• Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal
    101 replies, posted
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404873]Guy talks about murder > I respond about murder > You don't get why I left out things that aren't murder?[/QUOTE] That's not even what I was trying to talk about. I was simply stating the fact about suicides vs. malicious gun deaths. There is a reason people say guns are a mental health issue, and that is all I was trying to get at. The ":why:" was for "Why is this not looked at more when gun deaths are discussed on either side of the political spectrum."
[QUOTE=Uber22;52403919]Can we fucking stop with the whole "Gun Rights" shit. The Democrat Voter Base could probably be a lot larger if the Democrats didn't go full HAM on gun laws.[/QUOTE] What does this story have to do with the Democratic party?
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52405036]That's not even what I was trying to talk about. I was simply stating the fact about suicides vs. malicious gun deaths. There is a reason people say guns are a mental health issue, and that is all I was trying to get at. The ":why:" was for "Why is this not looked at more when gun deaths are discussed on either side of the political spectrum."[/QUOTE] The guy I responded to was specifically talking about mental health and murder.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52405041]What does this story have to do with the Democratic party?[/QUOTE] Left leaning supereme court justices denying 2nd Amendment rights and refusing to hear cases involving them. Generally speaking, the Democrat party is nearly exclusively the one to promote and submit gun control legislation.
As I've talked about before, gun legislation works when laws are grounded in reality and actually make sense. The AWB, for instance, isn't one of those laws. If the Democrats can maintain a more lax policy towards guns, then I'd bet you the party would get a huge resurgence in votes. The vilification of gun owners is ridiculous, and it alienates a large portion of the American populace. On the flip side, however, does everyone need the right to utilize a gun outside of their home? I'd leave that for the states to decide, but if it would be weaved into federal law, I would at least expect a standard of closed-carry/open-carry laws. Permits are needed for concealed carry in my opinion, but they shouldn't be absolutely-barring. I think Illinois has pretty decent concealed carry laws over here (16 hours of confirmed gun training and about a month to get your permit after background checks).
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52405149]Left leaning supereme court justices denying 2nd Amendment rights and refusing to hear cases involving them. [/QUOTE] The two liberal justices cited in the article said they would hear the case. [QUOTE]Generally speaking, the Democrat party is nearly exclusively the one to promote and submit gun control legislation.[/QUOTE] Duh but what does that have to this particular story
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52405259]The two liberal justices cited in the article said they would hear the case. Duh but what does that have to this particular story[/QUOTE] The article in question isn't very descriptive, but they rejected the case for disallowing states to deny CC permits, and refused to hear the case about non-violent criminals owning firearms. They later said they would hear the case after Trumps administration urged them to do so. Correct me if I'm wrong, yahoo's journalist can't write a cohesive article to save their god damn lives.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52404033]Pretty much this. I'd of voted for Sanders in the last election if he wasn't pro-gun control. Also if my state had actually held an election.[/QUOTE] He isn't pro-gun control though. He's as pro-gun as the GOP.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52405475]He isn't pro-gun control though. He's as pro-gun as the GOP.[/QUOTE] He's come out as being for the AWB, he voted to "ban some semi-automatic weapons," he voted for banning "high" capacity magazines (over 10 rounds), etc. He hasn't been very explicit about where he stands on general gun control and has made some questionable statements. He's more open to guns than your average democrat, but he's not at the level of the GOP.
Wish the majority of the Democrats stepped off gun control platform. Their voting power would be so much better if they were pro-gun.
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52405475]He isn't pro-gun control though. He's as pro-gun as the GOP.[/QUOTE] Blatantly incorrect. Sander's has stated he's pro hicap mag bans.
[QUOTE=Kagu;52405522]Wish the majority of the Democrats stepped off gun control platform. Their voting power would be so much better if they were pro-gun.[/QUOTE] The problem is there seems to be no middle ground to a lot of people. You're either "pro-gun" aka basically zero restrictions or "anti-gun" aka don't want people walking around with full-auto assault rifles. Not to say there aren't a lot of sensible people, but I don't think Democrats would see huge gains without basically rolling over to the "pro-gun" extreme since most sensible people are able to put other things in front of their hobby.
Stuff like this makes me wish California's Appeal Court was jumped over regarding 2nd Amendment stuff. Seriously, corruption runs deep in that hell-hole.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;52406284]The problem is there seems to be no middle ground to a lot of people. You're either "pro-gun" aka basically zero restrictions or "anti-gun" aka don't want people walking around with full-auto assault rifles. Not to say there aren't a lot of sensible people, but I don't think Democrats would see huge gains without basically rolling over to the "pro-gun" extreme since most sensible people are able to put other things in front of their hobby.[/QUOTE] The Democrats would be fucked if they ran under the guise of "common sense gun control", even if it actually was. In the past, common sense gun control was assault weapon bans and other restrictions. Unless they came straight out and said they were pro-gun, they're not going to pick anybody up.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;52406284]The problem is there seems to be no middle ground to a lot of people. You're either "pro-gun" aka basically zero restrictions or "anti-gun" aka don't want people walking around with full-auto assault rifles. Not to say there aren't a lot of sensible people, but I don't think Democrats would see huge gains without basically rolling over to the "pro-gun" extreme since most sensible people are able to put other things in front of their hobby.[/QUOTE] I would argue that the absolute "pro-gun" side is a product of the Democratic "anti-gun" side becoming more and more absolute against all guns. I would like to find a middle ground, but the Democrat's idea of a middle ground is to ban 20 different things, then offer to unban 3 of them as a concession when the 20 things in total shouldn't have been banned altogether, then complain and bitch that the Republicans are being partisan about it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52406608]I would argue that the absolute "pro-gun" side is a product of the Democratic "anti-gun" side becoming more and more absolute against all guns. I would like to find a middle ground, but the Democrat's idea of a middle ground is to ban 20 different things, then offer to unban 3 of them as a concession when the 20 things in total shouldn't have been banned altogether, then complain and bitch that the Republicans are being partisan about it.[/QUOTE] From looking at democrat legislation, their idea of compromise is that they don't take away everything. A compromise everyone would get behind would be universal background checks and removing private sales, and removing short barreled firearms and suppressors from the NFA
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52407744]From looking at democrat legislation, their idea of compromise is that they don't take away everything. A compromise everyone would get behind would be universal background checks and removing private sales, and removing short barreled firearms and suppressors from the NFA[/QUOTE] Umm... In what world do you live in where gun owners would be happy with banning private sales? Why would you not just improve the background check process to actually perform at a modern pace, and allow public use of NICS?
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52407757]Umm... In what world do you live in where gun owners would be happy with banning private sales? Why would you not just improve the background check process to actually perform at a modern pace, and allow public use of NICS?[/QUOTE] Have you bought a gun? A background check takes about 30 seconds over the phone and maybe 15 if the store does it via computer. Let me rephrase "removing private sales" because I'm a retard. I don't mean remove private sales, I mean force them to go through an FFL to do it with the background check process. A completely unenforceable law but it's not a bad one to have around. It would add $20ish and 5 minutes to the private sale process.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52406332]Stuff like this makes me wish California's Appeal Court was jumped over regarding 2nd Amendment stuff. Seriously, corruption runs deep in that hell-hole.[/QUOTE] 1.) California's Courts of Appeal were not involved in this case. This is a Ninth Circuit case. 2.) There is no way a circuit court can be "jumped over" in a case like this unless you rewrite the Constitution. 3.) Do you have any evidence whatsoever that there is any corruption in the Ninth Circuit (or, for that matter, the CA Courts of Appeal)? Because given your obviously impeccable knowledge of our court systems and your clear knowledge of the history of this case, I am inclined to think you're just talking out of your ass.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52405512]He's come out as being for the AWB, he voted to "ban some semi-automatic weapons," he voted for banning "high" capacity magazines (over 10 rounds), etc. He hasn't been very explicit about where he stands on general gun control and has made some questionable statements. He's more open to guns than your average democrat, but he's not at the level of the GOP.[/QUOTE] He's a fudd.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;52406284]The problem is there seems to be no middle ground to a lot of people. You're either "pro-gun" aka basically zero restrictions or "anti-gun" aka don't want people walking around with full-auto assault rifles. Not to say there aren't a lot of sensible people, but I don't think Democrats would see huge gains without basically rolling over to the "pro-gun" extreme since most sensible people are able to put other things in front of their hobby.[/QUOTE] That's not true, I just don't trust the Democrats to properly enact "common sense gun control". Their track record of supporting things like the Assault Weapons Ban and it's many state-level variations, the state of gun rights in Democratic strongholds like California, and their constant exploitation of ignorance and tragedy to shove try and shove their anti-gun agenda through makes gun enthusiasts extremely distrusting of their future motives. I won't say their end goal is a total ban [I]yet[/I], but if they can get the ball rolling it might just end up there eventually. Why don't we look at the history of US Gun Control, and see why so many of us lack trust in the individuals promoting it? [B]The National Firearms Act[/B] of 1934 is the backbone of US gun laws, it was the first major law and what set in stone the definition of every weapon. This bill was written post-prohibition and a lot of the mindset was then-recent memories of the mafia and their tommy guns. Sure technology was advancing and new regulations needed to be put in place, the machine gun registry* was a good way of making sure only the safest individuals could own such a weapon. Only 2 registered machine guns have ever been used in the commission of a crime, and one was by a Police Officer. Other provisions such as the Short Barrel Rifle are less useful, and are written in such a way that a handgun with a stock is considered an SBR, but a submachine gun sized weapon is considered a pistol if you don't have a stock. There's also a market for "cheek rests" that get around this, which essentially act as less comfortable stocks. The entire SBR classification is flawed and ultimately useless and detrimental to civilian owners. Next we have the [B]Federal Firearms Act[/B] of 1938, which established licensed dealers and many of the regulations we use today, such as keeping records and prohibiting sales to convicted felons. These are pretty fair in my opinion, though in some cases who is considered a convicted felon needs to be reevaluated, but that is not a gun control issue. Onto the [B]Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act[/B] of 1968. Not specifically a gun control bill, it enacted restrictions on the transportation and sale of handguns. [B]Gun Control Act of 1968[/B]. This bill is like a reboot of the Federal Firearms Act, creating a comprehensive Prohibited Persons and Federal Firearms License regulations. But it goes further, it also included nonsense such as a ban on shipping ammunition through the USPS. This act also gave the ATF a lot of regulatory power, some of which they still abuse; for example users of legal marijuana are considered Prohibited Persons by the ATF, a rule that achieves literally nothing. The ATF also harassed FFL sellers with constant "compliance inspections". But it was almost much worse: a system of licensing every gun and every gun owner was removed from this bill. Such licensing systems have been used either in preparation of mass confiscation, or taken advantage of during a mass confiscation, or abused in other ways as you will see below. The [B]Firearm Owners Protection Act[/B] of 1986 was created to amend problems with the Gun Control Act, including abuse of power by the ATF. The ATF had the power to prosecute people, and most of their prosecutions were of ordinary Americans without any criminal intent, or even cases of entrapment by ATF agents looking to book people on technical violations. The act was aimed at loosening or repealing nonsense restrictions put in place by the GCA and was supposed to be a gun rights win. Instead it turned into a [I]massive[/I] lose to gun rights. Remember the machine gun registry created by the NFA and administered by the ATF? Well surprise! It's closed now because reasons. This is a de-facto ban on all automatics created after 1986, despite the fact that legal automatics are not even a consideration as far as crime goes. The [B]Undetectable Firearms Act[/B] of 1988 was aimed at stopping illegal arms smugglers. Any firearm that cannot be detected by a metal detector is illegal. The creation of 3d printing throws into doubt whether or not this can even be enforceable in the future. Nevertheless, this act doesn't really impact legal owners so I don't care about it. [B]Gun-Free School Zones Act[/B] of 1990 prohibited the unlicensed carrying of weapons in school zones. This strikes me as largely feel-good legislation that doesn't really do much. In a rural area a hunter might have a rifle in the back of his truck and be arrested for that, but a shooter isn't going to be swayed by a simple law that says no guns when their intent is mass murder. There's a small chance a would-be shooter can be charged if his weapon is discovered before he uses it, so I guess there's that at least. [B]Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act[/B] was passed in 1993, and mandated that all licensed sellers must perform background checks. Thanks to the Firearm Owner Protection Act, the FBI and ATF only have the power to supply criminal information, and do not get to know what is being purchased. Some people are still weary that secret databases are being built based off the names on the background checks. And then there's the infamous [B]Federal Assault Weapons Ban[/B]. This piece of crap feelgood bullshit is one of the most hated examples of gun control, and the best example of how useless recent attempts have been. The 10 year ban was enacted in 1994 and mostly banned weapons based on cosmetic features, which was defeated by introducing different cosmetic features. Some were even banned [I]by name[/I], a provision that could be defeated simply by [I]changing the name of the weapon[/I]. This bill protected nobody and only harmed manufacturers and owners. One of the worst shootouts in American history happened using illegal automatic weapons in the midst of this ban. Some Democrats still continue to push for similar bills, which is a waste of time and a violation of rights for no good reason. This shit has no effect on crime whatsoever, it's purely to target legal owners. [B]Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act[/B] is the most recent and is a good bill. This bill protects gun manufacturers by preventing lawsuits being filed against them by victims of gun crime. Just as you would not sue Stanley Works for a hammer attack, you now cannot sue Remington for a rifle attack. Also somewhere in our gun laws is an exception to allow civilian and military contractors to own and operate automatic weapons. But also in there is a lot of bullshit that doesn't actually help, and a lot of reasons for gun enthusiasts to not trust the Federal Government on gun control. I don't trust the Democrats because they're against it, and I don't particularly trust the Republicans because they just might target the actual good legislation.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52408488] [B]Gun Control Act of 1968[/B]. This bill is like a reboot of the Federal Firearms Act, creating a comprehensive Prohibited Persons and Federal Firearms License regulations. But it goes further, it also included nonsense such as a ban on shipping ammunition through the USPS. This act also gave the ATF a lot of regulatory power, some of which they still abuse; for example users of legal marijuana are considered Prohibited Persons by the ATF, a rule that achieves literally nothing. The ATF also harassed FFL sellers with constant "compliance inspections". But it was almost much worse: a system of licensing every gun and every gun owner was removed from this bill. Such licensing systems have been used either in preparation of mass confiscation, or taken advantage of during a mass confiscation, or abused in other ways as you will see below.[/QUOTE] In defense of this particular law, JFK got shot 5 years before as well as MLK and RFK earlier that year.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52408529]In defense of this particular law, JFK got shot 5 years before as well as MLK and RFK earlier that year.[/QUOTE] Yep. And the assassination attempt on FDR and killing of Chicago Mayor Anton Cermak in the same attempt spurred the passing of the NFA. Ironically, the NFA in the form passed would have done nothing to prevent the assassination attempt, as it was carried out with a pistol. They did try to include pistols on the NFA, but you can imagine how well that went over with the public.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52407860]Have you bought a gun? A background check takes about 30 seconds over the phone and maybe 15 if the store does it via computer. Let me rephrase "removing private sales" because I'm a retard. I don't mean remove private sales, I mean force them to go through an FFL to do it with the background check process. A completely unenforceable law but it's not a bad one to have around. It would add $20ish and 5 minutes to the private sale process.[/QUOTE] I don't know how you can get a background check done in 5 minutes, but the mandatory minimum is 3 business days here in Florida. Plus, do they not have to wait for things like mental health records to come back or timeout before they can approve the check in the first place? (Thus the 3 day wait)
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52409127]I don't know how you can get a background check done in 5 minutes, but the mandatory minimum is 3 business days here in Florida. Plus, do they not have to wait for things like mental health records to come back or timeout before they can approve the check in the first place? (Thus the 3 day wait)[/QUOTE] The reason the timeout exists is so agencies can't de-facto ban sales by refusing to respond to request for a background check, thus holding the sale indefinitely. Because they will do that, just like Congress de-facto banned new automatics.
[QUOTE=Revenge282;52409127]I don't know how you can get a background check done in 5 minutes, but the mandatory minimum is 3 business days here in Florida. Plus, do they not have to wait for things like mental health records to come back or timeout before they can approve the check in the first place? (Thus the 3 day wait)[/QUOTE] You're not understanding what's happening there. I lived in Florida for about 10 years and bought maybe 40 rifles from shops there, all in the same day with no waiting period. 5 minute transactions. That 3 day period is for handguns, its a cool off period. Its so you dont get mad at your wife then go buy a 9mm to waste her. Its not how long it takes for a background check to come back, they're not waiting on mental health or other medical records to come back. If its worth noting, its already on your file in the FBI database and it takes 5 seconds to pull up unless your name is extremely common. [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52409158]The reason the timeout exists is so agencies can't de-facto ban sales by refusing to respond to request for a background check, thus holding the sale indefinitely. Because they will do that, just like Congress de-facto banned new automatics.[/QUOTE] That "timeout" isn't there as a conspiracy to stop gunsales all together. Its there to prevent people from buying a gun in anger. The NCIS database goes through the FBI, and they're not going to deny/hold sales unless your records are messed up or theyre confusing you with another John Smith whose a felon.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52409954]You're not understanding what's happening there. I lived in Florida for about 10 years and bought maybe 40 rifles from shops there, all in the same day with no waiting period. 5 minute transactions. That 3 day period is for handguns, its a cool off period. Its so you dont get mad at your wife then go buy a 9mm to waste her. Its not how long it takes for a background check to come back, they're not waiting on mental health or other medical records to come back. If its worth noting, its already on your file in the FBI database and it takes 5 seconds to pull up unless your name is extremely common. [editline]28th June 2017[/editline] That "timeout" isn't there as a conspiracy to stop gunsales all together. Its there to prevent people from buying a gun in anger. The NCIS database goes through the FBI, and they're not going to deny/hold sales unless your records are messed up or theyre confusing you with another John Smith whose a felon.[/QUOTE] If that is the, then all the more reason to make it available to the public? Why put someone at the mercy of an FFL to do a background check when the whole thing could just be as simple as looking up someone on some webpage with a driver's license ID or similar? The only reason I thought that was how those checks worked is because that is what the FFL told me when I bought my first gun on my own, along with saying I could skip the background check in the future with a CC permit. So I guess I should have taken that with a grain of salt. Thanks for the clarification.
[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52409954]That "timeout" isn't there as a conspiracy to stop gunsales all together. Its there to prevent people from buying a gun in anger. The NCIS database goes through the FBI, and they're not going to deny/hold sales unless your records are messed up or theyre confusing you with another John Smith whose a felon.[/QUOTE] We're talking about different things. I'm referring to the fact that a sale may go through if the agency doesn't respond in the allotted time period, as opposed to the sale being cancelled or postponed if they do not respond.
[QUOTE=Kagu;52405522]Wish the majority of the Democrats stepped off gun control platform. Their voting power would be so much better if they were pro-gun.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily! I posted this in another thread, but public opinion is maybe not the same as people in this thread seem to think. A majority of [I]republicans alone[/I] support a ban on assault weapons, and about 65-70% of the U.S populace does. [T]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2017/06/22133322/FT_17.06.21_gunsParty.png[/T] [T]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/20104551/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-04-04.png[/T] [T]http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2017/06/20104540/PSDT_2017.06.22.guns-04-01.png[/T] Really interesting article. [url]http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/[/url]
[QUOTE=kharkovus;52411337]Not necessarily! I posted this in another thread, but public opinion is maybe not the same as people in this thread seem to think. A majority of [I]republicans alone[/I] support a ban on assault weapons, and about 65-70% of the U.S populace does.[/QUOTE] That means a majority of Democrats and even Republicans, and a majority of the US Populace, have no idea what they're talking about. Fucking incredible.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.