Biden Position on Guns Is a Joke

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, you don't need a license to speak. Only if your gathering is going to create a public safety issue do you have to schedule it with the local authorities.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" is at all hard to understand? The Second Amendment is the only line in the entire constitution with that specific and clear prohibition on the gov't.

It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's law that you must obtain a permit. Now we get to the determination of what infringed means. Should criminals be allowed to be armed in prison? How about being able to vote once they get out? What about age restrictions on voting?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You have no idea…..none whatsoever. The FBI does. They track the weapons. You don’t.

You are clueless. It is a crime for any federal agency to keep a record of firearms transfers for more than 90 days without an open case and a warrant.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's law that you must obtain a permit. Now we get to the determination of what infringed means. Should criminals be allowed to be armed in prison? How about being able to vote once they get out? What about age restrictions on voting?

That isn't the law anywhere in the US. Where are you getting this crap?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Funny, that.

Is there a license to riot too?

Did BLM obtain one?

No because rioting is illegal. You can't give out permits to do anything illegal.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Should criminals be allowed to be armed in prison? How about being able to vote once they get out? What about age restrictions on voting?

Criminals are not "The People".

You can forfeit any or all of your rights upon conviction of a crime.

Age restrictions do not violate any part of the Constitution, Full rights are not afforded to minors because they cannot be held fully accountable for their actions until they reach the age of majority. Today that age is 18.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That isn't the law anywhere in the US. Where are you getting this crap?

Of course it's a law, a city law. You need a permit to host a public gathering be it to speak or have a block party on your street.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Of course it's a law, a city law. You need a permit to host a public gathering be it to speak or have a block party on your street.

So as I said, only if your gathering creates a public safety issue. The speech is not restricted, they just need to be notified so they can provide adequate services to police the gathering.

You can stand up anywhere in public anytime and give a speech legally unless you're interfering with the rights of others or ongoing gov't operations such as counsel meeting or court session.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Criminals are not "The People".

You can forfeit any or all of your rights upon conviction of a crime.

Age restrictions do not violate any part of the Constitution, Full rights are not afforded to minors because they cannot be held fully accountable for their actions until they reach the age of majority. Today that age is 18.

But it doesn't say that in the Constitution. Point being, rights are not without strings attached which I gave several instances of. It all depends on which right you're talking about and the effect on the public in general.

 

[woodwork201]

I agree. The primary thrust of my post was simply to rebut what I quoted; the idea that "Trump signed an anti-gun EO that banned bump stocks" and "this action by Trump set a precedent for future presidents to whittle away at gun rights via EOs". Nowhere in my post -- directed to explain the actual history and regulatory and legal background -- did I endorse or support the claim of power to do what was done.

If any President set any precedent, was Obama's EO-13637, (2013) that established that Presidents can authorize agencies to interpret law to form regulations on arms, including review of definitions.

For bumpstocks, ATF didn't redefine machinegun, they read the definition in law, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) . . .

“The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”​

and decided that external accessories that facilitate bump-fire, meet the basic criteria in the law of a machinegun:

"ATF has now determined, based on its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, that these bump-stock-type devices, which harness recoil energy in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure, turn legal semiautomatic firearms into machineguns. Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle sequence “by a single function of the trigger” because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger."​

​

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/03/29/2018-06292/bump-stock-type-devices

I'm not saying any of that is legally correct, just that it is the law . . . I don't think there is any dispute that ATF is redefining frame and receiver with the new regulations on "homemade" guns / 80% receivers . . .



I should have said "initiated". ATF responded to a request by some Congress members for ATF to reevaluate the agency's previous determinations on bumpstocks.

Read the link I posted. Here it is again:

En Banc Sixth Circuit Splits 8-8 Over Bump Stock Ban

In March, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms regulation declaring

reason.com

Depending on interpretation, 5 or 6 of the 6th Circuit Judges said that saying a bumpstock is a machine gun is a correct interpretation of the law as written. That is the argument being made by the ATF and that is why the three judge panel had first tossed the case, correctly - because the ATF does not have the authority to rewrite the law defining a machine gun.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

But it doesn't say that in the Constitution. Point being, rights are not without strings attached which I gave several instances of. It all depends on which right you're talking about and the effect on the public in general.

That's exactly what it says, "The Right of The People". "The People" is the whole of the people in the country.

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's all spelled out in detail.

 

[scruffy]

Of course it's a law, a city law. You need a permit to host a public gathering be it to speak or have a block party on your street.

lol

So you have a big party, that's all.

Look at it this way: if you borrow a million from the bank, the bank owns you. If you borrow a billion from the bank, you own the bank

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So as I said, only if your gathering creates a public safety issue. The speech is not restricted, they just need to be notified so they can provide adequate services to police the gathering.

You can stand up anywhere in public anytime and give a speech legally unless you're interfering with the rights of others or ongoing gov't operations such as counsel meeting or court session.

And so what happens if a city decides not to give you a permit to host your gathering in which to speak?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

And so what happens if a city decides not to give you a permit to host your gathering in which to speak?

You sue their ass and win.

 

[woodwork201]

Criminals are not "The People".

You can forfeit any or all of your rights upon conviction of a crime.

Age restrictions do not violate any part of the Constitution, Full rights are not afforded to minors because they cannot be held fully accountable for their actions until they reach the age of majority. Today that age is 18.

Where does it say your rights can be forfeit on conviction of a crime? That certainly did not happen for the first 149 years of our nation's history. The only right that can be revoked for crime, according to the Constitution, is the right to vote.

And where does it say rights don't apply to minors? Are you suggesting they can be jailed without a trial? No free speech? Searched at will with no probable cause?

 

[scruffy]

And so what happens if a city decides not to give you a permit to host your gathering in which to speak?

See? You're thinking about this all wrong.

You have to put on your Alinsky hat when you're dealing with the government, like the lefties do

If you ask, they can say no. So you don't ask

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's exactly what it says, "The Right of The People". "The People" is the whole of the people in the country.

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's all spelled out in detail.

Rights are restricted to certain people. If they were not, mentally unstable people would have to be allowed to not only buy a gun, but carry it out in public as well. We don't allow that for obvious reasons.

 

[scruffy]

Rights are restricted to certain people. If they were not, mentally unstable people would have to be allowed to not only buy a gun, but carry it out in public as well. We don't allow that for obvious reasons.

lol

Politicians can carry, can't they?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Where does it say your rights can be forfeit on conviction of a crime? That certainly did not happen for the first 149 years of our nation's history. The only right that can be revoked for crime, according to the Constitution, is the right to vote.

And where does it say rights don't apply to minors? Are you suggesting they can be jailed without a trial? No free speech? Searched at will with no probable cause?

Okay, then why are minors not allowed to vote? Why are minors not allowed to carry a gun in public? In my state the age is 21 to carry a loaded firearm.

 

[scruffy]

And so what happens if a city decides not to give you a permit to host your gathering in which to speak?

You're still thinking like a law abiding citizen. Don't you realize that's not in fashion any more? No one's doing it, not even the FBI

 

[woodwork201]

Right, but that doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. It violated Article 2 and the 5th Amendment.

According to the 6th Circuit and the ATF, a bumpstock is a machine gun. That means that it is their intent to violate the 2nd Amendment. In any case, it threatens the 2nd Amendment as I explained: any time we allow the government to violate the Constitution we empower them to violate it again. In this case, specifically, the court held that the bumpstock IS a machine gun and the ATF can ban it. That is precedent that the ATF can change the law regarding gun rights without Congress or Article V. That precedent enables any and all future violations of the 2nd Amendment.