Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?

[Pilot1]

YES. They are ALL un-Constitutional as they are clear INFRINGEMENTS. My state's Constitution is even stricter, and says "The right to keep an bear arms shall NOT BE QUESTIONED". Yet we still have illegal gun laws.

The CORRUPT, statist courts uphold these illegal laws. It is a NATURAL RIGHT the Constitution guarantees. Government does NOT grant rights, nor can it take away Natural Rights.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s

To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them. In fact maybe they were sending us a message about e veryone should own one.

dont tell em about our 50's they'll stroke out in their safe spaces

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?

No

Shall not be infringed

Antonin Scalia disagreed

shrugs does it mean something else?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.

There are laws against murder and assault

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

 

[pinqy]

[
There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.

There are laws against murder and assault

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

[
There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.

There are laws against murder and assault

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

 

[pinqy]

[
There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected.

There are laws against murder and assault

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.

For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There are laws against murder and assault

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
What does shall not be infringed mean?
For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

What does shall not be infringed mean?

 

[pinqy]

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
What does shall not be infringed mean?
For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

What does shall not be infringed mean?

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
What does shall not be infringed mean?
For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

What does shall not be infringed mean?

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

Due process takes care of your concern.

 

[pinqy]

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
What does shall not be infringed mean?
For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

What does shall not be infringed mean?

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

Due process takes care of your concern.

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

 

[Slyhunter]

I've heard a lot of simple minded liberals say that the 2nd amendment says nothing about AR-15s

To me that means that they must not have been very condenser about them. In fact maybe they were sending us a message about everyone should own one.

All Federal anti-gun laws are anti-constitutional. States have been permitted to make laws that don't abide by the constitution in the past, so meh.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

There are laws against murder and assault

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.

For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

You are wrong on so many levels. The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights. I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???

 

[pinqy]

Which are not inherently related to the right to keep and bear arms. Your analogy fails.

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.

For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

You are wrong on so many levels. The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights. I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???

How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?

 

[Slyhunter]

laws are laws does one murder trump another murder?

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.

For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

You are wrong on so many levels. The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights. I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???

How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?

What is the point of a basic criminal record check unless you intend to infringe on their right to bear arms if they are ex-cons?

 

[pinqy]

Of course not. I’m just not sure why you are equating gun ownership with murder.

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.

For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

You are wrong on so many levels. The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights. I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???

How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?

What is the point of a basic criminal record check unless you intend to infringe on their right to bear arms if they are ex-cons?

Do ex-cons maintain that right, or did they cede it by committing a crime?

 

[Slyhunter]

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.

For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

You are wrong on so many levels. The worst one is thinking that a background check does not infringe on your Rights. I'd reread the Bill of Rights if I were you and then think about the way that precedent could be expanded - besides if you can't be trusted to own a firearm, what in the Hell are you doing running around loose???

How am I less able to keep and bear arms by having a basic criminal record check?

What is the point of a basic criminal record check unless you intend to infringe on their right to bear arms if they are ex-cons?

Do ex-cons maintain that right, or did they cede it by committing a crime?

Show me in the Constitution where it has the exception.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I was not doing what you suggested
Your position for restricting the second amendment was making this comparisons
"There are laws against: slander, perjury, false advertising, fraud, false statements to police, incitement to riot, etc. not all speech is protected."
As I said we have laws against murder and assault you can't just go out and kill anyone you must have a lawful reason to do it.

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
What does shall not be infringed mean?
For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

What does shall not be infringed mean?

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

Due process takes care of your concern.

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do ex-cons maintain that right, or did they cede it by committing a crime?

Ex-cons mean they are out of prison and have paid their debt to society and should retain their rights.

 

[Blues Man]

I have yet to see a background check on an employee that says whether or not they own guns.

And the firing of an individual for no other reason than he has a carry permit will not stand legal scrutiny.

There is legal precedent for any employer to prohibit firearms on their property so if your employer says no guns allowed on company property you can be fired if you do not comply

Every state has different laws. Until a few years ago in Georgia if an employer said you could not carry a weapon, even in your car in the parking lot, then you absolutely could not do it.

Today, however, you CAN have your weapon in your car, regardless of whether or not an employer agrees. The only exception is if the employer fences in the property and only allows employees access to a company parking lot. As long as their parking lot is accessible to the public, you can have your weapon in the vehicle.

Here is a look at which states have public access laws to a ccw:

Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states

If something is a matter of public record it is accessible to anyone doing a background check on you. People can look and then refuse you employment, services, loans, etc. without stating that as a reason.

I've never been refused a loan or an apartment because I have a CC permit nor has anyone I have asked to bid ona job refused because I have CC permit.

I have performed CORI checks on people and never once has any info regarding gun ownership been on any one of those checks. A basic landlord check does not contain that info either.

There is no easy way to get the data on permits that are public record in any state and I doubt an employer is going to pay to have someone go to a state office and ask for gun permit records

How To Find Out If Someone Has A Gun Permit

If your state does allow public access to gun permit records, it’s not a matter of simply looking up the information online. You must make a formal request, either via your county clerk or state justice department.

Just because a task isn't easy or it requires one to get off their butt and go to the courthouse does not mean it cannot be done NOR that it isn't being done.

In the days before the Internet my brother worked for a company called Circuit City. They wanted to transfer him from sales to a warehouse management position for the same money. He didn't want the extra responsibility. Circuit City looked into his background and found that he had paid a fine for having thrown some firecrackers that were bound together (by their fuses) at a neighbor's dog. The case was 17 years old! My brother told me, "that happened when I was 17. I had forgotten about it until they brought it up."

Just because YOU haven't witnessed this stuff doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There is a man who spends his days documenting the political activities of those who do things like participate in marches - specifically, Charlottesville sticks out. Armed with evidence of their "racist" activities, this guy brings it to the attention of employers, banks / lending institutions, and anyone else in the neighborhood.

I've been asked the question of whether I own a firearm by potential employers and by doctors. Disbelieve all you want. If / when it happens, check back in with us.

How often is it being done?

Seriously how many times have you been denied a job because you own a gun and like I said all the info anyone can get from public records is whether or not you have some sort of permit there will be no info that proves you own any guns

And your brother had a CORI check done on him like millions of other people do so don't try to equate a criminal record check with your claims that you have been denied jobs because you own a gun

If I posted a hundred examples of people not getting a job because they own a firearm, you would STILL deny it. Just to prove you're full of yourself, let's do one. Can't wait for that snappy comeback instead of an apology admitting that it does happen. How many times does it happen where an anti-gun fanatic finds out via government records and finds ANOTHER pretext to get rid of an employee on? But then again (sarcasm intended), that would never happen.

Company Fires Employee For Having Gun...IN HIS OWN HOME - Bullets First

So you got one huh? And FYI the guy wasn't fired because someone did a background check.


Tell me did this guy take his employer to court for firing him without cause?