checks for private sales going to be enforced any better than they are now?
Yes, if I purchase a gun from a legal dealer in another state, the transaction has to go through a legal gun dealer in Maryland and all laws and restrictions of Maryland apply.
.
Member
The background check is suppose to determine your "eligibility" to own a gun. The Supreme Court has already ruled that some individuals have forfeited that right.
Under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, certain categories of persons are not eligible to possess a firearm or ammunition. These include:
- Fugitives from justice
- Illegal aliens
- Unlawful users of certain drugs
- Those committed to a mental institution
- Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies)
- Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence
The federal law not only creates a permanent ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a felony, it even applies to those under indictment for a felony.
Object all you want, and have a nice day!
Member
Unconstitutional. A bold face usurpation.
.
Member
The background check is suppose to determine your "eligibility" to own a gun. The Supreme Court has already ruled that some individuals have forfeited that right.
Under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968, certain categories of persons are not eligible to possess a firearm or ammunition. These include:
- Fugitives from justice
- Illegal aliens
- Unlawful users of certain drugs
- Those committed to a mental institution
- Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for more than one year (which generally covers felonies)
- Those convicted of crimes of domestic violence
The federal law not only creates a permanent ban on gun ownership for anyone convicted of a felony, it even applies to those under indictment for a felony.
Object all you want, and have a nice day!
And criminals, those that are "not eligible" to own guns, do so anyway.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that a criminal cannot be prosecuted for failing to register their gun. There's that 5th Amendment thing.
I wonder how the "equal protection" clause might come into play for a non-criminal being prosecuted for the offense (failure to register) that a criminal cannot be prosecuted.
Object all you want, and continue with your crusade!
.
Member
That's my point. If I object and refuse the background check, I forfeit my right to have and to hold
So.....I have to go along to get along
Member
Everything I said was 100% true and correct. I know the law. I won't be holding my breath waiting for an apology from you. Why do you consider the truth to be "irrational"?
Member
Agree.....unfortunately (and not necessarily in this case) when the SCOTUS sets a precedent, it becomes gospel. Why not look to the constitution, the federalist (and anti-federalist) papers, or state ratification debate for scope and intent. Are prior court decisions infallible?
Member
And there it is, completely irrational. You said there were legal hurdles to buy a gun in one state to bring into another. Well not so.
What kind of child can't admit a mistake?
If you object to background checks and registration, say si. But pretending what we have us adequate with these huge loopholes of private sales us horse ****.
Last edited by ms maggie; 01-13-2013 at 03:40 PM.
Member
Welcome to a pluralistic society. The Courts allow background checks. I appreciate that you object to them-- frankly I find yr view more honest than those who claim the system already does this consistently and hide behind that. While I disagree with you I respect your intellectual honesty.That's my point. If I object and refuse the background check, I forfeit my right to have and to hold
So.....I have to go along to get along
Member
And criminals, those that are "not eligible" to own guns, do so anyway.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that a criminal cannot be prosecuted for failing to register their gun. There's that 5th Amendment thing.
I wonder how the "equal protection" clause might come into play for a non-criminal being prosecuted for the offense (failure to register) that a criminal cannot be prosecuted.
Object all you want, and continue with your crusade!
.
Clearly, you missed the memo?
There's nothing for me to object to.The gun folks are on the defensive, and will remain on the defensive as long as Obama is in the White House.
Enjoy the next 4 years. In the meantime, please don't come "unhinged" like so many of your compatriot's. Pace yourself. You are in for a long ride....
Member
Forget the NRA. And while I'm not a mind reader, it seems by your response, in which you avoided the questions I put up, I get a good sense of denial..
Numbers wise, what is the real problem with gun violence in America? (in other words, where do most killings in the US take place, and who makes up the vast majority of trigger pullers?)
What is the weapon used in 99% of the killings?
Where does it happen?
Who are the suspects and victims?
On the three questions above...will an assault weapons ban have any effect?
Will a large capacity magazine ban have any effect?
Like I said, it's understandable that politicians in urban centers don't dare, but you are an anonymous poster, and even you can't speak the truth. How can we have a realistic debate on gun violence if folks like yourself can't even acknowledge where the real problem is?
Those 500 killings in Chicago and the 250+ every year in Baltimore are not committed by people with scary looking "assault" guns of high capacity magazines, and I bet most suspects and victims could not tell you what "NRA" even means.
Why is everyone so afraid to acknowledge the facts on gun violence? The NRA, assault weapons, and high capacity magazines are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the REAL killing numbers. If you're uncomfortable with the truth, just say so, but don't pretend you don't know...
Member
The SCOTUS recently ruled that the Commerce Clause must be applied as ORIGINALLY INTENDED.
The 1968 Firearms Act was upheld that fedgov has the authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause to regulate firearms in interstate Commerce. That ruling was pure bullshiite. Now the SCOTUS majority has the ammunition to reverse HUDDLESTON v. UNITED STATES, 94 S. Ct. 1262, 415 U.S. 814 (U.S. 03/26/1974).
.
Last edited by Contumacious; 01-13-2013 at 04:15 PM.
Member
Well, for starters, apparently it is you who cannot admit your mistake or apologize for false accusations.
Once again, specifically what is untrue about my post #175 or Daan's clear explanation to you in post 228 about why my post is correct?
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote