Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case  
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2477 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071120/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns

Washington DC has long had a ban on handguns within the city. Last year, a group of citizens challenged the ban on Second Amendment grounds and won 2-1 at the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, which basically said that gun ownership is a Constitutional right under the Second Amendment. The dissent basically said that gun ownership for personal use is not a constitutional right, but rather that the *federal* government cannot ban guns. DC is not exactly the federal government in the eyes of the law, so its council felt that it could ban guns.

Now, the Supreme Court is going to take up the case, which people think will decide once and for all whether or not local and state governments can ban guns.

Personally, I think DC is right, if for no other reason than DC doesn't need any handguns for sure.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
136 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2478 times:

With the actual composition of the supreme court, one doesn't have to guess what would they decide. Its a conservative majority led court.


"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2466 times:



Quoting D L X (Thread starter):
Personally, I think DC is right, if for no other reason than DC doesn't need any handguns for sure

So you don't care that the Constitution is being crapped all over as long as you agree with using it for toilet paper?


User currently offlineQueso From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2466 times:



Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 1):
Its a conservative majority led court.

Which means at least there will be a chance of having a ruling based on common sense.

If this case ends up contrary to the 2nd Amendment, it will show that there is no longer any respect for the Constitution and we can just flush this form of government down the toilet because other elements of the Constitution will closely follow.


User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2455 times:

Well if you base yourself on what it states in the bottom link, common sense would drive me to decide differently than most conservatives.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/guns_in_america/html/framesource.html



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2444 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2):
So you don't care that the Constitution is being crapped all over as long as you agree with using it for toilet paper?

No, I think the Constitution is a limit on what the federal government can do except where it says otherwise, and also says that guns are for militia and that's why the federal government cannot abridge the right (of the state) to have militia. That doesn't mean that a state cannot decide whether or not to have militia, or even guns.

Quoting Queso (Reply 3):
If this case ends up contrary to the 2nd Amendment

Well, the big question isn't "will this be aligned with or contrary to the 2nd Amendment" but rather, "who is limited by the Second Amendment."

To be quite honest, a conservative, originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it more likely they'll say it was not meant to prevent localities from banning guns.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

Huhh... the only thing I found informative in that link was this...

Quote:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed



User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2442 times:



Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 4):
Well if you base yourself on what it states in the bottom link, common sense would drive me to decide differently than most conservatives.

If you base every opinion you have on liberal journalists opinions and one sided articles published without evenhandedness then you will always feel that way.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2440 times:

The question is, what does the first half of that sentence mean, MDorBust. You can't forget that half.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2437 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
You can't forget that half.

Actually, yes you can. The 2nd quite clearly reads that private ownership of guns is the right of the people, using them to form a militia is just a bonus of that.

Have fun reading what the experts say about it:

http://www.largo.org/literary.html


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2420 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
You can't forget that half.

Actually, yes you can.

Wow! That's a great answer. I should have thought of that.  Wink
Seriously, what makes you so confident? When you say something, you expect people to comprehend the whole thing, right? Not just the last half, right?
Every word means something. The Supreme Court is about to determine what those words mean.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
Have fun reading what the experts say about it:

http://www.largo.org/literary.html

Come on MD, you can do better. LARGO = Lawful and Responsible Gun Owners. You call that an unbiased source?

They certainly aren't "experts."



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2420 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 6):
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

It means that the founders intended for us not to have the professional military that we have today, because they knew that such a military irresistibly tempts politicians to use it. They intended for us to have citizen militias to honestly defend the country, and well-trained, capable ones at that. That's what "well regulated" means.

DC has long been the only place where guns were banned, period. And where can you find the worst gun crime rates in the nation? Gee, it wouldn't be DC, would it?


User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2422 times:



Quoting DL021 (Reply 7):


If you base every opinion you have on liberal journalists opinions and one sided articles published without evenhandedness then you will always feel that way.

Not at all, I didn't need to read any sort of opinions, they stated the facts (statistics and real numbers) on the effect of having a gun loving nation as ours. That's all. My opinion? I really would have hoped people use weapons differently, but it seems the ignorance in this nation have led to thousands of gun related deaths and it will continue to rise.

More than 30 thousand people died in 2002 because of gun inflicted wounds, that is around 8 September 11's each year. My common sense says, "We are killing ourselves".

It is also horrible how children are killing themselves in this country all because of the easy access of guns and the level of education that they have that doesn't permit them to understand the responsibility. Look at Mr. Joe Horn, listening to the 911 recording one only knows how stupid he sounds and how stupid he acted. But it is a right under the constitution no?

I myself do not have a gun, my father back home does, but I don't seem to feel safer with one, he does, I don't know how one should feel safer with a weapon. But everyone has his or her point of view which we must respect.



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2390 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 5):
That doesn't mean that a state cannot decide whether or not to have militia, or even guns.

If the District of Columbia were a state, that might have some validity. How many Congressmen or Senators does the District have? You know, like all the real States do. Which Star on the flag represents the District?

Quoting D L X (Reply 8):
The question is, what does the first half of that sentence mean, MDorBust. You can't forget that half.

It means that back in 1787 almost every able body white man was a member of the militia and could be called to order if a threat appeared.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11):
It means that the founders intended for us not to have the professional military that we have today, because they knew that such a military irresistibly tempts politicians to use it.

Qualify that only to say they knew that such a military irresistibly tempts politicians, and monarchs, to use it against their own people/subjects.

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 12):
Look at Mr. Joe Horn, listening to the 911 recording one only knows how stupid he sounds and how stupid he acted.

You mean the guy you finally agreed was withing his rights once the law was explained to you?

Reply To: Man Kills Suspected Intruders In "Vigilante" Style

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 35):
My judgement based on what I heard on the call made to 911 and on the transcripts is that the man obviously wanted to take those guys out. To me thats murder. Its my own personal opinion, which I am entitled to have. But yes it seems that he has the laws on his favor.

This case will hinge on what Justice Stevens decides.


User currently offlineFr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5600 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Let's look at the word "militia".

Definition:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...;_ylt=AveXLWzROt1KoVw5nS1ec.CsgMMF

Look at #3.

Now "regulated"

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/regulate

Too me, a simple person, if a state applies definition 1 of regulate to definition 3 of militia, the provision, if it is a provision, in the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia"), is satisfied. But then again, I'm a simple person.

All gun bans do is prevent law abiding citizens form owning firearms. That's it, nothing more. DC has some of the worst gun violence in the US, yet guns have been banned for decades. Isn't that a hint to folks?

Now understand, it is only a bonus of the 2nd amendment that we are able to use these weapons to defend ourselves from the scum of the earth. The true intent of the 2nd amendment was for the states (read that as the people) to be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government. Of course, this isn't such a big issue anymore, unless you're a far leftist, but get enough to run some states and maybe the leftists can try to topple the government (insert smiley here).



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2378 times:

Please do quote the whole thing, and let everyone see that it is a biased source. So, you can quote away all you want. Until you find an unbiased source, you've proven bupkis. Being an expert on english doesn't make you a lawyer, even though lawyers write in english. Being an expert on english doesn't make you a cop, even though cops speak english.

And speaking of pretending, don't pretend for a second that you'd let some journalist somewhere tell you what your cop protocol actually means, using his "expertise" in english language.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2376 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
Please do quote the whole thing, and let everyone see that it is a biased source.

Uh... I did.

Quoting D L X (Reply 18):
Being an expert on english doesn't make you a lawyer...

No, but it does make you an expert on semantics... which is what you are trying to argue.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26714 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2378 times:



Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 1):
With the actual composition of the supreme court, one doesn't have to guess what would they decide.

Actually, there is a question even with this court

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2):

So you don't care that the Constitution is being crapped all over as long as you agree with using it for toilet paper?

You generally air on the more reasonable side of things, but what are your opinions on the Patriot Act, wire tapping, torture, birthright citizenship and faith-based initiatives?

Quoting D L X (Reply 5):

To be quite honest, a conservative, originalist interpretation of the Second Amendment makes it more likely they'll say it was not meant to prevent localities from banning guns.

That has been the general tact held to this point. Even after the 14th Amendment, the general doctrine has been that the Second Amendment is on of the Bill of Rights that does not apply to the States.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 9):
The 2nd quite clearly reads that private ownership of guns is the right of the people, using them to form a militia is just a bonus of that.

Not the way it is written. The way that line is written, it gives the reason for gun ownership to be the militia.

Quoting MD-90 (Reply 11):

It means that the founders intended for us not to have the professional military that we have today,

Well, that isn't particularly true.

Article 1 states this:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2372 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
If the District of Columbia were a state, that might have some validity.

I think that's a fair point. The law has been very wishy-washy on that throughout our history. For example, the Supreme Court desegregated the schools using the 14th Amendment (which says quite clearly that STATES cannot discriminate, and the feds can knock them around if they do), the Supreme Court the next day said basically, "well, DC is like a state, so DC can't discriminate either." But in other instances the Supreme Court has said "yeah, we'd give you that right.... if you were a state. You're not, so sorry kids."

An interesting point though is that Hawaii, New York, Maryland, and Illinois have joined forces with DC to make sure that they can continue to ban or nearly ban guns. Those without question, are states.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineB752fanatic From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 918 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2372 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
You mean the guy you finally agreed was withing his rights once the law was explained to you?

That he was within his rights is another thing, but that I think he is stupid and what he did was stupid is another.



"Truth is more of a stranger than fiction." Mark Twain
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2369 times:



Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
You generally air on the more reasonable side of things, but what are your opinions on the Patriot Act, wire tapping, torture, birthright citizenship and faith-based initiatives?


Well now, let's make this about me. Okay

1) Which provisions, that's a big law
2) Get warrents
3) No
4) Yes
5) Only if you don't have faith specific requirements for funding. Give the satanists the same funding as christians.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 20):
Not the way it is written. The way that line is written, it gives the reason for gun ownership to be the militia.

No. That would be the only time in history a adjective has been the subject of a sentence. Is the car red or is it a car?


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2366 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
Reply To: Man Kills Suspected Intruders In "Vigilante" Style

Quoting B752fanatic (Reply 35):
My judgement based on what I heard on the call made to 911 and on the transcripts is that the man obviously wanted to take those guys out. To me thats murder. Its my own personal opinion, which I am entitled to have. But yes it seems that he has the laws on his favor.

This case will hinge on what Justice Stevens decides.

Why don't we keep that thread on that thread, not here.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26714 posts, RR: 75
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2356 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):


Well now, let's make this about me. Okay

Actually, I did that more so people here would understand your POV and not think you were the typical nutso righty.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11497 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2348 times:



Quoting MDorBust (Reply 23):
Well now, let's make this about me. Okay

Are you serious? You're always trying to make things personal, but the instant someone else directs something at you (trying to help you at that!) you're going to whine about it?!



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2329 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 26):
Are you serious? You're always trying to make things personal, but the instant someone else directs something at you (trying to help you at that!) you're going to whine about it?!

That wasn't a whine. Notice the, "okay" on the end? OK (or Okay or even O.K.) is generally a term of acceptance. Notice the answers afterward?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):
Even if it does, as we all assume, includes firearms, it doesn't say anything about limiting the type of firearm.

What would you expect the militia to turn out with? Miller said that should be arms in common use at the time. Meaning, normal military weapons.. AK-47s if you would.


25 Fumanchewd : No it doesn't. Militia is a seperate entity in that sentence, seperated by the comma. Nowhere does the right to bear arms become inclusive to the mil
26 D L X : Yes it does. You have to read the whole sentence as a single entity. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is n
27 RJdxer : Which is why I don't understand why the SC is reviewing the case.
28 MDorBust : Because it can not stand on it's own is exactly why it is not the focus of the Amendment and can be ignored. What could possibly make you believe tha
29 D L X : I think I see three reasons: 1) It's hard to refuse a case when a major American city asks you to review it. There's clearly merit, and it would affe
30 D L X : I never said it was the focus. I said it was an important part of the amendment because you keep choosing to ignore it. Anyway, do you have an opinio
31 RJdxer : If 50 million people thought the 13th amendment was crap, would that mean they have merit and the SC should review it?
32 MDorBust : Yeah, incorporation. I'll make you a bet. If I'm wrong and the SCOTUS declares the 2nd to be a right held by the miltias and not citizens, then I wil
33 D L X : Well, if you could find a controversial case involving the 13th amendment, and litigated it up through the Courts of Appeals or state supreme courts,
34 Post contains images Fumanchewd : Wow. It was about limiting power? Here I thought that it was a bill of rights for US citizens living in the United States. Ok. This is turning in to
35 MDorBust : The 14th Amendment. I fully expect the court to incorporate the 2nd, re-affirm the 2nd is a right of the citizens, and declare that resonable prohibi
36 N1120A : Because the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the federal constitution, which is the issue here. Essentially the only place the USSC doesn't have
37 Flighty : If I were a powerful VIP in a major US city, I would certainly want guns off the streets. Even a conservative NRA lover would think twice about arming
38 D L X : Ahh. Gotcha. If I'm not mistaken however, the Court has had several opportunities to incorporate the 2nd amendment against the states and has refused
39 N1120A : The question there being intent. Muskets or AK-47s?
40 Post contains images RJdxer : Safetly? In addition to the gun safety course there will be remedial spelling available as well! Then why bother to take on the case. They will have
41 Fumanchewd : I am very well of the context. Yet again, it is called the Bill of Rights. I understand that it gives rights by limiting what the government can do.
42 Fumanchewd : That is a branch of the military and not a militia.
43 RJdxer : Noooo...the national guard is the State militia. The Governor of a State normally controls it. It can be Federalized if necessary making it part of t
44 LTBEWR : Washington DC is a special situation as it is the capital of the USA. Does it look good that the capital of the the USA has a horrible murder rate, us
45 PPVRA : As with the other amendments, I thought it was something the federal governemnt was supposed to enforce. For example, lets say Iowa bans the First Am
46 Fumanchewd : No such thing anymore. During the constitutional times, yes. For now, look at the militia act of 1903. States or the federal government can call them
47 Fumanchewd : Wow, look. Another case of the federal government winning over states' rights.
48 D L X : It's also called "The Patriot Act", but that doesn't mean that it's patriotic. The name "Bill of Rights" appears nowhere in the Constitution. It's ju
49 N1120A : Why have to rule of "Equal protection of the laws"? The federal government is not there to enforce the state laws. The states are allowed to make the
50 Flighty : Okay but DC is not part of a state. It is directly governed by the Feds (IIRC). So, are we saying the Constitution expressly forbids the regulations
51 Fumanchewd : I'm sorry, I'm getting bored and this will be my last. I just want to state that militia's are no longer allowed, and in general if someone were to s
52 ANCFlyer : I'll dispense with reading all the aforewritten anti-and pro-gun bullshit - I'm sure I haven't missed anything that hasn't been posted before . . . .
53 RJdxer : This has nothing to do with equal protection, the amendment is clear in how it relates to the State and the People.
54 RJdxer : I wonder, except for the time that the national gaurd is federalized, who pays their salaries?
55 Maverick623 : State governments can be just as tyrranical as federal governments. The intent was to limit governmental power (more accurately, to ensure that the c
56 L-188 : Chance but I don't think that it is a good sign this court actually took the case. We had a valid appeals court ruling, and I hope it stands. This is
57 Post contains images D L X : Sort of. As I said before, the Court has been inconsistent about whether to treat DC like a state, or treat it like a territory. Well, I don't think
58 L-188 : That's the protection I want expanded. The fact it doesn't apply to the states is a great oversight.
59 Post contains images Halls120 : And how is that gun ban working out for DC? Amazing - all those illegal guns, just up and discharging on their own, with no human intervention. Someb
60 D L X : This is what pisses me off about people interpreting court opinions. What made it "valid?" No matter which side you're on, for 90% of the people only
61 L-188 : Assuming that you are correct, that doesn't change the fact that the 2nd needs to be applied to the states also. Milita's aren't under control of the
62 D L X : I think it's one of the things the founders got right. You *have* to admit that guns are highly controversial. It should be up to each individual are
63 Post contains images D L X : I really can't believe how much I'm acting like Scalia on this thread. (And I can't believe how all the conservatives here don't realize it!) They wer
64 Post contains images Fumanchewd : The state. However, the Army .....with no support. Your state power theory is all that you have and it is wrong. So you say "false premesis" and I sa
65 Surfpunk : Actually, the Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights. It enumerates rights retained by the people and imposes restrictions upon the federal government
66 RJdxer : Very good. If I read my research right, the individual Governors control the individual States NG in conjunction with the Department of the Army. The
67 Surfpunk : One other point I will make is that I don't have any great faith in the decision this Court will hand down, as the last Court (pre-Roberts and Alito)
68 Post contains images N1120A : The Second Amendment has absolutely no wording that applies it to the states. On the other hand, the equal protection clause is far more plain in its
69 Post contains images D L X : I thought you said you were done on this thread? Like a moth to a flame... No, you just don't know how to spell. You get all high-horsey about being
70 Post contains images EA CO AS : More than 43000 people died in 2006 because of car accidents. Does your common sense want to outlaw motor vehicles too? I mean, it'd be easier - ther
71 Halls120 : Maybe we can get B752fanatic to start a petition to ban cars. After all, it will save lives and be good for the environment!
72 B752fanatic : Have I said ban guns? Please anytime you wish to come here and start refuting others responses please read!! READ!! Have I even mentioned the word ba
73 Halls120 : No, you didn't. But you implied that you were in favor of a gun ban, with the following words. "My opinion? I really would have hoped people use weap
74 Miamiair : Is such an ugly word. Already on the books: 790.174 Safe storage of firearms required.-- (1) A person who stores or leaves, on a premise under his or
75 B752fanatic : I do, but it doesn't mean that a law abiding citizen shouldn't. Kids shouldn't because they are kids. If the people that live on these states start r
76 Miamiair : Please post a reference. I do not believe a Federally Licensed Dealer can sell to minors.
77 MD-90 : I agree with the question being intent, which is why the machine gun ban that Bush the Elder signed is unconstitutional. Today the equivalent would b
78 B752fanatic : Currently, federal law prohibits federally licensed firearms dealers from selling handguns to persons under 21. However, a loophole in federal law al
79 Miamiair : Please post a link.
80 Post contains images ANCFlyer : I did, I never post without doing that . . . It's the usual suspects . . . those of us that appreciate the 2nd Amendment for what it is and those of
81 D L X : Oh come on. If by "for what it is" you mean an obvious and absolute right to own a gun, even over state objections, you're the one that is twisting i
82 Halls120 : Where in the United States today can a 14 year old legally purchase a firearm? Cite, please. Nice to see you put a Constitutional right on the same l
83 ANCFlyer : Sorry, my friend, State Law cannot trump the US Constitution. Period. Dot. Any State, City, County, Municipality, blah, blah, that attempts to do so
84 Post contains links and images D L X : You're not getting it. The question isn't about "trumping" the constitution. The Constitution by and large does not impose duties on the states, nor
85 Fumanchewd : No. Read the Militia Act of 1903. The Guard is not a militia. They are a reserve. ARMY National Guard. AIRFORCE National Guard. Whatever. I never men
86 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Yes, I do . . . as does the other couple million law abiding gun owners in this country . . . This Amendment - and all the others - Bind each State.
87 Post contains links B752fanatic : http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/guns_i..._america/html/framesource_map.html Click on any states and you would see the age limitations. http://www.cbsne
88 Miamiair : Please provide a credible source that is un-biased, like state statutes. When your sources are: National Center for Health Statistics; Brady Campaign
89 B752fanatic : I have given you my source, if you are not content with it, it is your duty to then search for the contrary of what states on my source. Right now, I
90 Post contains images Miamiair : Your source is . You have won nothing but a super heated water vapor emitting mass of fecal matter.
91 B752fanatic : By the way this is not some Michael Moore web page or some left wing fanatical web page. Its CBS news, I highly doubt that they would dis-inform the
92 Miamiair : Read the sources genous. News organizations will use whatever they want to spin something their way. That is why I said un-biased.
93 D L X : Please ANC, this statement makes you look like you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Just read the link, will ya?
94 B752fanatic : You have only an opinion to prove that is biased. Prove to me with facts that what they cite is biased. Who is more biased someone that says that a c
95 Miamiair : Like your conclusions as to why Iberia's A346 left the runway? You are making a statement, back it up with fact. Find a state statute. Something like
96 N1120A : Not where it applies to the States. Where it doesn't, the States can do as they wish. Or a jury at all. The right to jury must be granted by the stat
97 B752fanatic : No, that's your job. I gave you the sources you asked, you never asked for any statues. If you still think you are right and want to prove me wrong I
98 MDorBust : Can you click on the US in general to find out there is a Federal restriction, thus negating the need for state restrictions?
99 D L X : Point of inquiry: where is this from?
100 MDorBust : The list was created by Gun Control Act of 1968 and ammendend witht the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. It's part of 18 USC 922. It can be com
101 Miamiair : Reading isn't your strong suit is it?
102 Halls120 : Thank you. See, here is your fundamental problem. You view these discussions as "win or lose" propositions, which is patently absurd. No comments her
103 B752fanatic : I already stated that in reply # 78. Read what I said. You said that after I had proven the CBS news source. Before that when you only asked for a so
104 N174UA : This is more of a test of the strict law of DC than an overall review of the 2nd amendment. I think the bans in effect in other cities like SF, etc. c
105 MDorBust : If you acknowledge that Federal Law prohibits the sale of firearms to minors, then why do you contend that it is legal at the state level? Firearms s
106 B752fanatic : Well, not to go into a specific state. Miamiair quoted a statue (the one bellow) on which speaks about this subject. It clearly states that "it is un
107 MDorBust : Miamiair posted FL law. FL is in addition to Federal law.. No, that is not at all what it means. This is basic civics class stuff. State law can not i
108 B752fanatic : In the state of Florida if you are over 18 they sell you a firearm. I don't know why they do it, but it appears legal in the state side. And its the
109 MDorBust : A long gun. They may sell you a long gun if you are over 18. This is because Federal law says so. You can not buy a pistol at the age of 18 in Florid
110 B752fanatic : Oh I see. A long gun is ok, but not a pistol.
111 Miamiair : 21 for hand guns. Posessing and purchasing are two different things. And no minors can purchase a firearm. Look at the source of CBS's map. It is not
112 D L X : But what is *incorrect* about it? Stats is stats.
113 Post contains images Halls120 : Actually, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
114 Post contains links MDorBust : Actually, I just checked how accurate the stats on the source are. Being from the Brady bunch I wasn't expecting much, but outright lies are funny. Le
115 Miamiair : Exactly. What would you have as a credible source, WestLaw or a CBS web page?
116 D L X : Question: DODGED!! What was *incorrect* about B752's source?
117 Miamiair : It was a biased source. The Brady Bunch for Gun Control is a biased source. I asked him to provide a source for his statement. He gave the CBS site.
118 UH60FtRucker : I don't think he ever said it was "incorrect" but instead it was "bias". Which I tend to agree with. If he had posted facts, charts, graphs sourced f
119 Maverick623 : Just because someone dies doesn't classify it as murder.
120 N1120A : Killed with firearms doesn't necessarily mean murdered with firearms. BTW, Brady was a Republican.
121 MDorBust : Yes, but using suicide statistics to masquerade as preventable deaths is dishonest at best. The Brady Bunch is the name used for the Brady Center for
122 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : Ah yes, because your party is oh so excepting of people like Joe Libermann. -UH60
123 N1120A : Hey, Lieberman represents far to many positions that are not taken by the vast majority of party members. I don't see the Republicans opening the doo
124 L-188 : Sorry, I don't need to look up information to know that your statistics are a load of crap. One of the reasons I continue to vote AIP. Sorry but that
125 D L X : Dodged again! What about the statistics was *wrong*? I clearly misspoke. I've maintained elsewhere on this thread that the militia were state armies,
126 L-188 : I will accept that is the Jeffersonian view of the world, and I don't like it. But I think that the pivot point in that arguement is what the intenti
127 RJdxer : ? I know that the 14th amendment is your be all and end all of the Constitution and that all the rest of the amendments are supposedly somehow subser
128 EA CO AS : You're right - he mentioned statutes, not statues.
129 Post contains links Halls120 : I stumbled across the following in the comments section of SCOUSblog. A good read. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/uncateg...ary-the-government-and-gun-r
130 Miamiair : There's plenty there already, only problem is they are in the hands of criminals. The law abiding people can't have them. Proof that gun control legi
131 Queso : Wow. That's a pretty powerful interpretation and I think anyone who has any desire to derive the original intent of the Constitution would have to ag
132 Post contains links D L X : Mostly right, but the key problem is that those states didn't necessarily want to protect civil liberties (as they were doing that on their own throu
133 Queso : Why does that need to be defined in the case of the 2nd Amendment? It doesn't need to be defined for any of the other amendments.
134 D L X : Because in Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court held that none of the bill of rights binds the states, but later Supreme Court cases have decided t
135 Post contains links Halls120 : First off, what I cited was not a commentary, but a response to a commentary. And as far as what the case is about, here is what the Court said when
136 Post contains images D L X : I understand that, but the threshold question there is still who is bound by the Second Amendment. Mark my words.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Supreme Court To Decide Photo ID Voting Law posted Tue Sep 25 2007 23:03:45 by Cfalk
DC Gun Ban Ruled Unconstitutional posted Fri Mar 9 2007 21:37:54 by Pope
US Supreme Court Reviews The PIT posted Mon Feb 26 2007 18:36:53 by MDorBust
Atheist Fares Poorly With US Supreme Court posted Thu Mar 25 2004 02:13:26 by EA CO AS
Breaking NEWS: US Supreme Court Overruled! posted Wed Dec 20 2000 07:44:37 by D L X
US Supreme Court Reverses FL Court posted Wed Dec 13 2000 04:15:39 by Sccutler
MI Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case! posted Tue Nov 6 2007 13:53:31 by Dtwclipper
Supreme Court Says "Yes" To Military Recruiters posted Mon Mar 6 2006 18:09:15 by AeroWesty
Bush To Announce Supreme Court Nominee At 9PM posted Tue Jul 19 2005 19:02:52 by RJpieces
Supreme Court Hostile To Religion/ Families? posted Fri Jul 15 2005 17:57:11 by Dtwclipper