2nd Amendment limitations...

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3235397
Oh, I also forgot, Bionic, your 3 to 4 day waiting period is also wrong. It is 5 days with some states having increased that anywhere from 10-30 days.
Seriously......use TRUE, CURRENT facts to validate your points.
Teeny, tiny, irrelevant point of fact. Those laws vary from state to state and are also dependent on weapon type. Here in CA it's 10 days for any type of firearm. In Wisconsin, I can walk out of the store w/ my shotgun or rifle the day I pay for it, but if I'm buying a handgun, I gotta wait 48hrs to take possession of it. Until this year, D.C. had a handgun ban which extended to making it a criminal offence to transport a legally owned, properly cased, stowed, locked and unloaded weapon across the whole 2 miles from Maryland to Virginia.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235732
Teeny, tiny, irrelevant point of fact. Those laws vary from state to state and are also dependent on weapon type. Here in CA it's 10 days for any type of firearm. In Wisconsin, I can walk out of the store w/ my shotgun or rifle the day I pay for it, but if I'm buying a handgun, I gotta wait 48hrs to take possession of it. Until this year, D.C. had a handgun ban which extended to making it a criminal offence to transport a legally owned, properly cased, stowed, locked and unloaded weapon across the whole 2 miles from Maryland to Virginia.
Thats why I live in the Rockies. Did 32 years in Cal. Great place until the out of staters took over in the 70's. Arizona is going through that now. Wyoming, Colorado and Utah are still OK. The coastal elites have even ruined Montana.
Luckily most of the ski snobs only visit Colorado so they don't have the pull here, Yet

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3235753
Luckily most of the ski snobs only visit Colorado so they don't have the pull here, Yet

lol - wait for it.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3235759
lol - wait for it.

Hope not. Utah has too many mormons, WHYoming is too cold so that only leaves New Mexico or one of the plains states and I am not too fond of tornados

 

[reefraff]

Now SCOTUS is taking up Chicago's handgun ban. Should be interesting.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3235587
Just to help my head around this Darth, you support the right for private citizens to own their own nukes, but think alcohol should be banned or where you just using that as an example? I'm guessing the founding fathers would have had you in lock and shackles for even mentioning the prohibition of alcohol since at least Washington, Franklin and Jefferson from what I can tell all brewed their own beer and I have what seems to be the original recipe for Franklins and plan on making it soon.
Fishtaco-Darth you will have to pry my micro-brewery from my cold dead hands. LOL

Let me make it clear. I do not support an alcohol ban. I am just showing a correlation between the two.
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3235764
Hope not. Utah has too many mormons, WHYoming is too cold so that only leaves New Mexico or one of the plains states and I am not too fond of tornados

Sorry, New Mexico is trying to go the direction of California....Santa Gey, I mean Santa Fe is the equivalent to San Francisco now...

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3235753
Thats why I live in the Rockies. Did 32 years in Cal. Great place until the out of staters took over in the 70's. Arizona is going through that now. Wyoming, Colorado and Utah are still OK. The coastal elites have even ruined Montana.
Luckily most of the ski snobs only visit Colorado so they don't have the pull here, Yet

how did they ruin montana? This is not good for my lotto winning life plans plans...

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3235927
how did they ruin montana? This is not good for my lotto winning life plans plans...
Western Montana, the coolest part, is over ran with trust fund babies and environmentalists. There aint squat for jobs but the housing costs are crazy.

 

[bionicarm]

Here's an interesting article about a Liberal group fighting FOR 2nd Amendment rights..
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185/page/1
These are some of the more interesting key points of the article:
At the heart of the left-leaning dissenters' argument is a plea for consistency. For decades, liberals have insisted that the Constitution assumes—even if it does not explicitly spell out—a right to bodily autonomy. This right, long disputed by conservatives, is a basis for arguments in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Liberals who support gun rights find a similar implied right to own weapons: after all, they say, what is the right to bear arms but the ability to protect your body from criminals as well as the government? "The right to bear arms gives you a mechanism to protect your bodily autonomy from attack," says Winkler.
The real issue in McDonald is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Currently, it covers only the federal government. The Supreme Court has already applied "fundamental rights," such as the right to free speech, to states. The National Rifle Association is asking the court to elevate the Second Amendment to the list of fundamental rights. The CAC hopes instead that the court will add not just the Second Amendment but the whole Bill of Rights. That would make state laws vulnerable to federal-court challenges under a part of the Constitution that liberals love: the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. Liberals would be able to sue states in federal court on everything from welfare to gay marriage, challenging laws that deprive someone of the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship. The CAC believes the benefits of these new protections are worth the weaker gun laws that may go along with them.
Traditional liberal legal scholars don't see it this way. They still come down overwhelmingly against individual gun rights. When the conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Washington, D.C.'s outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment, the four left-leaning justices dissented. Liberals attacked the majority decision, saying the record from 1789 shows the Founders' intent was to protect state militias. Applied today, that means that the National Guard can stock arms, but a National Guard reservist, much less a typical citizen, does not have a right to buy a pistol and keep it in his home.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235723
If you call emptying a couple hundred bullets into an abondoned car a crime, then yep.
Back then, you didn't see the gun violence and gun crime you see today. When I was in high school, I kept my shotgun and my .22 rifle hanging up in the back window of my truck. One of my teachers would jump in my truck with me after school, and we'd go dove hunting on his property outside of Houston. The only reason I modified the AR-15 I had was because it was cheaper than buying a lower receiver that was configured for full auto. No one thought about people owning those types of weapons back then.
So it's OK for YOU to do it but anyone else doing it has criminal intent, typical liberal arrogance

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3237900
Here's an interesting article about a Liberal group fighting FOR 2nd Amendment rights..
http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185/page/1
These are some of the more interesting key points of the article:
At the heart of the left-leaning dissenters' argument is a plea for consistency. For decades, liberals have insisted that the Constitution assumes—even if it does not explicitly spell out—a right to bodily autonomy. This right, long disputed by conservatives, is a basis for arguments in favor of abortion rights and gay rights. Liberals who support gun rights find a similar implied right to own weapons: after all, they say, what is the right to bear arms but the ability to protect your body from criminals as well as the government? "The right to bear arms gives you a mechanism to protect your bodily autonomy from attack," says Winkler.
The real issue in McDonald is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. Currently, it covers only the federal government. The Supreme Court has already applied "fundamental rights," such as the right to free speech, to states. The National Rifle Association is asking the court to elevate the Second Amendment to the list of fundamental rights. The CAC hopes instead that the court will add not just the Second Amendment but the whole Bill of Rights. That would make state laws vulnerable to federal-court challenges under a part of the Constitution that liberals love: the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. Liberals would be able to sue states in federal court on everything from welfare to gay marriage, challenging laws that deprive someone of the "privileges or immunities" of citizenship. The CAC believes the benefits of these new protections are worth the weaker gun laws that may go along with them.
Traditional liberal legal scholars don't see it this way. They still come down overwhelmingly against individual gun rights. When the conservative majority on the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that Washington, D.C.'s outright ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment, the four left-leaning justices dissented. Liberals attacked the majority decision, saying the record from 1789 shows the Founders' intent was to protect state militias. Applied today, that means that the National Guard can stock arms, but a National Guard reservist, much less a typical citizen, does not have a right to buy a pistol and keep it in his home.
The Court simply didn't address states in their ruling. However saying the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws isn't going to happen. Otherwise you have to apply the same federal only standard to other constitutional provisions. I wanna see someone argue that state governments can toss your house without a warrant or limit your right to speak because Congress made no law, the state did

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3238031
So it's OK for YOU to do it but anyone else doing it has criminal intent, typical liberal arrogance

Attitudes and actions change in 30 years. What I did back then I wouldn't do today.
You need to get off your little stereotypical labels. But then again, that's what a sophmoric conservative would say...

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3238035
The Court simply didn't address states in their ruling. However saying the Second Amendment only applies to federal laws isn't going to happen. Otherwise you have to apply the same federal only standard to other constitutional provisions. I wanna see someone argue that state governments can toss your house without a warrant or limit your right to speak because Congress made no law, the state did
Agreed. The Court has no need to address the States. The amendment, being part of the Constitution, falls also under the 10th: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Bionic: the issue is not whether the 2nd applies to the States. As a part of the Constitution, it applies.
By the same token, the States are free to address or legislate anything extra/supra-constitutional they choose to. Should they choose to countermand or modify the Federal Constitution however, it can then become a matter of SCOTUS interpretation, and rightfully so, as proscribed in the original federal document.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3238127
Attitudes and actions change in 30 years. What I did back then I wouldn't do today.
You need to get off your little stereotypical labels. But then again, that's what a sophmoric conservative would say...
Didn't the smileys give you a hint?
And lets talk about stereotyping. You say anyone who would do what you did must have devious intentions. What I will say, and this isn't a joke, that is pretty arrogant of you.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3238129
Agreed. The Court has no need to address the States. The amendment, being part of the Constitution, falls also under the 10th: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Bionic: the issue is not whether the 2nd applies to the States. As a part of the Constitution, it applies.
By the same token, the States are free to address or legislate anything extra/supra-constitutional they choose to. Should they choose to countermand or modify the Federal Constitution however, it can then become a matter of SCOTUS interpretation, and rightfully so, as proscribed in the original federal document.
This is where things get sticky. A waiting period does not infringe on the right to own a gun, but does a ban on a certain type of gun? I actually think there is a little wiggle room here but I don't think an all out ban on handguns in general can be allowed to stand. If they were to ban any handgun with a capacity of more than 6 rounds it might actually stand.
The state can do what they want as long as it isn't seen as an infringement. Just going to determine who's definition of infringe they use.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3238262
Didn't the smileys give you a hint?
And lets talk about stereotyping. You say anyone who would do what you did must have devious intentions. What I will say, and this isn't a joke, that is pretty arrogant of you.
Why is it arrogant? Again, no one has accurate statistics on the use of assault weapons in criminal offenses. You can't have them unless you can account for every single weapon that was used in an armed attack. The bullets for an assault type and a non-assault type are exactly the same. Most people who are attacked by someone using a gun, and live to tell about it, don't remember anything about the weapon that was used.
Explain to me the practical uses of an assault weapon for the average responsible gun owner. You say I'm a hypocrit for using one to spray an abandoned car with, but what other use is there for a weapon like that? Yes, an AR-15 can be used for hunting. But an Uzi or a TEC-9? Ninety percent of the people that came into my brother's shop looking for one of these weapons were individuals between the age of 18 and 25. Every one of them I would describe as someone with a 'Gangsta-type' attitude, dressed in matching clothing. And this was back in the late 70's/early 80's. Almost every one of them would ask if the gun came as a fully auto. You want to call that sterotyping? Go ahead. I'm sure every one of these individuals who bought these weapons from us were just taking them to their local shooting range for some innocent sporting competitions.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3238289
Why is it arrogant? Again, no one has accurate statistics on the use of assault weapons in criminal offenses. You can't have them unless you can account for every single weapon that was used in an armed attack. The bullets for an assault type and a non-assault type are exactly the same. Most people who are attacked by someone using a gun, and live to tell about it, don't remember anything about the weapon that was used.
Explain to me the practical uses of an assault weapon for the average responsible gun owner. You say I'm a hypocrit for using one to spray an abandoned car with, but what other use is there for a weapon like that? Yes, an AR-15 can be used for hunting. But an Uzi or a TEC-9? Ninety percent of the people that came into my brother's shop looking for one of these weapons were individuals between the age of 18 and 25. Every one of them I would describe as someone with a 'Gangsta-type' attitude, dressed in matching clothing. And this was back in the late 70's/early 80's. Almost every one of them would ask if the gun came as a fully auto. You want to call that sterotyping? Go ahead. I'm sure every one of these individuals who bought these weapons from us were just taking them to their local shooting range for some innocent sporting competitions.

You say anyone, but you, who modifies a weapon to be fully automatic is doing do to use it in a violent manner and you don't see the issue?
It doesn't matter whether or not the assault look a likes can be used for hunting or not. Show me where in the constitution, second amendment or any of the extraneous writings of those who crafted and signed the second amendment that our right to own weapons was intended for sporting purposes only. If you want to give the government the power to decide what weapons serve a practical purpose where does that end? I can think of a lot of items in our daily lives the Pelosicrats would love the ban as well. You don't need that gas guzzling car, ban it. Ipods are a distraction while driving, ban them. Pleasure boats, GONE! Nobody needs a 50 inch TV, History.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3238298
You say anyone, but you, who modifies a weapon to be fully automatic is doing do to use it in a violent manner and you don't see the issue?
It doesn't matter whether or not the assault look a likes can be used for hunting or not. Show me where in the constitution, second amendment or any of the extraneous writings of those who crafted and signed the second amendment that our right to own weapons was intended for sporting purposes only. If you want to give the government the power to decide what weapons serve a practical purpose where does that end? I can think of a lot of items in our daily lives the Pelosicrats would love the ban as well. You don't need that gas guzzling car, ban it. Ipods are a distraction while driving, ban them. Pleasure boats, GONE! Nobody needs a 50 inch TV, History.

Using it in a violent manner?

My brother and I shot up cars and cactus with them. Yea, I guess you can say that's violent, in a warped sense of logic. No, violent is when one of those punk kids we sold semi-autos to, drove down their neighborhood spraying homes with their 'modified' weapons.
You're stuck on that analogy again? I thought I explained that 2 pages ago. None of the items you listed are designed specifically to maim or kill the object it is pointed at. Firearms are. When the 2nd was created, automatic and semi-automatic weapons like the assault weapons today didn't exist. No one can possibly perceive or predict whether the 2nd would've been written differently if they were. The 2nd is one of those 'taboo' amendments that will never be touched. Too controversial, and not enough people against it to ever have it modified. That's why the Supreme Court is looking at this McDonald case in Chicago. Determining whether the states or even local municipalities have the right to restrict gun ownership, essentially circumventing what is considered the most popular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Again, give me a practical use for an Uzi or TEC-9. I wouldn't even consider those weapons beneficial in a shooting competition, unless it's a competetion to see who can pull the trigger the fastest and get the most bullets in a general vacinity of a target in a certain amount of time. You want to go with the lame excuse that the 2nd says I can own one, so that's reason enough for the gun to exist. It has nothing to do with wants and needs. It has to do with practicality. You cannot give me one practical reason or use for an average person to own an Uzi or TEC-9. Sure, gun collectors or these NRA guys that like to have one just so they can waste a couple hundred bucks in shells in 10 minutes. Why not. Whatever gets your rocks off. Have no problem with it.
If you REALLY want an assault weapon, I have no problem with you buying one. But there should be some identification number or mark that can be put on a specific area that you as the owner can't access or be able to modify. There should be strict restrictions above and beyond the current laws for who can own one. A tracking mechanism whereby you have to take the weapon into a dealer for inspection and verification to show you still have ownership and possession of said weapon, and verify the weapon hasn't been modified (i.e turned into a fully auto). Require a 'title' for the weapon, where it has to be registered annually. If you want to sell it, you get the title transferred like you do a car. If the weapon is found to be used for any criminal activity, your fault, their fault, no one's fault, YOU will be held accountable. An assault weapon isn't your typical firearm. Therefore, it should be treated differently as such.

 

[stdreb27]

Why is it stuck in Liberal's craw that the government has ANY business telling me what is nessesary or practical. They don't.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3235422
Dude. People who modify semi-autos to autos aren't considered responsible gun owners these days. Back in the late 70's and early 80's, it wasn't a crime to own them. That changed with the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986. My brother still has an original Army-issued Thompson Machine Gun he purchased from a dealer at a gun show. People who modify semi-autos today are doing it for one purpose - major damage and firepower for a crime.

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3238373
Using it in a violent manner?

My brother and I shot up cars and cactus with them. Yea, I guess you can say that's violent, in a warped sense of logic. No, violent is when one of those punk kids we sold semi-autos to, drove down their neighborhood spraying homes with their 'modified' weapons.
You're stuck on that analogy again? I thought I explained that 2 pages ago. None of the items you listed are designed specifically to maim or kill the object it is pointed at. Firearms are. When the 2nd was created, automatic and semi-automatic weapons like the assault weapons today didn't exist. No one can possibly perceive or predict whether the 2nd would've been written differently if they were. The 2nd is one of those 'taboo' amendments that will never be touched. Too controversial, and not enough people against it to ever have it modified. That's why the Supreme Court is looking at this McDonald case in Chicago. Determining whether the states or even local municipalities have the right to restrict gun ownership, essentially circumventing what is considered the most popular interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Again, give me a practical use for an Uzi or TEC-9. I wouldn't even consider those weapons beneficial in a shooting competition, unless it's a competetion to see who can pull the trigger the fastest and get the most bullets in a general vacinity of a target in a certain amount of time. You want to go with the lame excuse that the 2nd says I can own one, so that's reason enough for the gun to exist. It has nothing to do with wants and needs. It has to do with practicality. You cannot give me one practical reason or use for an average person to own an Uzi or TEC-9. Sure, gun collectors or these NRA guys that like to have one just so they can waste a couple hundred bucks in shells in 10 minutes. Why not. Whatever gets your rocks off. Have no problem with it.
If you REALLY want an assault weapon, I have no problem with you buying one. But there should be some identification number or mark that can be put on a specific area that you as the owner can't access or be able to modify. There should be strict restrictions above and beyond the current laws for who can own one. A tracking mechanism whereby you have to take the weapon into a dealer for inspection and verification to show you still have ownership and possession of said weapon, and verify the weapon hasn't been modified (i.e turned into a fully auto). Require a 'title' for the weapon, where it has to be registered annually. If you want to sell it, you get the title transferred like you do a car. If the weapon is found to be used for any criminal activity, your fault, their fault, no one's fault, YOU will be held accountable. An assault weapon isn't your typical firearm. Therefore, it should be treated differently as such.
Your Quote
"People who modify semi-autos today are doing it for one purpose - major damage and firepower for a crime."
I'll let is speak for itself. Nobody but you would ever modify the weapon just to go have a little harmless fun.
What is the difference between an AR 15 "assault" riffle and a Mini 14 ranch riffle? Functionally nothing. Both are semi automatic 223 with a detachable magazine. Difference is the Mini doesn't look like an M16 so it wasn't subject to the ban.
What is responsible for the most deaths in the US annually:
A) Guns
B) Doctors
C) Cars
D) Water
Your idea about gun registration fits right in with Hitler and Stalin's. Why we are at it lets make people register to exercise freedom of speech too.