Why would anyone object to Virginia’s new gun laws?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Not sensible or even legal.

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

In case you so clueless you don't know, infringed means fucked with or limited in any manner whatsoever.

Given the idiocy of this post you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘clueless.’

Indeed, this post is as ignorant as it is wrong – what part of ‘the Second Amendment right is not unlimited’ do you not understand.

This is where the Court has a routinely gone awry. The language of the Second Amendment, particularly the "Shall not be infringed" part is clear and unambiguous.

The word infringe means to limit.

For well over 100 years, the court has ignored the plain meaning of the word infringe.

The court would've been much more successful getting the states or the legislature to amend the second amendment had the court strictly construed the word infringe. The majority of citizens would've been much more likely to accept some form of limitation.

This is my chief complaint.

When courts choose to deviate from proper construction practices, these types of disasters occur, where precedent is unclear and powermongers attempts to usurp.

The proper interpretation of the second amendment is to strike down any and all restrictions or limitations on the right to have weapons.

Don't like it?

AMEND!!!!

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

The second amendment states
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th amendment says laws must be equal

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are done.

lol

You are ignorant and ridiculous.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, or registration requirements – all three of these measures are perfectly consistent with the Constitution and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Are these bad, ineffective laws? Of course they are; but that a law might be bad or ineffective doesn’t render it un-Constitutional.

while I agree that bad or ineffective laws are not rendered unconstitutional for the sole reason of being bad or in effective, we have no obligation to obey laws that are unconstitutional on their face.

as it stands, any law limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional on its face.

Don't like it? Amend!

All of this bullshit has arisen from Assholes attempting to circumvent the process.

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You need to go the fuck back to law school.

A law that is, on its face, directly in conflict with the constitution, is unconstitutional, PERIOD. Other laws are subject to judicial review.

Thus, any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is FACIALLY in direct conflict with the constitution. Thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Fuck judicial review.

.

A law is innocent until proven guilty

Once passed, it becomes the law of the land. If you disagree with it, you can go to court to have it declared unconstitutional

There is no other path

Wrong

Fraid not

That is how it works....Courts get to decide something is unconstitutional
Not internet posters

ok internet poster
Marbury vs Madison

Exactly

And the court gets to decide what is contrary to the constitution

Shall not be infringe says gun control laws are contrary to the Constitution. Maybe a brain dead leftist like might need to be told how to do things by other's.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Not sensible or even legal.

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

In case you so clueless you don't know, infringed means fucked with or limited in any manner whatsoever.

Given the idiocy of this post you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘clueless.’

Indeed, this post is as ignorant as it is wrong – what part of ‘the Second Amendment right is not unlimited’ do you not understand.

This is where the Court has a routinely gone awry. The language of the Second Amendment, particularly the "Shall not be infringed" part is clear and unambiguous.

The word infringe means to limit.

For well over 100 years, the court has ignored the plain meaning of the word infringe.

The court would've been much more successful getting the states or the legislature to amend the second amendment had the court strictly construed the word infringe. The majority of citizens would've been much more likely to accept some form of limitation.

This is my chief complaint.

When courts choose to deviate from proper construction practices, these types of disasters occur, where precedent is unclear and powermongers attempts to usurp.

The proper interpretation of the second amendment is to strike down any and all restrictions or limitations on the right to have weapons.

Don't like it?

AMEND!!!!

.

OK all that is fine but I must ask what is the sole purpose of the second amendment?
It's not about hunting
it's not solely about home or personal defense.
Yes personal and home defense play it's part
It goes hand in hand with militia readiness

 

[P@triot]

Why does any law abiding citizen object to a background check?

I object to all unenforceable laws.

They are easily enforceable

Prove it. Anyone can post stupid shit (you do it every time you post). Prove they are “easily enforceable”.

 

[P@triot]

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

Then why does your dumb ass keep making that the backbone of your entire argument?

 

[P@triot]

None of Virginia’s laws are unconstitutional

Feeling that you must resort to lying should tip you off that you’re on the wrong side of the argument.

 

[P@triot]

2. Universal background checks

Overwhelmingly supported by most Americans. Why don’t we want to keep gun sales away from criminals?

The 2nd amendment does not have a qualifier which says that only people who have passed some totally arbitrary background check have a right to keep and bear arms.

It's a civil rights thing, asshole.

Wrong-winger knows that. He just hates the fact that the U.S. Constitution exists to protect your rights. Fascists don’t like not being able to impose their will on others.

 

[P@triot]

Sensible legislation

The real question is - why do you so vehemently oppose liberty?

Why are you such a scared little boy, worried about what other people own or what they may or may not be carrying?

That’s the real question. One that you want to avoid at all costs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why does any law abiding citizen object to a background check?

I object to all unenforceable laws.

They are easily enforceable

Prove it. Anyone can post stupid shit (you do it every time you post). Prove they are “easily enforceable”.

He doesn't do proof. He runs in, drops trou, shits on the floor, and runs out.

 

[hadit]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

Hmmm. Yet when municipalities try to set their own rules on abortion, the screech switches to, "Federal law must overrule".

 

[P@triot]

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

Hmmm. Yet when municipalities try to set their own rules on abortion, the screech switches to, "Federal law must overrule".

Let’s be honest...totalitarian fascists like wrong-winger have absolutely no concept of the U.S. Constitution or the 10th Amendment. They just blurt out shit their fellow fascists post, hoping it sounds legit enough to justify implementing their oppressive legislation, circumventing our rights.

 

[rightwinger]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Not sensible or even legal.

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

In case you so clueless you don't know, infringed means fucked with or limited in any manner whatsoever.

Given the idiocy of this post you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘clueless.’

Indeed, this post is as ignorant as it is wrong – what part of ‘the Second Amendment right is not unlimited’ do you not understand.

This is where the Court has a routinely gone awry. The language of the Second Amendment, particularly the "Shall not be infringed" part is clear and unambiguous.

The word infringe means to limit.

For well over 100 years, the court has ignored the plain meaning of the word infringe.

The court would've been much more successful getting the states or the legislature to amend the second amendment had the court strictly construed the word infringe. The majority of citizens would've been much more likely to accept some form of limitation.

This is my chief complaint.

When courts choose to deviate from proper construction practices, these types of disasters occur, where precedent is unclear and powermongers attempts to usurp.

The proper interpretation of the second amendment is to strike down any and all restrictions or limitations on the right to have weapons.

Don't like it?

AMEND!!!!

.

It has never been clear or unambiguous

The right to bear arms is not absolute and never has been. There are limits on how you can use your gun in public. You cannot arbitrarily fire your weapon any time you please

You are also restricted in the weapons you can buy. You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile

 

[rightwinger]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

Hmmm. Yet when municipalities try to set their own rules on abortion, the screech switches to, "Federal law must overrule".

States set their own rules on abortion clinics.

 

[basquebromance]

if America doesn't have guns anymore, its like if McDonalds stops making burgers!

 

[hadit]

3. Allow localities to ban guns in some public areas

What ever happened to local rule? If a locality wants to ban carrying guns in parks and playgrounds, why shouldn’t they?

ok a city or town wants to ban your right to criticize their rulings. Why shouldn’t they? It’s local rule. The Constitution doesn’t exist to tell the citizens what they may do, it exists to tell the government at all levels what it may NOT do. Why is this so hard to understand?

Has nothing to do with municipalities being able to set their own rules

Hmmm. Yet when municipalities try to set their own rules on abortion, the screech switches to, "Federal law must overrule".

States set their own rules on abortion clinics.

Yet the anti-lifers screech bloody murder about it and insist that federal law must supercede local.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Not sensible or even legal.

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

In case you so clueless you don't know, infringed means fucked with or limited in any manner whatsoever.

Given the idiocy of this post you’re in no position to refer to others as ‘clueless.’

Indeed, this post is as ignorant as it is wrong – what part of ‘the Second Amendment right is not unlimited’ do you not understand.

This is where the Court has a routinely gone awry. The language of the Second Amendment, particularly the "Shall not be infringed" part is clear and unambiguous.

The word infringe means to limit.

For well over 100 years, the court has ignored the plain meaning of the word infringe.

The court would've been much more successful getting the states or the legislature to amend the second amendment had the court strictly construed the word infringe. The majority of citizens would've been much more likely to accept some form of limitation.

This is my chief complaint.

When courts choose to deviate from proper construction practices, these types of disasters occur, where precedent is unclear and powermongers attempts to usurp.

The proper interpretation of the second amendment is to strike down any and all restrictions or limitations on the right to have weapons.

Don't like it?

AMEND!!!!

.

It has never been clear or unambiguous

The right to bear arms is not absolute and never has been. There are limits on how you can use your gun in public. You cannot arbitrarily fire your weapon any time you please

You are also restricted in the weapons you can buy. You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile

No one has ever advocated for the right to shoot a weapon in any direction at any time. You are setting up a dumb ass strawman.

As far as being able to buy RPG's and stinger missiles, again, the intent of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens to have those types of arms. If you don't like it, amend it.

I don't give a fuck what do you think should be restricted. "Shall not be infringed" is very clear language.

You just don't want to amend it because it's too fucking hard and you will lose. And you will not get what you want.

Admit it.

.

 

[P@triot]

Hahahaha!!! Eat a dick, wrong winger. The U.S. Constitution wins and your dumb ass fascist fantasies loses again. #MAGA

Democratic Gov. Ralph Northam suffers embarrassing loss as assault weapons ban is rejected in Virginia