California Senate passes gun database checks bill

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

Sure I can. Owning a gun is fundamental right and the government has no need nor any business knowing who is exercising it.

**** you you ******* jerk. LE, social workers, truant officers, health care workers,EMT's and many others have a right to protect themselves.

Assholes like you believe untrained, UN vetted citizens have the right to carry firearms, no matter how fucked up they are.

My what an intelligent argument you've formulated there. Didn't you claim to be a retired teacher once?

 

[pinqy]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

that is an interesting argument and might be somewhat correct on a state level, since under the 10th Amendment, the several states (now including California) have certain police powers that only recently have been checked by the incorporation of the 2A throughout the 14th Amendment to the states and in that case, that might well mean that a STATE violation of the 2A might require a substantive interference with the right to keep and bear arms

If there is no interference with the right to keep and bear arms, there is no violation of the second amendment. So I'm not sure how you think "a state violation would require substantive interference" if there is no violation without infringement.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the Federal government never was properly given any such powers and thus any infringement is violative of both the 2A and the 10A.

Well, of course an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the 2A. I said that. But a regulation that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is obviously not a violation.

federal regulation is a violation of the tenth amendment if the constitution was properly followed

Depends on the regulation.

and many state regulations are violations as well

waiting periods are a violation
"assault weapon bans" are violations
Magazine capacity restrictions are violations

any law that prevents civilians from owning the same firearms that civilian Law enforcement officers can use is a violation

any law that makes you wait more than an hour to obtain a weapon is a violation

Well, I am opposed to 3 of those, but they don't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The 2A simply says "arms" which means in general and not mean that no type of weapon or capabilities of weapons can't be restricted. Just because something is stupid, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Waiting periods don't stop people owning weapons.

any law that limits the number of firearms you may own is a violation
showing an ID or being subject to a state imposed Instant background check is not an infringement

I agree with that one.

 

[turtledude]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

that is an interesting argument and might be somewhat correct on a state level, since under the 10th Amendment, the several states (now including California) have certain police powers that only recently have been checked by the incorporation of the 2A throughout the 14th Amendment to the states and in that case, that might well mean that a STATE violation of the 2A might require a substantive interference with the right to keep and bear arms

If there is no interference with the right to keep and bear arms, there is no violation of the second amendment. So I'm not sure how you think "a state violation would require substantive interference" if there is no violation without infringement.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the Federal government never was properly given any such powers and thus any infringement is violative of both the 2A and the 10A.

Well, of course an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the 2A. I said that. But a regulation that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is obviously not a violation.

federal regulation is a violation of the tenth amendment if the constitution was properly followed

Depends on the regulation.

and many state regulations are violations as well

waiting periods are a violation
"assault weapon bans" are violations
Magazine capacity restrictions are violations

any law that prevents civilians from owning the same firearms that civilian Law enforcement officers can use is a violation

any law that makes you wait more than an hour to obtain a weapon is a violation

Well, I am opposed to 3 of those, but they don't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The 2A simply says "arms" which means in general and not mean that no type of weapon or capabilities of weapons can't be restricted. Just because something is stupid, doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Waiting periods don't stop people owning weapons.

any law that limits the number of firearms you may own is a violation
showing an ID or being subject to a state imposed Instant background check is not an infringement

I agree with that one.

do you think the founders intended that the federal government have the power to regulate firearms concurrent with the several states and if so, was the commerce clause intended to be that delegation of power?

 

[Harry Dresden]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

Sure I can. Owning a gun is fundamental right and the government has no need nor any business knowing who is exercising it.

unless there is a good reason.....in my opinion...

Quite true Harry, may I call you Harry? But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

However, IMO the 2nd also doesn't apply to states so.................

I would however be very interested to know the OP's stance on Voter ID. I have a feeling I already know though.

that is the name i go by.....some here have called me .....but hey i guess we all cant please everyone....

 

[HenryBHough]

California should be renamed Paranoia. After all, it's just a state of mind.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

that is an interesting argument and might be somewhat correct on a state level, since under the 10th Amendment, the several states (now including California) have certain police powers that only recently have been checked by the incorporation of the 2A throughout the 14th Amendment to the states and in that case, that might well mean that a STATE violation of the 2A might require a substantive interference with the right to keep and bear arms

If there is no interference with the right to keep and bear arms, there is no violation of the second amendment. So I'm not sure how you think "a state violation would require substantive interference" if there is no violation without infringement.

ON THE OTHER HAND, the Federal government never was properly given any such powers and thus any infringement is violative of both the 2A and the 10A.

Well, of course an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is a violation of the 2A. I said that. But a regulation that does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is obviously not a violation.

Then I'm sure if I asked around you also opine that Voter ID laws don't infringe on anyone's right to vote?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

You want gun control?

Easy three step process

1. If you're found guilty of murder , you are hung on the town square within 48 hours of your conviction and appeal to the State Supreme Court

2. If your gun was used to commit a crime YOU are responsible for that crime - lock your guns up assholes

3. Make prison MUCH more unpleasant
Do those three things and crime rates in general , let alone crimes committed with a gun will drop like a rock.

so if someone breaks into you locked home and steals your gun you should be responsible?

now if you leave your gun in plain sight in an unlocked car-perhaps. If someone uses a crowbar to jack open your trunk of your car or your home's entrance-that's a different matter

Now come on, that's getting into the absurd. Most gun thefts are opportunity crimes. Meaning the gun was just right there, maybe open a gun cabinet and grab it.

I agree. if your gun is locked up securely and someone steals it anyway, that's another matter entirely

That is the absurdity in a nut shell. Why do guns need to be in safes? Calling for responsible gun owners to be liable for a crime committed after their gun is stolen is like prosecuting a car jacking victim for not keeping their car locked. Guns in a safe in a far corner of your home are pretty worthless as defense weapons. Someone coming in and taking them in a robbery isn't the owners problem.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

Sure I can. Owning a gun is fundamental right and the government has no need nor any business knowing who is exercising it.

**** you you ******* jerk. LE, social workers, truant officers, health care workers,EMT's and many others have a right to protect themselves.

Assholes like you believe untrained, UN vetted citizens have the right to carry firearms, no matter how fucked up they are.

So only government employees can protect themselves. Yet I'm sure you were one of the idiots claiming the cops in Ferguson have far too many weapons.

When you ask for a fully armed government and a disarmed populace you get exactly that. A submissive populace that has no power to defend themselves. Thank God we have a solution. The 2A.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You want gun control?

Easy three step process

1. If you're found guilty of murder , you are hung on the town square within 48 hours of your conviction and appeal to the State Supreme Court

2. If your gun was used to commit a crime YOU are responsible for that crime - lock your guns up assholes

3. Make prison MUCH more unpleasant
Do those three things and crime rates in general , let alone crimes committed with a gun will drop like a rock.

so if someone breaks into you locked home and steals your gun you should be responsible?

now if you leave your gun in plain sight in an unlocked car-perhaps. If someone uses a crowbar to jack open your trunk of your car or your home's entrance-that's a different matter

Now come on, that's getting into the absurd. Most gun thefts are opportunity crimes. Meaning the gun was just right there, maybe open a gun cabinet and grab it.

I agree. if your gun is locked up securely and someone steals it anyway, that's another matter entirely

That is the absurdity in a nut shell. Why do guns need to be in safes? Calling for responsible gun owners to be liable for a crime committed after their gun is stolen is like prosecuting a car jacking victim for not keeping their car locked. Guns in a safe in a far corner of your home are pretty worthless as defense weapons. Someone coming in and taking them in a robbery isn't the owners problem.

I have guns, LOTS of guns, more guns than you have without a doubt. Over 300 at last count (although I buy and trade and sell so much that it's hard to keep an accurate inventory) anyway I have ONE handgun for home protection. All the rest of my guns are locked up tight. How hard is that to manage? I mean seriously. In this day and age, being a gun owner isn't enough , being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner is necessary. And sorry but when you type ignorant shit like "its not my problem what someone does with my guns" all that does is add to the stereotype that the average gun owner is a mouth breather who only cares about his guns.

Get a penis implant, or buy a sports car, and lock your guns up

 

[Wry Catcher]

California Senate passes gun database checks bill


Let the paranoid nutter rants begin.

Not one of you a-holes can explain why this is wrong.

Sure I can. Owning a gun is fundamental right and the government has no need nor any business knowing who is exercising it.

**** you you ******* jerk. LE, social workers, truant officers, health care workers,EMT's and many others have a right to protect themselves.

Assholes like you believe untrained, UN vetted citizens have the right to carry firearms, no matter how fucked up they are.

So only government employees can protect themselves. Yet I'm sure you were one of the idiots claiming the cops in Ferguson have far too many weapons.

When you ask for a fully armed government and a disarmed populace you get exactly that. A submissive populace that has no power to defend themselves. Thank God we have a solution. The 2A.

I'm retired law enforcement and never did I write or suggest only LE can be armed. The cops in Ferguson don't have too many weapons, only specially trained officers in special units have weapons more (or as lethal) as those owned and possessed by civilians, who do not have the background vetting and training of LE personnel.

 

[2aguy]

Similar to if a guy in white robe is standing outside a voting precinct that is predominantly black swinging a noose around, he isn't actively interfering with anyone's right to vote

You should have just said a democrat....but they have changed tactics...now the democrats use black guys in fatigues with axe handles...and then holder refuses to let the conviction go thru for voter intimidation...

 

[M14 Shooter]

But the Second Amendment doesn't allow for "regulations if they are made for good reason"

Since it only disallows infringement of the right to keep and bear arms, so therefore, it does allow all other regulations.

Yes... It allows any regulation that does not infringe on the right.
"Infringe", however, is very broad, so I'm not sure how much of a point you think you have here.

 

[turtledude]

You want gun control?

Easy three step process

1. If you're found guilty of murder , you are hung on the town square within 48 hours of your conviction and appeal to the State Supreme Court

2. If your gun was used to commit a crime YOU are responsible for that crime - lock your guns up assholes

3. Make prison MUCH more unpleasant
Do those three things and crime rates in general , let alone crimes committed with a gun will drop like a rock.

so if someone breaks into you locked home and steals your gun you should be responsible?

now if you leave your gun in plain sight in an unlocked car-perhaps. If someone uses a crowbar to jack open your trunk of your car or your home's entrance-that's a different matter

Now come on, that's getting into the absurd. Most gun thefts are opportunity crimes. Meaning the gun was just right there, maybe open a gun cabinet and grab it.

I agree. if your gun is locked up securely and someone steals it anyway, that's another matter entirely

That is the absurdity in a nut shell. Why do guns need to be in safes? Calling for responsible gun owners to be liable for a crime committed after their gun is stolen is like prosecuting a car jacking victim for not keeping their car locked. Guns in a safe in a far corner of your home are pretty worthless as defense weapons. Someone coming in and taking them in a robbery isn't the owners problem.

I have guns, LOTS of guns, more guns than you have without a doubt. Over 300 at last count (although I buy and trade and sell so much that it's hard to keep an accurate inventory) anyway I have ONE handgun for home protection. All the rest of my guns are locked up tight. How hard is that to manage? I mean seriously. In this day and age, being a gun owner isn't enough , being a RESPONSIBLE gun owner is necessary. And sorry but when you type ignorant shit like "its not my problem what someone does with my guns" all that does is add to the stereotype that the average gun owner is a mouth breather who only cares about his guns.

Get a penis implant, or buy a sports car, and lock your guns up

you think so? I have 6 big safes. But I understand some people cannot afford 2500 dollar safes and keeping your gun in a locked home is sufficient under the law. and prosecuting someone who has a gun in a desk drawer in a locked home is stupid. Your snide comment shows you are a pretty clueless. I have tons of handguns. Why? I WIN a lot of them. That happens when one is a grand master level shooter. I also have lots of shotguns. Why? I won a bunch-it happens when one is a Triple A level Skeet shooter (NSSA All-American). and lots of my guns are stuff Like K-80s or Wilson Handguns. so yeah they are in alarmed safes. I also am a retired federal prosecutor. Putting people in jail because someone breaks into their home is not justice