Gun traffickers can pass any background check, they are not normal gun owners.....

[Vegasgiants]

No...it doesn't......lower federal courts have not been using that standard....if they had been, they wouldn't have allowed various challenges to magazine and rifle bans to stand......

Strict scrutiny is used in every second amendment case

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts:

• when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[2] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or
• when a government action applies to a "suspect classification", such as race or national origin.

 

[Failzero]

Democommies have Weaponized the Constitution & State's Rights to get what they want .

 

[Batcat]

Bulldog pretends to actually care about criminals using guns....all he really wants to do is ban and confiscate guns....he uses the red herring that normal people selling their personal guns are the main source of guns for criminals.....this is a lie......the guy on your block selling his old Glock to get the new one isn't the one supplying guns to criminals....

Gun traffickers are actual criminals dedicated to selling guns to criminals...like this woman...

The term “gun trafficking” gets an awful lot of play in the media these days. Mostly because it sounds really scary to a whole lot of people.
---
A Philadelphia woman has admitted to charges related to the illegal purchase of guns for a gun trafficking organization that operated in Montgomery, Berks, Bucks, Lancaster and Philadelphia counties.
----
Williams was among 14 people charged in February 2021 for their roles in the multi-county gun trafficking organization.

At the time of the arrests, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin R. Steele alleged the network illegally obtained and resold a total of 31 firearms using straw purchase schemes in the five-county area, putting “guns in the hands of people that are not allowed by law to buy their own guns.”
----
Yet we need to understand that Williams here bought these guns by lying on federal forms with the intent of putting these guns in criminal hands. She meant to do just this.

So tell me, what laws would have stopped her?

Permits wouldn’t. She could just as easily have gotten a permit to purchase and still put guns in bad guys’ hands. Universal background checks wouldn’t since she passed the NICS check. So just what would stop this kind of gun trafficking from taking place?

Philly woman admits to gun trafficking charges

bearingarms.com

I propose we charge anyone who is caught as involved in gun trafficking as an accessory to any and all crimes committed with the weapons they bought for others. If a handgun the women straw purchased murdered someone, charge her as an accessory to murder.

if nothing else she will not be straw purchasing any firearms for a while while she is behind bars.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I propose we charge anyone who is caught as involved in gun trafficking as an accessory to any and all crimes committed with the weapons they bought for others. If a handgun the women straw purchased murdered someone, charge her as an accessory to murder.

if nothing else she will not be straw purchasing any firearms for a while while she is behind bars.

The gop will never go for it

 

[2aguy]

Strict scrutiny is used in every second amendment case

U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts:

• when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[2] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or
• when a government action applies to a "suspect classification", such as race or national origin.

No...it isn't...you moron.....You don't know what you are talking about........

The 2nd Amendment is about the only amendment where it isn't applied.......you doofus...

The leftist controlled lower courts have not been applying Strict Scrutiny to 2nd Amendment cases...you idiot....

Generally, the courts have adopted a two-step framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges.

First, courts ask whether the regulated person, firearm, or place comes within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections. If not, the law does not implicate the Second Amendment. But if so, the court next employs the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny—rational basis, intermediate, or strict scrutiny—to assess whether the law passes constitutional muster. In deciding what level of scrutiny is warranted, courts generally ask whether the challenged law burdens core Second Amendment conduct, like the ability to use a firearm for self-defense in the home. If a law substantially burdens core Second Amendment activity, courts typically will apply strict scrutiny. Otherwise, courts generally will apply intermediate scrutiny.
----

Most challenged laws have been reviewed for intermediate scrutiny, where a court asks whether a law is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44618.pdf

 

[Flash]

Yes it does. You dont even know what it means. Lol

I sure as hell knows what it means. It is a legal term and only a stupid uneducated Moon Bat would think that the oppressive guns laws that they have in places like Chicago, DC or even states like California and New York have ever been properly scrutinized in regards to protecting the individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The shitheads that imposed the oppression tend to apply what is known as "Rational Scrutiny". Not even "Intermediate Scrutiny".

Hopefully the Supremes will require Strict Scrutiny after this New York case.

Here is a little reading assignment for you so that you don't embarrass yourself with your uneducated Moon Bat dribble.

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

and so you understand the implications of the New York case:

The Supreme Court will hear a major Second Amendment case that could gut US gun laws

The Supreme Court could make the NRA’s dreams come true.

www.vox.com

 

[Vegasgiants]

I sure as hell knows what it means. It is a legal term and only a stupid uneducated Moon Bat would think that the oppressive guns laws that they have in places like Chicago, DC or even states like California and New York have ever been properly scrutinized in regards to protecting the individual Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The shitheads that imposed the oppression tend to apply what is known as "Rational Scrutiny". Not even "Intermediate Scrutiny".

Hopefully the Supremes will require Strict Scrutiny after this New York case.

Here is a little reading assignment for you so that you don't embarrass yourself with your uneducated Moon Bat dribble.

Second Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

and so you understand the implications of the New York case:

The Supreme Court will hear a major Second Amendment case that could gut US gun laws

The Supreme Court could make the NRA’s dreams come true.

www.vox.com

Read slowly. It is used in every second amendment case
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts:

• when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[2] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or
• when a government action applies to a "suspect classification", such as race or national origin.

 

[Vegasgiants]

No...it isn't...you moron.....You don't know what you are talking about........

The 2nd Amendment is about the only amendment where it isn't applied.......you doofus...

The leftist controlled lower courts have not been applying Strict Scrutiny to 2nd Amendment cases...you idiot....

Generally, the courts have adopted a two-step framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges.

First, courts ask whether the regulated person, firearm, or place comes within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections. If not, the law does not implicate the Second Amendment. But if so, the court next employs the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny—rational basis, intermediate, or strict scrutiny—to assess whether the law passes constitutional muster. In deciding what level of scrutiny is warranted, courts generally ask whether the challenged law burdens core Second Amendment conduct, like the ability to use a firearm for self-defense in the home. If a law substantially burdens core Second Amendment activity, courts typically will apply strict scrutiny. Otherwise, courts generally will apply intermediate scrutiny.
----

Most challenged laws have been reviewed for intermediate scrutiny, where a court asks whether a law is substantially related to an important governmental interest.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44618.pdf

Then it doesnt fall under the second amendment

 

[Batcat]

The gop will never go for it

The Dems sure won’t. They are pro criminal. That’s why they want to disarm honest people. Honest people make a dangerous work place environment for criminals.

 

[Vegasgiants]

The Dems sure won’t. They are pro criminal. That’s why they want to disarm honest people. Honest people make a dangerous work place environment for criminals.

The gop have complete control over some states and will never do that

 

[ding]

It's awesome that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and possess semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols with high capacity magazines. Freaking awesome.

 

[Batcat]

The gop have complete control over some states and will never do that

There are already laws on the books about straw purchases of firearms. If some woman straw purchased a firearm that led to the murder of a member of my family, I would prefer she spend a good number of years in prison. I think most Republican voters would agree with me. We want the gun laws to focus on criminals not honest people.

If you knew you might end up in prison for 15 to 20 years for straw purchasing a firearm if it was used to murder someone, you might decide not to buy it.

 

[Vegasgiants]

There are already laws on the books about straw purchases of firearms. If some woman straw purchased a firearm that led to the murder of a member of my family, I would prefer she spend a good number of years in prison. I think most Republican voters would agree with me. We want the gun laws to focus on criminals not honest people.

If you knew you might end up in prison for 15 to 20 years for straw purchasing a firearm if it was used to murder someone, you might decide not to buy it.

The gop could do that now in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.....

They just refuse to

 

[BS Filter]

Our society should go back to the old west.

 

[Batcat]

The gop could do that now in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana.....

They just refuse to

I am susposed to just take your word for that? Show me some failed legislation that would have made a straw purchaser guilty as an accessory to any crime committed by a weapon they purchased.

If you do find any it’s my bet the Democrats voted against it.

 

[Vegasgiants]

I am susposed to just take your word for that? Show me some failed legislation that would have made a straw purchaser guilty as an accessory to any crime committed by a weapon they purchased.

If you do find any it’s my bet the Democrats voted against it.

I am asking you to show me one gop state that has full control of the legislature that has done this


Just one

 

[Batcat]

It's awesome that the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and possess semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols with high capacity magazines. Freaking awesome.

"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, but when the government fears the people there is liberty!"

Thomas Jefferson may or may not have written this but the basic idea is sound.

Democrats wan’t to try to make this nation another Marist socialist workers paradise. The only way that can ever work is if they disarm the citizens.

I don’t want to live under any government run by fools who want to teach kindergarten kids that boys can be girls and girls can be boys and the LGBTQ+ lifestyle is just wonderful.

Venezuelans Now Regret Giving Up Their Guns – This is What Happens to a Disarmed Populace | GOA

In 2012, Venezuela’s dictator-for-life President Hugo Chavez had his rubber stamp legislature pass the Control of Arms, Munitions and Disarmament Law. The public generally supported it at the time. The law stripped law-abiding Venezuelans of every firearm and round of ammunition they could...

www.gunowners.org

 

[Flash]

Read slowly. It is used in every second amendment case
U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts:

• when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[2] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or
• when a government action applies to a "suspect classification", such as race or national origin.

You didn't do the reading I assigned to you, did you Moon Bat? No wonder you are talking out your ass.

There are three kinds of scrutiny that can be applied to Constitutional law.

These Libtard States and Locals have traditionally applied "Rational Scrutiny" and that is why they have oppressive gun restrictions.

A good example of that is like in New York with that filthy ass S.A.F.E. Act that prohibits (among many other things) a 30 round AR magazine. It is like DC and Chicago ignoring the Heller and McDonald rulings and imposing laws that they think are rational but do not meet the strict scrutiny that Conditional individual rights must have.

Hopefully with this New York case the Supremes will tell the States and Locals that they have to treat the 2nd Amendment right the same as they other Constitutional individual rights and all these filthy ass gun control laws can be abolished.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about the dribble you are posting, do you Moon Bat?

 

[Vegasgiants]

You didn't do the reading I assigned to you, did you Moon Bat? No wonder you are talking out your ass.

There are three kinds of scrutiny that can be applied to Constitutional law.

These Libtard States and Locals have traditionally applied "Rational Scrutiny" and that is why they have oppressive gun restrictions.

A good example of that is like in New York with that filthy ass S.A.F.E. Act that prohibits (among many other things) a 30 round AR magazine. It is like DC and Chicago ignoring the Heller and McDonald rulings and imposing laws that they think are rational but do not meet the strict scrutiny that Conditional individual rights must have.

Hopefully with this New York case the Supremes will tell the States and Locals that they have to treat the 2nd Amendment right the same as they other Constitutional individual rights and all these filthy ass gun control laws can be abolished.

You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground about the dribble you are posting, do you Moon Bat?

Except in the cases I mentioned


Then only strict scrutiny can be applied you complete moron.


HAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHA

 

[Flash]

strict scrutiny