"common Sense Gun Laws"

[M14 Shooter]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you sell a gun at gun show or to an acquaintance, or in a sell to anyone state, it's my understanding there are no background checks

You, unsurprisingly, understand incorrectly.

 

[jillian]

who has said gun dealers should be prosecuted even when they follow the rules?

prosecuted or civilly sued?

when bartenders "follow the rules" and someone drives drunk, they are responsible for damages. should gun dealers be different?

I would think the bartenders are held responsible if the person were visibly intoxicated.

And if a gun dealer has the capability to find out that someone is a criminal or mentally I'll? Isn't it common sense to make sure that reasonable background checks are done even at gun shows? And especially in states where anyone and their mother can get a gun?

Such a system is already in place. Every gun dealer is required to do a background check thru the NICS. What JoeyB insists is that a gun store clerk should be able to tell if someone is crazy.

If you sell a gun at gun show or to an acquaintance, or in a sell to anyone state, it's my understanding there are no background checks. Had there been, the virginia tech shooter wouldn't have bendable to get the gun he purchased legally.

Sales between private individuals are not covered under the NICS background check requirement. Whether it is at a gun show or not does not matter. If you are a gun dealer you are required to do the background check. But that is also not what JoeyB was saying should happen. He was talking specifically about gun dealers.

I'm not sure what you mean by "sell to anyone state". The NICS is a federal law for all gun dealers.

I think you mi9ght be

And if a gun dealer has the capability to find out that someone is a criminal or mentally I'll? Isn't it common sense to make sure that reasonable background checks are done even at gun shows? And especially in states where anyone and their mother can get a gun?

Do you know what the law says about selling guns to felons?

it doesn't much matter what it says if you can say you sold to some neighbor and didn't know he was a felon, now, does it?

sorry, I don't think crazies and criminals should have guns.

 

[jillian]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

 

[M14 Shooter]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

Aside form the fact that you, unsurprisingly, didn't address what I said in response to your question....
Yes I do, a right that I have exercised any number of times.
You have the right to exercise all of your rights absent restrictions that do not pass a rational basis test, a test that any unenforceable law cannot pass.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you know what the law says about selling guns to felons?

it doesn't much matter what it says if you can say you sold to some neighbor and didn't know he was a felon, now, does it?

So, you admit you do not know what the laws says. Thank you.

 

[jillian]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

Aside form the fact that you, unsurprisingly, didn't address what I said in response to your question....
Yes I do, a right that I have exercised any number of times.
You have the right to exercise all of your rights absent restrictions that do not pass a rational basis test, a test that any unenforceable law cannot pass.

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership. the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

 

[jillian]

Do you know what the law says about selling guns to felons?

it doesn't much matter what it says if you can say you sold to some neighbor and didn't know he was a felon, now, does it?

So, you admit you do not know what the laws says. Thank you.

so you're claiming if you sell a gun to an acquaintance you are required to do a background check?

and you're saying *I* don't know that law. lol

 

[martybegan]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

Aside form the fact that you, unsurprisingly, didn't address what I said in response to your question....
Yes I do, a right that I have exercised any number of times.
You have the right to exercise all of your rights absent restrictions that do not pass a rational basis test, a test that any unenforceable law cannot pass.

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership. the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

Again, it didn't need to be defined as the right to personal gun ownership, because no american government in their right mind up until recently decided that it could say who could own a gun or not own a gun, unless the person in question was a convicted felon.

 

[martybegan]

So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?

If a law that restricts the rights of the law abiding cannot be enforced then it is impossible to soundly argue that there is any rational basis for that law - let alone the idea that the law is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

you don't have the right to have a gun without a background check

and the government does not have the right to deny or even delay me in getting a firearm as long as I am not a felon, or mentally adjudicated as a danger to myself or others. Plenty of Blue states routinely deny firearm permits, or make the process so hard that it is a de-facto ban.

 

[M14 Shooter]

the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

You miss the point.
You asked the question: So a law shouldn't be passed if enforcement is difficult?
A restriction on the exercise of a right that cannot pass, at minimum, a rational basis test is not reasonable.
An unenforceable law cannot pass a rational basis test.
Universal background checks are unenforceable and therefore unreasonable
Thus, they should not exist.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you know what the law says about selling guns to felons?

it doesn't much matter what it says if you can say you sold to some neighbor and didn't know he was a felon, now, does it?

So, you admit you do not know what the laws says. Thank you.

so you're claiming if you sell a gun to an acquaintance you are required to do a background check?
and you're saying *I* don't know that law. lol

Not only do you obviously not know the law, you also do not know how to address the actual contents of someone's post.

The law says I cannot sell to someone if I have reason to suspect they are a felon, etc.
I know, with absolute certitude, that my brother is not a felon..
Why should I have to run a background check on him before he can exercise his right to arms?

 

[Uncensored2008]

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership.

Bullshit.

Lying doesn't help your case, and it sure won't fool people into believing your fantasy about being an attorney.

the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

When was Miller?

You're making a fool out of yourself, and you don't even grasp it.

 

[jillian]

the 2nd amendment was, for hundreds of years, found to have nothing to do with a private right of gun ownership.

Bullshit.

Lying doesn't help your case, and it sure won't fool people into believing your fantasy about being an attorney.

the fact that scalia and other nutters have suddenly invented something that was never intended to exist, notwithstanding, even scalia at his wackiest, said that there is nothing prohibiting reasonable regulation of guns.

I did answer you. I pointed out that what you are claiming as a right is not a right.

When was Miller?

You're making a fool out of yourself, and you don't even grasp it.

Miller did not say you could not regulate guns. That is false.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Miller did not say you could not regulate guns. That is false.

It didn't say you couldn't Hula Hoop on Sundays either.

It DID however, recognize that owning a gun is an individual right. That was a couple of years before Scalia joined the court, as you ignorantly spewed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Miller did not say you could not regulate guns. That is false.

It didn't say you couldn't Hula Hoop on Sundays either.
It DID however, recognize that owning a gun is an individual right. That was a couple of years before Scalia joined the court, as you ignorantly spewed.

Miller was granted standing in his argument that the 2nd protected his right to own the weapon in question.
This necessarily means that the court saw the 2nd as a protection of a right of the individual, not tied to service in the militia.
And so, while Miller does not literally express the sentiment, in practice it states exactly that.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Miller did not say you could not regulate guns. That is false.

It didn't say you couldn't Hula Hoop on Sundays either.
It DID however, recognize that owning a gun is an individual right. That was a couple of years before Scalia joined the court, as you ignorantly spewed.

Miller was granted standing in his argument that the 2nd protected his right to own the weapon in question.
This necessarily means that the court saw the 2nd as a protection of a right of the individual, not tied to service in the militia.
And so, while Miller does not literally express the sentiment, in practice it states exactly that.

Correct.

Jillian would do well to take a class in basic law or attempt to gain an understanding of how American Jurisprudence works.

{ But at the same time, the Court hinted for the first time at an individual right in acknowledging that when the amendment was drafted, militias usually included all free men, and required that these men provide their own weapons. In other words, the amendment was tied to a generally understood "common obligation . . . to possess arms . . . and to cooperate in the work of defense." Moreover, the Court opened the door to an individual reading of the amendment even further by holding that a sawed-off shotgun was unprotected because it had no "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."}

United States v. Miller

 

[M14 Shooter]

Miller did not say you could not regulate guns. That is false.

It didn't say you couldn't Hula Hoop on Sundays either.
It DID however, recognize that owning a gun is an individual right. That was a couple of years before Scalia joined the court, as you ignorantly spewed.

Miller was granted standing in his argument that the 2nd protected his right to own the weapon in question.
This necessarily means that the court saw the 2nd as a protection of a right of the individual, not tied to service in the militia.
And so, while Miller does not literally express the sentiment, in practice it states exactly that.

Correct.
Jillian would do well to take a class in basic law or attempt to gain an understanding of how American Jurisprudence works.

Jillian claims to be an attorney.
Yeah, I laughed too.

 

[turtledude]

Do any of you people really think that laws prevent crime?
Laws do not prevent crime from happening all they do is define the punishment after the fact.

They know this.
They don't care.
They just want to make it harder and harder and harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to arms.

 

[Spoonman]

a common sense gun law is called the 2nd amendment. the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. now that's common sense