Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I can't remember what I paid initially. I think it was around $60. You've got to pay the instructor and the state.it does when it costs hundreds of dollars to get one
At least you’re consistent at being wrong.it does when it costs hundreds of dollars to get oneAnd requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in no manner infringes on the Second Amendment right.No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
At least you’re consistent at being wrong.it does when it costs hundreds of dollars to get oneAnd requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in no manner infringes on the Second Amendment right.No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The courts have held that fees for licenses and permits – regardless the amount – do not violate the Second Amendment.
In Florida a concealed weapon license is renewed every seven years; renewal fee is $45.
And a license holder is not subject to the 3 business-day waiting period when purchasing a new gun.
Again, requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in no manner infringes on the Second Amendment right.
No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
So you'd be Ok with fees and permits for every other constitutional right then?At least you’re consistent at being wrong.it does when it costs hundreds of dollars to get oneAnd requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in no manner infringes on the Second Amendment right.No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The courts have held that fees for licenses and permits – regardless the amount – do not violate the Second Amendment.
In Florida a concealed weapon license is renewed every seven years; renewal fee is $45.
And a license holder is not subject to the 3 business-day waiting period when purchasing a new gun.
Again, requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in no manner infringes on the Second Amendment right.
Again, requiring a license to carry a concealed weapon in no manner infringes on the Second Amendment right.
No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
You are wrong....
No! Actually it's you who is STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:You are wrong....
No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
You are wrong....No! Actually it's you who is STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:You are wrong....
Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008), in Sec. III of the decision;
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
I've fed you the above excerpts multiple times. And each time your response has been silence, only to return months or years later and try to pedal the same tripe all over again. You haven't learned a bloody thing!
No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
You are wrong....No! Actually it's you who is STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:You are wrong....
Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008), in Sec. III of the decision;
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
I've fed you the above excerpts multiple times. And each time your response has been silence, only to return months or years later and try to pedal the same tripe all over again. You haven't learned a bloody thing!
No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
He covers sensitive places, he does not say these weapons can be banned.....and, in fact, states....
Heller.......and what weapons are protected......which you don't want to address....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--
Scalia........going into depth as to what weapons are actually protected.....you doofus.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
A more detailed quote from Friedman...
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.
Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.
Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.
This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.
AND there is no location on this thread where I mentioned the banning of firearms. You've "misfired" yet again 2A...will you ever learn to find the truth??No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
I don't believe you ever got out a dictionary and defined the meaning of three words in the highlighted clause above. Prima facie is Latin and essentially means 'at first glance'. It does not mean or is intended to mean Amendment II all firearms, past, present and future, are lawful under the penumbra of the amendment. A rocket-powered grenade (RPG) is a firearm as EXTENDED under Amendment II but it certainly is NOT lawful, along with other weapons of Man's creation."..the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Obviously, you are clueless about the purpose of that petition for a Writ of Certiorari and the subsequent refusal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to grant. In any case, Thomas and Scalia were venting their angst at being denied Certiorari in what you ignorantly cited. It is NOT case law and has no bloody standing re: Amendment II in and by itself. They made a legal argument so the Circuit Court might bow to their wish for Certiorari and then had a hissy fit directed at a lower Court when it was denied.Friedman v Highland Park....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose....
Why is it so impossible to have a rational responsible discussion about guns in this country?
Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
You are wrong....No! Actually it's you who is STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:You are wrong....
Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008), in Sec. III of the decision;
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
I've fed you the above excerpts multiple times. And each time your response has been silence, only to return months or years later and try to pedal the same tripe all over again. You haven't learned a bloody thing!
No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
He covers sensitive places, he does not say these weapons can be banned.....and, in fact, states....
Heller.......and what weapons are protected......which you don't want to address....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--
Scalia........going into depth as to what weapons are actually protected.....you doofus.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
A more detailed quote from Friedman...
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.
Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.
Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.
This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.AND there is no location on this thread where I mentioned the banning of firearms. You've "misfired" yet again 2A...will you ever learn to find the truth??No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
I don't believe you ever got out a dictionary and defined the meaning of three words in the highlighted clause above. Prima facie is Latin and essentially means 'at first glance'. It does not mean or is intended to mean Amendment II all firearms, past, present and future, are lawful under the penumbra of the amendment. A rocket-powered grenade (RPG) is a firearm as EXTENDED under Amendment II but it certainly is NOT lawful, along with other weapons of Man's creation."..the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Obviously, you are clueless about the purpose of that petition for a Writ of Certiorari and the subsequent refusal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to grant. In any case, Thomas and Scalia were venting their angst at being denied Certiorari in what you ignorantly cited. It is NOT case law and has no bloody standing re: Amendment II in and by itself. They made a legal argument so the Circuit Court might bow to their wish for Certiorari and then had a hissy fit directed at a lower Court when it was denied.Friedman v Highland Park....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose....
But you keep throwing those darts, and who knows, you might get hit something someday.......maybe.
Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
Why do you asshats use nuclear weapons and RPGs to pretend it allows you to also ban rifles, pistols and shotguns?
No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot.
You're dead, dead wrong, and you can never prove that statement correct! I have NEVER tried to justify "banning and confiscating guns" NOR implied Scalia accepted that notion. I am for banning bump stocks because of their ability to emulate full-auto firing weapons. But now you stoop to bald-faced lies. Several years ago you weren't going that low or were so desperate!Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.
An RPG would fall under the penumbra of Amendment II as I mentioned before in my last post. Your ignorance of the topic and inability to read and understand the common vocabulary of the legal topics is even deeper than you've displayed in the past, as I recall!Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
ONE FINAL TIME, elements of a DISSENTING OPINION of two SCOTUS Justices to a DENIED WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals WOULD NOT ESTABLISH CASE LAW PRECEDENT. Not every Court action is going to establish precedent especially a request for a single-sided PETITION which was never argued at trial!No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot. [emphasis added]
Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
You are wrong....No! Actually it's you who is STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:You are wrong....
Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008), in Sec. III of the decision;
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
I've fed you the above excerpts multiple times. And each time your response has been silence, only to return months or years later and try to pedal the same tripe all over again. You haven't learned a bloody thing!
No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
He covers sensitive places, he does not say these weapons can be banned.....and, in fact, states....
Heller.......and what weapons are protected......which you don't want to address....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--
Scalia........going into depth as to what weapons are actually protected.....you doofus.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
A more detailed quote from Friedman...
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.
Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.
Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.
This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.AND there is no location on this thread where I mentioned the banning of firearms. You've "misfired" yet again 2A...will you ever learn to find the truth??No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
I don't believe you ever got out a dictionary and defined the meaning of three words in the highlighted clause above. Prima facie is Latin and essentially means 'at first glance'. It does not mean or is intended to mean Amendment II all firearms, past, present and future, are lawful under the penumbra of the amendment. A rocket-powered grenade (RPG) is a firearm as EXTENDED under Amendment II but it certainly is NOT lawful, along with other weapons of Man's creation."..the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Obviously, you are clueless about the purpose of that petition for a Writ of Certiorari and the subsequent refusal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to grant. In any case, Thomas and Scalia were venting their angst at being denied Certiorari in what you ignorantly cited. It is NOT case law and has no bloody standing re: Amendment II in and by itself. They made a legal argument so the Circuit Court might bow to their wish for Certiorari and then had a hissy fit directed at a lower Court when it was denied.Friedman v Highland Park....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose....
But you keep throwing those darts, and who knows, you might get hit something someday.......maybe.
Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
Why do you asshats use nuclear weapons and RPGs to pretend it allows you to also ban rifles, pistols and shotguns?
No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot.You're dead, dead wrong, and you can never prove that statement correct! I have NEVER tried to justify "banning and confiscating guns" NOR implied Scalia accepted that notion. I am for banning bump stocks because of their ability to emulate full-auto firing weapons. But now you stoop to bald-faced lies. Several years ago you weren't going that low or were so desperate!Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.
An RPG would fall under the penumbra of Amendment II as I mentioned before in my last post. Your ignorance of the topic and inability to read and understand the common vocabulary of the legal topics is even deeper than you've displayed in the past, as I recall!Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
ONE FINAL TIME, elements of a DISSENTING OPINION of two SCOTUS Justices to a DENIED WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals WOULD NOT ESTABLISH CASE LAW PRECEDENT. Not every Court action is going to establish precedent especially a request for a single-sided PETITION which was never argued at trial!No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot. [emphasis added]
Quit grasping at straws, 2A... you're appearing desperate and defeated!
Moron, Scalia's wrote Heller....so what he says in Friedman matters.......
It only matters to your closed mind and your biases. None are so blind as those who close off the truth. Besides, Thomas and Scalia were DENIED certiorari from an inferior Court and their egos were very likely a tad bruised.Moron, Scalia's wrote Heller....so what he says in Friedman matters.......
Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
You are wrong....No! Actually it's you who is STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:You are wrong....
Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008), in Sec. III of the decision;
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
I've fed you the above excerpts multiple times. And each time your response has been silence, only to return months or years later and try to pedal the same tripe all over again. You haven't learned a bloody thing!
No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
He covers sensitive places, he does not say these weapons can be banned.....and, in fact, states....
Heller.......and what weapons are protected......which you don't want to address....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--
Scalia........going into depth as to what weapons are actually protected.....you doofus.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
A more detailed quote from Friedman...
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.
Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.
Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.
This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.AND there is no location on this thread where I mentioned the banning of firearms. You've "misfired" yet again 2A...will you ever learn to find the truth??No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
I don't believe you ever got out a dictionary and defined the meaning of three words in the highlighted clause above. Prima facie is Latin and essentially means 'at first glance'. It does not mean or is intended to mean Amendment II all firearms, past, present and future, are lawful under the penumbra of the amendment. A rocket-powered grenade (RPG) is a firearm as EXTENDED under Amendment II but it certainly is NOT lawful, along with other weapons of Man's creation."..the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Obviously, you are clueless about the purpose of that petition for a Writ of Certiorari and the subsequent refusal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to grant. In any case, Thomas and Scalia were venting their angst at being denied Certiorari in what you ignorantly cited. It is NOT case law and has no bloody standing re: Amendment II in and by itself. They made a legal argument so the Circuit Court might bow to their wish for Certiorari and then had a hissy fit directed at a lower Court when it was denied.Friedman v Highland Park....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose....
But you keep throwing those darts, and who knows, you might get hit something someday.......maybe.
Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
Why do you asshats use nuclear weapons and RPGs to pretend it allows you to also ban rifles, pistols and shotguns?
No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot.You're dead, dead wrong, and you can never prove that statement correct! I have NEVER tried to justify "banning and confiscating guns" NOR implied Scalia accepted that notion. I am for banning bump stocks because of their ability to emulate full-auto firing weapons. But now you stoop to bald-faced lies. Several years ago you weren't going that low or were so desperate!Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.
An RPG would fall under the penumbra of Amendment II as I mentioned before in my last post. Your ignorance of the topic and inability to read and understand the common vocabulary of the legal topics is even deeper than you've displayed in the past, as I recall!Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
ONE FINAL TIME, elements of a DISSENTING OPINION of two SCOTUS Justices to a DENIED WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals WOULD NOT ESTABLISH CASE LAW PRECEDENT. Not every Court action is going to establish precedent especially a request for a single-sided PETITION which was never argued at trial!No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot. [emphasis added]
Quit grasping at straws, 2A... you're appearing desperate and defeated!
Moron, Scalia's wrote Heller....so what he says in Friedman matters.......It only matters to your closed mind and your biases. None are so blind as those who close off the truth. Besides, Thomas and Scalia were DENIED certiorari from an inferior Court and their egos were very likely a tad bruised.Moron, Scalia's wrote Heller....so what he says in Friedman matters.......
Again, their petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Seventh Circuit. There was NO BLOODY TRIAL, there were NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED and therefore there were NO PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED and NO NEW CASE LAW WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED. The process was ONLY a petition the Seventh Circuit DENIED. Do you understand that now or are you incapable of understanding that process and why your insistence re: Scalia and Tomas set some type of Earth Shaking new precedent? The facts do NOT substantiate that at all! In fact, you are in error yet again!
Except in Chicago.One deterrent to commit crimes (excluding the mentally deranged), would be that if you are found in possession of a "stolen" firearm, make such a crime "federal and invoke a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Such a sentence would be a clear deterrent to most rational thinkers.
We already have those laws on the books.
We need to prosecute gun crimes in federal court.
Anyone who illegally possesses a firearm is committing a federal crime and faces a minimum 5 year sentence in federal prison.
Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!"Shall not be infringed".
You are wrong....No! Actually it's you who is STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:You are wrong....
Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008), in Sec. III of the decision;
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."
I've fed you the above excerpts multiple times. And each time your response has been silence, only to return months or years later and try to pedal the same tripe all over again. You haven't learned a bloody thing!
No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
He covers sensitive places, he does not say these weapons can be banned.....and, in fact, states....
Heller.......and what weapons are protected......which you don't want to address....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--
Scalia........going into depth as to what weapons are actually protected.....you doofus.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
A more detailed quote from Friedman...
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.
Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.
Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.
This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.AND there is no location on this thread where I mentioned the banning of firearms. You've "misfired" yet again 2A...will you ever learn to find the truth??No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
I don't believe you ever got out a dictionary and defined the meaning of three words in the highlighted clause above. Prima facie is Latin and essentially means 'at first glance'. It does not mean or is intended to mean Amendment II all firearms, past, present and future, are lawful under the penumbra of the amendment. A rocket-powered grenade (RPG) is a firearm as EXTENDED under Amendment II but it certainly is NOT lawful, along with other weapons of Man's creation."..the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."
Obviously, you are clueless about the purpose of that petition for a Writ of Certiorari and the subsequent refusal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to grant. In any case, Thomas and Scalia were venting their angst at being denied Certiorari in what you ignorantly cited. It is NOT case law and has no bloody standing re: Amendment II in and by itself. They made a legal argument so the Circuit Court might bow to their wish for Certiorari and then had a hissy fit directed at a lower Court when it was denied.Friedman v Highland Park....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose....
But you keep throwing those darts, and who knows, you might get hit something someday.......maybe.
Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
Why do you asshats use nuclear weapons and RPGs to pretend it allows you to also ban rifles, pistols and shotguns?
No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot.You're dead, dead wrong, and you can never prove that statement correct! I have NEVER tried to justify "banning and confiscating guns" NOR implied Scalia accepted that notion. I am for banning bump stocks because of their ability to emulate full-auto firing weapons. But now you stoop to bald-faced lies. Several years ago you weren't going that low or were so desperate!Dipshit...when anti-gun extremists like you post that section of Heller, it is that section you use to justify banning and confiscating guns and you imply that Scalia said it was okay, you doofus.
An RPG would fall under the penumbra of Amendment II as I mentioned before in my last post. Your ignorance of the topic and inability to read and understand the common vocabulary of the legal topics is even deeper than you've displayed in the past, as I recall!Moron, a rocket powered grenade is not a rifle, pistol or shotgun, it fits the Dangerous and Unusual point....you twit.
ONE FINAL TIME, elements of a DISSENTING OPINION of two SCOTUS Justices to a DENIED WRIT OF CERTIORARI in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals WOULD NOT ESTABLISH CASE LAW PRECEDENT. Not every Court action is going to establish precedent especially a request for a single-sided PETITION which was never argued at trial!No.....the court didn't hear Friedman, but, dumb ass.....Scalia wrote the Majority opinion on Heller, so what he said about the 2nd Amendment in his dissent in Friedman actually carries weight in what Heller means....you idiot. [emphasis added]
Quit grasping at straws, 2A... you're appearing desperate and defeated!
Moron, Scalia's wrote Heller....so what he says in Friedman matters.......It only matters to your closed mind and your biases. None are so blind as those who close off the truth. Besides, Thomas and Scalia were DENIED certiorari from an inferior Court and their egos were very likely a tad bruised.Moron, Scalia's wrote Heller....so what he says in Friedman matters.......
Again, their petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Seventh Circuit. There was NO BLOODY TRIAL, there were NO ARGUMENTS PRESENTED and therefore there were NO PRECEDENTS ESTABLISHED and NO NEW CASE LAW WHATSOEVER WAS PRODUCED. The process was ONLY a petition the Seventh Circuit DENIED. Do you understand that now or are you incapable of understanding that process and why your insistence re: Scalia and Tomas set some type of Earth Shaking new precedent? The facts do NOT substantiate that at all! In fact, you are in error yet again!
"...defending a Supreme Court ruling...." was the purpose of the petition for certiorari? You are Koo Koo for Coca Puffs, 2A!!!! Take 2 aspirins and call the Dr. in the morning!Again....Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller....so what he says on the issue of defending a Supreme Court ruling that the court won't hear actually has weight...he went into detail about what is protected under Heller......knowing that lower courts like the 7th are ignoring Supreme Court rulings...
Except in Chicago.One deterrent to commit crimes (excluding the mentally deranged), would be that if you are found in possession of a "stolen" firearm, make such a crime "federal and invoke a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Such a sentence would be a clear deterrent to most rational thinkers.
We already have those laws on the books.
We need to prosecute gun crimes in federal court.
Anyone who illegally possesses a firearm is committing a federal crime and faces a minimum 5 year sentence in federal prison.
But they’re obviously not applied.Except in Chicago.One deterrent to commit crimes (excluding the mentally deranged), would be that if you are found in possession of a "stolen" firearm, make such a crime "federal and invoke a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Such a sentence would be a clear deterrent to most rational thinkers.
We already have those laws on the books.
We need to prosecute gun crimes in federal court.
Anyone who illegally possesses a firearm is committing a federal crime and faces a minimum 5 year sentence in federal prison.
Federal gun laws apply to Chicago too
But they’re obviously not applied.Except in Chicago.One deterrent to commit crimes (excluding the mentally deranged), would be that if you are found in possession of a "stolen" firearm, make such a crime "federal and invoke a mandatory 10 year minimum prison sentence. Such a sentence would be a clear deterrent to most rational thinkers.
We already have those laws on the books.
We need to prosecute gun crimes in federal court.
Anyone who illegally possesses a firearm is committing a federal crime and faces a minimum 5 year sentence in federal prison.
Federal gun laws apply to Chicago too
Mostly...a long history of permits being used to keep guns limited to the "right" people.I don't understand why people are so gung-ho on not requiring a permit to carry gun. If you are going to carry a gun, you ought to be able to show you know how to responsibly handle it and you can shoot with some degree of accuracy and you are legally entitled to have a gun. Yes, it's a right. But it's the ONLY right that applies to a tool designed expressly for the purpose of killing. My state is (once again) trying to jam through a campus carry bill that failed before, and I totally oppose it on many different levels. (kids, away from home for the first time, alcohol, guns - what could possibly go wrong?). Why is it so impossible to have a rational responsible discussion about guns in this country?
Pablum.Because the last thing conservatives want is to have a rational, responsible discussion about guns.
Doing so would take from conservatives one of their beloved wedge issues used to divide the American people; conservatives would no longer be able to lie and fearmonger about guns.
