Constitutional limits to gun control

[ShootSpeeders]

[

It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.

HAHAHA. So there's no federal law restricting me selling cocaine to another person? Can you think at all? Don't answer that.

 

[Spoonman]

the scotus has already said gun laws are perfectly constitutional.

the OPs auther is not on the scotus

they also said corporations are people. I'm sure you agree with that one too

 

[OriginalShroom]

[

It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.

HAHAHA. So there's no federal law restricting me selling cocaine to another person? Can you think at all? Don't answer that.

The product you are selling is illegal, that is why your sale would be illegal.

Don't you think at all?

Don't answer that, you are a gun grabber and we all know better.

 

[eflatminor]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

 

[Spoonman]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?

 

[NoNukes]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

How many 'law abiding' citizens cheat on their taxes?

 

[Spoonman]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

How many 'law abiding' citizens cheat on their taxes?

we all know charlie rangel did

 

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution says "shall not be infringed" and that means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Gun laws are a state issue and states need to assert that.

The Constitution also says that the right of freedom of speech cannot be abridged,

which is essentially synonymous with infringed,

and yet we know that speech can be regulated and limited.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

I guess eflat isn't going to entertain us with a response to this.

I don't blame him.

Anyone else want to try?

 

[eflatminor]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

I guess eflat isn't going to entertain us with a response to this.

I don't blame him.

Anyone else want to try?

Reading comprehension issues again? Check post #24.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?

You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

You didn't address the issue.

 

[eflatminor]

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?

You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.

To drive on public roads, right. Same for carrying a firearm in public. Your point?

 

[Spoonman]

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?

You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.

or a gun either

 

[eflatminor]

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

You didn't address the issue.

Yea, we'll go with reading comprehension issues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

Really?
Please cite the case(s) where the SCotuS uhpeld:
-'Assault weapon' bans
-"hi-cap' magazine bans
-Universal background checks

 

[The Rabbi]

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

Actually not a single one has.

You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.

Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The constitution says "shall not be infringed" and that means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Gun laws are a state issue and states need to assert that.

The Constitution also says that the right of freedom of speech cannot be abridged,
which is essentially synonymous with infringed,
and yet we know that speech can be regulated and limited.

Only when it causes harm or crates a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- and, only because it does so.
Show how simple/ownership/posession of any sort of firearm does either of these.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

that's funny.....

but for liberals, the right to intermarriage wouldn't be protected
married couple's right to purchase contraception wouldn't be protected
segregation would still be in effect


all things 'conservaties' hate. isn't that funny?

That isn't even remotely on topic, much less logical.

 

[The Rabbi]

The constitution says "shall not be infringed" and that means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Gun laws are a state issue and states need to assert that.

The Constitution also says that the right of freedom of speech cannot be abridged,
which is essentially synonymous with infringed,
and yet we know that speech can be regulated and limited.

Only when it causes harm or crates a condition of clear, present and immediate danger -- and, only because it does so.
Show how simple/ownership/posession of any sort of firearm does either of these.

NYClown obviously didnt read the linked article or he would know the answer to that one.
To limit a right the gov't must show a compelling interest. There is no compelling interest in anything proposed as even those in favor acknowledge it will do little good.