Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[2aguy]

He also used a bump stock. I have never fired with one, but it looks stupid.

They are lucky he did....it saved lives......because of the bump stock, it caused the barrel of the rifle to rise every time he fired...this made large numbers of the bullets he fired to pass completely over the stadium, missing even more people...had he simply used the rifle without the bump stock, he would have been able to murder more people...

 

[2aguy]

No one is trying to be clever. I take what you say at face value. I ask that others treat me as I do them.

If you want to act like a dick, then there is no point in discussing anything with you. I approach this forum, with a new handle, and a different approach. It wouldn't be fair to use posts I"ve made on another forum for which I've used it for a different purpose. I've explained to you why. If you can't oblige, there is no point in discussing anything with you. It tells me you are disingenuous, and are only interested in cramming your viewpoint down the throats of others. If that isn't acceptable to you, I couldn't care less and your negative opinion means nothing to me. If you want discuss this in a higher tone, a friendly fashion, with respect towards others, in a civil fashion I respond in kind

I respond in kind, I don't initiate, I give the benefit of the doubt. If that isn't good enough your you, then you are kidding yourself.

I put the ball in your court, but I predict you will answer in a less than civil tone, without regard to how I might take it, which tells me you really don't care, you're a one way street, your way or the highway, you just want to score points, no doubt for likes, impress your clan, and other such juvenile nonsense.

Right? right, And I suspect this is because that tone is your home. You've already proven that in prior posts. How quickly you sink the conversation to the negative, there is the evidence, right there.

Right? Now I'll sit back and wait for what I suspect will be some kind of asinine response. Feel free to prove wrong, but I doubt it.

.

Please explain to us how gun registration.......which is a violation of the 5th Amendment for actual criminals, is not a violation of the 5th Amendment for law abiding citizens.....

Please.....we'll wait.......

Haynes v United States

2. Petitioner's conviction under § 5851 for possession of an unregistered firearm is not properly distinguishable from a conviction under § 5841 for failure to register possession of a firearm, and both offenses must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the Fifth Amendment from the obligation to register. Pp. 390 U. S. 90-95.


3. A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851. Pp. 390 U. S. 95-100.
-------
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under § 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under § 5851.

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)

Haynes v. United States

supreme.justia.com

Gun registration is a violation of our 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination..........if we are criminals....

So tell us how law abiding citizens are not protected under the same 5th Amendment protections as criminals.....

 

[Rumpole]

Please explain to us how gun registration.......which is a violation of the 5th Amendment for actual criminals, is not a violation of the 5th Amendment for law abiding citizens.....

Please.....we'll wait.......

Haynes v United State [...]

Gun registration is a violation of our 5th Amendment protections against self incrimination..........if we are criminals....

So tell us how law abiding citizens are not protected under the same 5th Amendment protections as criminals.....

If I understand Haynes correctly, A defense counsel can use the 5th amendment ruling as a defense insofar as the application of a permit and registration is concerned by a felon in a state that has a law against felons from possessing a firearm, but it cannot be used for his actual possession of the firearm, itself, if there is a state law banning felons from owning firearms. This is why it is not unconstitutional for states to have laws requiring law abiding citizens to register and carry permits for guns, as the reason for the permits and registration is for tracking purposes and not, per se, designed to incriminate felons.

As I understand it, Haynes allows for a jury to reject that defense should they want to. Additionally, I believe there are a few, if not numerous, legal scholars calling for a review, and potential reversal of this ruling as it hinders a state's ability to best assure public safety. I think the ruling is nuts, given that if there is a law banning a felon from firearm possession, then the act if applying for a permit is in furtherance of violating the law, so the ruling in Haynes, to my thinking, makes no sense.

Reasons by a state to require permits and registration, may include:

1. Law Enforcement: Permit and registration requirements can also aid law enforcement by providing them with information about the type and number of firearms in circulation, which can help in investigations and recovery of stolen or lost firearms.
2. Background Checks: Many states require background checks as part of the permit application process, which can help prevent individuals who have a history of violence or mental illness from obtaining firearms.
3. Accountability: Permit and registration requirements can also hold gun owners accountable for their firearms and ensure that they are being used in a responsible manner. This can include requirements for safe storage, training, and education.

However, a felon, upon completion of a sentence (and after any parole and probation period), is considered to have paid his debt to society, and, in my view, should not be denied any rights given in the bill of rights, given that, in theory, he is a restored citizen.

I would, therefore, only support a felon ban only if he is convicted of a second felony involving guns, after being released from prison and passed probation and parole restrictions, One could argue the same for any second conviction involving violence, of any kind, guns or no guns. Exceptions? Yes , severity of the crime committed while using firearms (or any 'arms'), but if it is that severe, the individual should never be released from prison in the first place (unless the crime was committed as a juvenile).

 

[Rumpole]

Voter I.D. is simply showing your license to make sure you are the one voting..........you are not kept from voting.

Driving a car is not a Right........although democrats are also in the process of banning ICE automobiles, they want to ban and confiscate guns...so the comparison is not valid........

In Europe, they use permits and mandatory training the same way democrats used poll taxes and literacy tests to keep blacks from voting......mandatory training, permits, and licensing are used in Europe to prevent people from owning guns.....the fees and tests are onerous to the point that normal people can't afford the time and money to pass them......so only the rich and politically connected have easy access to guns......

Our country doesn't work like that.......we have the Right to own and carry guns........

In fact, having a registration system in place can actually protect legal firearms owners. If a firearm is lost or stolen, for example, a registration system can help authorities recover the firearm and return it to its rightful owner. It can also help prevent legal firearms from being mistaken for illegal firearms, which can happen in situations such as traffic stops.
You are naive if you actually believe this..........

Again....Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns per the Haynes v United States supreme court ruliing...that means only law abiding citizens face legal peril if they don't register their guns....
On top of that.......gun registration that actually exists does nothing to stop criminals from getting or using illegal guns....and does not help the police solve crimes.....
On the actual reason you want to register guns...besides putting normal gun owners in legal peril if they do not register their guns...
Massad Ayoob on Gun Registration & Gun Control #shorts







===========

Countries such as Canada, the U.K., and Australia aren't the only ones to use registration to ban and confiscate guns. California, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. have also used registration to know who legally owned different types of guns before banning them.

Conducting background checks to see if someone can legally buy a gun is different from the government keeping a searchable record of those who own guns. Indeed, federal law has always required that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System erase background check information within 24 hours of its completion.


Gun control activists push for registration as a way to solve crime. In theory, if criminals leave registered guns at a crime scene, they can then be traced back to the perpetrator. But in real life, a gun is usually left at the scene of a crime only when the gunman has been seriously injured or killed. Also, guns used in crimes are rarely registered. In the exceedingly unusual instances that they are, they aren't registered to the person who committed the crime. However, with both the criminal and weapon present at the scene, police can solve these crimes even without registration.

Yes, but autos used in crimes are most often stolen, but that doesn't mean we stop licensing and registering them. There are a host of other reasons for permits, licensing, etc.

In a 2001 lawsuit, the Pennsylvania state police could not identify any crimes solved by their registration system from 1901 to 2001; however they did claim that it had "assisted" in a total of four cases, for which they could provide no details.

In a 2013 deposition for District of Columbia v. Heller II, the plaintiffs recorded that the Washington, D.C. police chief could not "recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime, except for possession offenses."

During testimony before the Hawaii State Senate in 2000, Honolulu’s police chief stated that he couldn't find any crimes that had been solved due to registration and licensing. The chief also said that his officers devoted about 50,000 hours to registering and licensing guns each year. This is time that could have been spent on traditional, time-tested law enforcement activities.


New York and Maryland spent tens of millions of dollars putting together a computer database on all new guns sold in the past 15 years, even recording the ballistic fingerprint of each gun. But even these states, which strongly favor gun control, eventually abolished their systems because they never solved a single crime.

In 2010, Canada conducted a detailed examination of its program. It found that, from 2003 to 2009, 1,314 out of 4,257 Canadian homicides involved firearms. Of the identified weapons, about three-quarters were not registered. Among registered weapons, the registered owner was rarely the person accused of the homicide. In just 62 cases – only 4.7 percent of all firearm homicides – was the gun registered to the accused, and an unknown number of these homicide cases involve instances of self-defense. But the Royal Canadian Mounted Police failed to identify any cases where registration was integral to solving the crime.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._registry_as_precursor_to_gun_ban_147139.html

There is a right, by the legal doctrine of the penumbra under the 9th amendment, to own and drive a car upon completing licensing and registration requirements. Your argument doesn't wash, in my view. Just because a right is not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, does not mean there are other rights. The operative word is 'reasonable necessity'. In the modern era, owning a car is a necessity for many people and by virtue of that necessity it falls under the unenumerated rights of the 9th amendment, AKA 'penumbra reasoning'. Not necessary for all people, but so many people that I believe it would be upheld as a penumbra (unenumerated) right under the 9th amendment.

But, even if the above is incorrect, that if the right to drive and own a car is not an unenumerated right under the 9th Amendment, it is still an important right that is subject to regulation in the interest of public safety. I don't find the 'rights' argument compelling. The issue is constitutional scope of regulation While, given the second amendment there are explicit constraints placed upon a governments' ability to regulate firearms, the underlying principle, that a government can regulate within those constraints, is no different than a government's right to regulate owning and driving vehicles. Both are allowed to be regulated, the only difference is that the constitution places more constraints on regulation of firearms than it does for autos.

 

[2aguy]

If I understand Haynes correctly, A defense counsel can use the 5th amendment ruling as a defense insofar as the application of a permit and registration is concerned by a felon in a state that has a law against felons from possessing a firearm, but it cannot be used for his actual possession of the firearm, itself, if there is a state law banning felons from owning firearms. This is why it is not unconstitutional for states to have laws requiring law abiding citizens to register and carry permits for guns, as the reason for the permits and registration is for tracking purposes and not, per se, designed to incriminate felons.

As I understand it, Haynes allows for a jury to reject that defense should they want to. Additionally, I believe there are a few, if not numerous, legal scholars calling for a review, and potential reversal of this ruling as it hinders a state's ability to best assure public safety. I think the ruling is nuts, given that if there is a law banning a felon from firearm possession, then the act if applying for a permit is in furtherance of violating the law, so the ruling in Haynes, to my thinking, makes no sense.

Reasons by a state to require permits and registration, may include:

1. Law Enforcement: Permit and registration requirements can also aid law enforcement by providing them with information about the type and number of firearms in circulation, which can help in investigations and recovery of stolen or lost firearms.
2. Background Checks: Many states require background checks as part of the permit application process, which can help prevent individuals who have a history of violence or mental illness from obtaining firearms.
3. Accountability: Permit and registration requirements can also hold gun owners accountable for their firearms and ensure that they are being used in a responsible manner. This can include requirements for safe storage, training, and education.

However, a felon, upon completion of a sentence (and after any parole and probation period), is considered to have paid his debt to society, and, in my view, should not be denied any rights given in the bill of rights, given that, in theory, he is a restored citizen.

I would, therefore, only support a felon ban only if he is convicted of a second felony involving guns, after being released from prison and passed probation and parole restrictions, One could argue the same for any second conviction involving violence, of any kind, guns or no guns. Exceptions? Yes , severity of the crime committed while using firearms (or any 'arms'), but if it is that severe, the individual should never be released from prison in the first place (unless the crime was committed as a juvenile).

1) They already have that from gun store sales records.......

2) Yep...that is why I said the current background check system is something we can live with, since they do not record who actually buys the gun.....universal background checks for private gun sales is simply allows anti-gun fanatics to demand gun registration...which is what they really want, and see universal background checks as a necessary first step.

3) That is just dumb........if someone uses a gun in an irresponsible manner they can already be arrested...and criminals, the ones doing the vast majority of illegal and irresponsible behavior, already can't get permits or licenses.....

First, safe storage requirements are unConstitutional as per the safety lock ruling in Heller.......Second, poll taxes and literacy tests were declared unconstitutional for voting, so therefore they are unConstitutional for the other Rights as well...requiring training is the same as requiring a literacy test to vote.

Yes......you can't ding a felon on registration of a gun.......so therefore you can't do the same for an law abiding citizen....this needs to be addressed in court so that the dumb registration laws can be struck down...

Registration of guns violates the 5th Amendment.......no matter how the anti-gunners try to weasel around it....

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is a cynical view, which I reject

Your rejection has no rational or factual basis.

Can you post an example of Democrats not enacting a restriction the right ot keep and bear arms because they thought it violated the 2nd? Bet not.
Can you post an example of Democrats supporting a court decision striking a gun regulation because the thought the restriction in question violated the 2nd? Bet not.
Can you post an example of Democrats arguing we do not need more regulations on guns, as the once we have now are enough? Bet not.

I -can- post an example of the opposite, for all three, ad nauseam.

Voter ID is required by everyone, in most states, and the vast majority are law abiding.
Your point fails right there.

Your response here is completely unrelated to what I said and thus irrelevant.

I have no problem with bearable arms. I have a problem with arms that go beyond just self defense and hunting.

Interesting.
With specificity, what firearms "go beyond self-defense and hunting"?
How do you know?
Under the constitution, how is this distinction valid?

I'll leave that to the experts and congress to sort it out.

Well no - you'll leave it to the post-Bruen courts.
Why do you believe a court will rule firearms like the AR15 do not fall under the umbrella of "bearable arms"?
Why do you believe the USSC will uphold such a decision?

For the same reason licensing and exam requirements are required to drive a vehicle.

A driver's license does not involve the exercise of a right protected by the constitution, and thus does not apply.
You argue applies and concrete.

There are valid reasons to require permits to use firearms and to register firearms. Here are a few reasons:

This has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of voter ID -- you just want to interject another off-topic rant.

But, as your points are easily enough addressed:

1. Public safety: Requiring permits and registration of firearms helps ensure that only responsible individuals have access to firearms. It allows authorities to keep track of who has a firearm, which can be important for public safety.

1. Crime prevention: Permitting and registration can help prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. It can also help law enforcement agencies solve crimes by tracing firearms used in crimes back to their owners.
2. Responsible ownership: Requiring permits and registration can encourage responsible ownership. It can also help ensure that firearms are stored safely and are not accessible to unauthorized individuals.
3. Compliance with the law: Requiring permits and registration ensures that gun owners are aware of the laws and regulations related to firearms. It alsohelps enforce these laws and regulations.

The fact you know you cannot demonstrate any of this to be true aside...
The court rejected the means-end test in Bruen-- it doesn't matter how good of an idea you think it is, if the restriction does not correlate with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations, it violates the constitution.

Now then, forget the Voter ID comparison, let's use licensing for the operation of a motor vehicle.

A repeat of your false equivalence, as you do not have a constitutionally protected right to drive on public roads.
That said....
You do not need a license to buy, own or possess a car, or operate it on private property.
If you commit a crime with a car, you get to keep your other cars, and can buy as many more as you like.
Surely if we are to require a license to own a gun like we require a license to drive a car, this will apply just as well to firearms.
Right?

And then...
Our rights do not come from the state; the state does not grant them to us, nor issue them out on a conditional basis -- we do not ask permission to exercise them and we do not wait for legislation to tell us we can.
Thus, the obvious question: What standing the state have to issue a license to exercise a right, much less require one?
The state can no more issue a license to own a gun that it can for someone to attend Sunday Mass.

Those who fear the government will use a firearms registration database to confiscate guns may have concerns about privacy and government overreach. However, it's worth noting that most countries with firearms registration systems have not used them for confiscation purposes.

1: Registration violates the constitution
2: That they have not in no way means they will not - and thus does nothing to mollify the concern.

That can't be true, as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we've had elections for over 160 years without Voter ID requirements without any problem,...

I addressed this:
The least restrictive means to achieve this end is to require a prospective voter to confirm he is who he says he is.
Thus, the need for voter ID, regardless of any level of fraud.

And, after all -- you need an ID to buy a gun -- why not to vote?

 

[M14 Shooter]

No one is trying to be clever. I take what you say at face value. I ask that others treat me as I do them.

You say so, chief.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is a right, by the legal doctrine of the penumbra under the 9th amendment, to own and drive a car...

Please cite the case and copy/paste the holding to this effect.
As each and every state has all the power in the world not let you drive on a public road without them specifically granting you the privilege to do so, I will bet no such holding exists.

 

[Rumpole]

1) They already have that from gun store sales records.......

2) Yep...that is why I said the current background check system is something we can live with, since they do not record who actually buys the gun.....universal background checks for private gun sales is simply allows anti-gun fanatics to demand gun registration...which is what they really want, and see universal background checks as a necessary first step.

3) That is just dumb........if someone uses a gun in an irresponsible manner they can already be arrested...and criminals, the ones doing the vast majority of illegal and irresponsible behavior, already can't get permits or licenses.....

First, safe storage requirements are unConstitutional as per the safety lock ruling in Heller.......Second, poll taxes and literacy tests were declared unconstitutional for voting, so therefore they are unConstitutional for the other Rights as well...requiring training is the same as requiring a literacy test to vote.

Yes......you can't ding a felon on registration of a gun.......so therefore you can't do the same for an law abiding citizen....this needs to be addressed in court so that the dumb registration laws can be struck down...

Registration of guns violates the 5th Amendment.......no matter how the anti-gunners try to weasel around it....

The assertion that gun registration violates the 5th Amendment is not entirely accurate. The 5th Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination, which means that individuals cannot be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that the 5th Amendment does not protect individuals from providing non-incriminating information, such as their name, address, or even their ownership of a firearm.

The principle that the 5th Amendment does not protect individuals from providing non-incriminating information has been established in a number of Supreme Court cases, including United States v. Wade (1967), Schmerber v. California (1966), and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004).

In fact, gun registration is already required in many states and is not considered a violation of the 2nd Amendment or the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court has also upheld the constitutionality of gun registration in the past, specifically in the case of United States v. Miller (1939).

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that reasonable regulations on firearms are allowed under the 2nd Amendment, and this includes reasonable registration requirements. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the court explicitly stated that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on… laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Therefore, while individuals have a right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, this right is not unlimited and can be subject to reasonable regulation, such as registration requirements. As long as these regulations do not violate an individual's 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, they are constitutionally valid.

California: California requires registration of all firearms, including handguns and long guns.

Connecticut: Connecticut requires registration of all handguns.

Hawaii: Hawaii requires registration of all firearms.

Maryland: Maryland requires registration of handguns and assault weapons.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts requires registration of all firearms.

New Jersey: New Jersey requires registration of handguns.

New York: New York requires registration of handguns.

 

[2aguy]

The assertion that gun registration violates the 5th Amendment is not entirely accurate. The 5th Amendment protects individuals from self-incrimination, which means that individuals cannot be forced to testify against themselves in a criminal trial. However, the Supreme Court has held that the 5th Amendment does not protect individuals from providing non-incriminating information, such as their name, address, or even their ownership of a firearm.

The principle that the 5th Amendment does not protect individuals from providing non-incriminating information has been established in a number of Supreme Court cases, including United States v. Wade (1967), Schmerber v. California (1966), and Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada (2004).

In fact, gun registration is already required in many states and is not considered a violation of the 2nd Amendment or the 5th Amendment. The Supreme Court has also upheld the constitutionality of gun registration in the past, specifically in the case of United States v. Miller (1939).

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that reasonable regulations on firearms are allowed under the 2nd Amendment, and this includes reasonable registration requirements. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the court explicitly stated that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on… laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Therefore, while individuals have a right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, this right is not unlimited and can be subject to reasonable regulation, such as registration requirements. As long as these regulations do not violate an individual's 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, they are constitutionally valid.

California: California requires registration of all firearms, including handguns and long guns.

Connecticut: Connecticut requires registration of all handguns.

Hawaii: Hawaii requires registration of all firearms.

Maryland: Maryland requires registration of handguns and assault weapons.

Massachusetts: Massachusetts requires registration of all firearms.

New Jersey: New Jersey requires registration of handguns.

New York: New York requires registration of handguns.

If a criminal is exempt from registering their illegal gun it is a violatin of the Comstitutiin to require non crimjnal citizens to do it......we just need someone to take the case to the supreme court.

 

[Rumpole]

If a criminal is exempt from registering their illegal gun it is a violatin of the Comstitutiin to require non crimjnal citizens to do it......we just need someone to take the case to the supreme court.

Until then, my rebuttal stands.

Thank you.

 

[Rumpole]

Please cite the case and copy/paste the holding to this effect.
As each and every state has all the power in the world not let you drive on a public road without them specifically granting you the privilege to do so, I will bet no such holding exists.

I don't find the argument that owning an operating a car not being listed in the bill of rights a compelling argument against my comparison, given that the Bill of Rights was never intended to mean other rights do not exist. In fact, Alexander Hamilton and Roger Sherman weren't all to happy about the idea, one I suspect being for the very reason second amendment advocates are using the amendment to fight against any regulation at all. Even Scalia didn't buy that idea. Clearly not all of the founders were on board with the idea. The point is, the reasons for operating and licensing a vehicle are similar for requiring permits and registration of firearms, i.e., public safety, noting that there are a number of states that do, thus it has been ruled constitutional.

 

[Rumpole]

You say so, chief.

I do, and thank you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court has also upheld the constitutionality of gun registration in the past, specifically in the case of United States v. Miller (1939).

Your statement is false.
Gun registration was not a question before the court in Miller, and so the court could not have upheld it.
Disagree?
Copy/paste the text from the ruling to that effect.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that reasonable regulations on firearms are allowed under the 2nd Amendment, and this includes reasonable registration requirements. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the court explicitly stated that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on… laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Gee. Where have I heard this nonsense before.
Your statement is false.
The court , in Heller did not uphold ANY of the regulations in question before it; all such regulations where STRUCK.
Indeed, EVERY regulation heard by the court since Miller has been struck.

Therefore, while individuals have a right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment, this right is not unlimited and can be subject to reasonable regulation, such as registration requirements. As long as these regulations do not violate an individual's 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination, they are constitutionally valid.

Your conclusion, based on two false statements is unsound.

California: California requires registration of all firearms, including handguns and long guns.
Connecticut: Connecticut requires registration of all handguns.
Hawaii: Hawaii requires registration of all firearms.
Maryland: Maryland requires registration of handguns and assault weapons.
Massachusetts: Massachusetts requires registration of all firearms.
New Jersey: New Jersey requires registration of handguns.
New York: New York requires registration of handguns.

Ok? So?
Why do you think, under Bruen, a court will uphold these requirements?
Why do you think, under Bruen, the USSC will not overturn any such ruling?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't find the argument that owning an operating a car not being listed in the bill of rights a compelling argument against my comparison, given that the Bill of Rights was never intended to mean other rights do not exist.

All this means is you know you do not have anything to back your opinion, other than your opinion.
When you do, let us know.
Until then, my rebuttal stands.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If I understand Haynes correctly, A defense counsel can use the 5th amendment ruling as a defense insofar as the application of a permit and registration is concerned by a felon in a state that has a law against felons from possessing a firearm, but it cannot be used for his actual possession of the firearm, itself, if there is a state law banning felons from owning firearms.

A felon can be charged for illegal possession of a firearm
He cannot further be charged for failing to register that firearm.

As I understand it, Haynes allows for a jury to reject that defense should they want to.

Cite the text of the ruling to that effect.

Additionally, I believe there are a few, if not numerous, legal scholars calling for a review, and potential reversal of this ruling...

Until then, the ruling stands.
Thank you.

as it hinders a state's ability to best assure public safety

Why do you continue to choose to not understand:
Under Bruen, means-end legal tests no longer apply to the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment.

I think the ruling is nuts, given that if there is a law banning a felon from firearm possession, then the act if applying for a permit is in furtherance of violating the law, so the ruling in Haynes, to my thinking, makes no sense.

This could not be more simple or obvious:
The state cannot force you to admit you have committed a crime.
Forcing someone to register their illegally possess firearm does exactly that

However, a felon, upon completion of a sentence (and after any parole and probation period), is considered to have paid his debt to society, and, in my view, should not be denied any rights given in the bill of rights, given that, in theory, he is a restored citizen.

That's nice.
The law disagrees.

 

[presonorek]

It makes you sound mentally challenged.

Having guns is not going to protect you from the police or military. With normal police equipment, SWAT teams, police tactics and fire power etc, they can easily neutralize any armed threat or movement. They wouldn't even break a sweat. Not to mention, police surveillance tactics will make it impossible for an anti-government group to organize a big enough threat to the regime. You don't have a chance. And that is only the police. Your little AR-15 isn't going to do anything to a drone, tank, apache helicopter, fighter jet or combat unit (much less special forces). There is a reason you have not seen a people's uprising to over-throw a government even in Africa in decade. And really only Sudan has been overthrown by a military coup.

No, the only reason you want certain guns (such as a AR-15) is because you like to have them.

It is true the vast majority of gun owners are responsible and good people, including AR-15 owners. But that 1% or 0.05% that are not responsible can cause havoc, as we just saw in Highland park (an event I was on my way to attend and an event to which I know many people that were directly effected).

If you want to hunt, then a single shot hunting rifle will suffice. If it is about home defense, then handguns and shotguns (which as both short-range) would be sufficient.

There are many things that can be done, such as arm teachers, have cops in schools, secure soft targets, better mental health facilities, red flag rules and immunity for snitching, involuntary institutionalization, high standards for gun ownership, higher and minimum sentences for illegal gun possession, Federal no buy lists, vicarious liability for guns for the gun owner etc., but stop with the argument that you need guns for tyrannical governments! Because it is foolish.

There should be a ban on all guns other then single shot hunting rifles, handguns and shotguns.

Now I know handguns are by far the weapon of choice in the vast number of homicides, but so called "assault rifles" (yes I know that is a term the liberals made up) it by far a more sufficient weapon to commit mass murder then a handgun, even if they are semi-automatic (vs full).

Keep sticking to these stances that turn off the moderates (e.g. ban on abortion and do nothing on guns) and then cry about how Demorats can win with gas over $5-6, out of control inflation, major blunders in foreign policy and everyone hating woke politics. If the Demorats keep the House and pick up senate seats you are going to see the most radical changes to this country that we haver ever seen.

There is no way to prove things that never happened. Without studying world history there is no way to know why the militaries and police departments have never went door to door in the United States to achieve some objective. Humans like power but they also don't like to be the one cop that lost his life when hundreds of cops destroyed a man's private property. Governments are deterred to mess with private citizens. No I can't prove it because these types of invasions never happen. More than likely the 2nd amendment is to thank for that but no, it can't be proven.

I don't see why we should let the government seize all guns to prove I was right. It isn't worth the risk in my opinion. Just continue calling me mentally challenged. I'm cool with that.

 

[Rumpole]

A felon can be charged for illegal possession of a firearm
He cannot further be charged for failing to register that firearm.

I believe I made that point.

Cite the text of the ruling to that effect.

Apparently I misread the text.

Until then, the ruling stands.
Thank you.

Why do you continue to choose to not understand:
Under Bruen, means-end legal tests no longer apply to the protections afforded by the 2nd Amendment.

It abolished the second step, which was used in Heller, which is the 'intermediate test', which, what, is the same thing as the 'means-end test, right?

Understanding the Supreme Court's Gun Control Decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen | League of Women Voters

On June 23, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, overturning a New York gun safety law. The Court ruled that New York’s law requiring a license to carry concealed weapons in public places is unconstitutional.

www.lwv.org

After Bruen, the constitutionality of gun laws will be based on whether the plain text of the Second Amendment protects the activities the laws are regulating. If it does, then “the government must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition” to set boundaries on gun use, but, this is vague, in my opinion.

This new test encroaches on the duties of state legislatures (not to mention Congress). Instead of allowing the legislative process to unfold, with elected lawmakers looking at on-the-ground realities and deciding the best ways to balance rights and restrictions, the Court said the balance has already been “struck by the traditions of the American people.” But it’s worth asking, what traditions? Traditions made by whom? And who struck the balance between Second Amendment rights and firearm restrictions? Who was, as they say, in the room where it happened?

Good points, I would say.

These recent rulings on the second amendment have been 6-3 rulings, conservative/liberal. That's not a very strong precedent, in my view, a vote should have at least one from the other side, in my view, to be a strong precedent. The day will come when the court will become more liberal than conservative, and we shall reverse these rulings, which, in my view, make America less safe.

 

[Rumpole]

All this means is you know you do not have anything to back your opinion, other than your opinion.
When you do, let us know.
Until then, my rebuttal stands.

The state governments can regulate arms within constraints set by the court in various rulings, Heller, Bruen, etc.

 

[Rumpole]

Your statement is false.
Gun registration was not a question before the court in Miller, and so the court could not have upheld it.
Disagree?
Copy/paste the text from the ruling to that effect.

Gun registration was indirectly addressed in United States v. Miller (1939).

In Miller, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the NFA, which required the registration of certain firearms and imposed a tax on their transfer. The defendants in the case were charged with transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun in violation of the NFA.

The Court held that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of unregistered sawed-off shotguns and, therefore, the NFA was not unconstitutional as applied to the defendants. In reaching this holding, the Court considered whether sawed-off shotguns were commonly used by the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's adoption, and concluded that they were not.

Although the Court did not directly address gun registration in Miller, its reasoning implied that the government could regulate and require the registration of firearms that were not commonly used by the militia. The Court stated that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" or that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Based on this reasoning, the Court suggested that the government could regulate and require the registration of firearms that were not part of the ordinary military equipment or that did not have a reasonable relationship to the militia.

Gee. Where have I heard this nonsense before.
Your statement is false.
The court , in Heller did not uphold ANY of the regulations in question before it; all such regulations where STRUCK.
Indeed, EVERY regulation heard by the court since Miller has been struck.

The claim that all firearm regulations heard by the court since Miller have been struck is not accurate. While the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement in Heller, it did not invalidate all firearm regulations. In fact, the Court explicitly stated in Heller that its holding should not be taken as invalidating laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of firearms, prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, and regulating the sale of dangerous and unusual weapons.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Subsequent cases have upheld a variety of firearm regulations. For example, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the states, but it also recognized that "the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited" and that "longstanding prohibitions" on firearms possession by felons and the mentally ill, as well as laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, are presumptively lawful.

Moreover, lower courts have upheld many other types of firearm regulations, such as restrictions on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and concealed carry permits, among others. While some firearm regulations have been struck down by courts, it is not accurate to claim that every regulation heard by the court since Miller has been struck.

Your conclusion, based on two false statements is unsound.


Ok? So?
Why do you think, under Bruen, a court will uphold these requirements?
Why do you think, under Bruen, the USSC will not overturn any such ruling?

The case of BRUEN did not repeal any state's gun registration laws.

This case dealt with a challenge to a provision of New York State's handgun licensing law that required individuals to demonstrate "proper cause" to obtain a concealed carry permit. The plaintiffs argued that this provision violated their Second Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case as moot in CORLEW April 2021 because New York had recently amended its law to remove the "proper cause" requirement, making it easier for individuals to obtain concealed carry permits. However, the Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the prior provision or on the issue of gun registration.