I propose a new second amendment law

[Frankeneinstein]

If you want to see the New Right finally come round to supporting gun control legislation, we need to arm every black and brown person in America.

As all white folk know, "gun control" is a dog whistle for "disarm minorities"...minority communities have far more to worry about when purchasing a weapon legally and far less access to those weapons...the only legal way for your suggestion to work and get around this would be for white liberals to admit they need to do away with gun control.

And all the trannies.

Is this some kind of car joke?

 

[Blues Man]

No, but there has to be a way to achieve it. I'll let the experts duke it out.

There is no way to achieve it.

If one is adjudicated as mentally ill there are public records

If a person is just taking antidepressants and seeing a therapist then there is no other way to know this unless you get his medical records.

 

[Rumpole]

There is no way to achieve it.

If one is adjudicated as mentally ill there are public records

If a person is just taking antidepressants and seeing a therapist then there is no other way to know this unless you get his medical records.

Well, your fear is for records to be publicly available. If they have the means for individuals in Congress with security clearances to keep classified information from becoming public, they can come up with a similar solution for medical information for use by appropriate professionals in the prevention of the unfit from keeping and bearing arms.

 

[Blues Man]

Well, your fear is for records to be publicly available. If they have the means for individuals in Congress with security clearances to keep classified information from becoming public, they can come up with a similar solution for medical information for use by appropriate professionals in the prevention of the unfit from keeping and bearing arms.

So you want to have Congress rule on every gun purchase now?

You still are saying that people have to turn their medical records over to the government in order to exercise a protected right.

So then IMO if you are going to put a requirement on one right you must do the same for all rights.

If you want to vote, submit your medical records
If you want to be protected from illegal searches, submit your medical records.

But you won't support that will you?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Well, your fear is for records to be publicly available. If they have the means for individuals in Congress with security clearances to keep classified information from becoming public, they can come up with a similar solution for medical information for use by appropriate professionals in the prevention of the unfit from keeping and bearing arms.

So, you want to eliminate HIPAA, then.

 

[Flash]

Well, your fear is for records to be publicly available. If they have the means for individuals in Congress with security clearances to keep classified information from becoming public, they can come up with a similar solution for medical information for use by appropriate professionals in the prevention of the unfit from keeping and bearing arms.

I have a much better idea.

How about the government not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

Giving permission on who can keep and bear arms and who cannot is sure as hell a major infringement.

If you have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

How about making the crime what is illegally done with the crime and not about possessing it?

Sound good?

 

[Rumpole]

I have a much better idea.

How about the government not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms?

Question has an assumed premise. Scotus has ruled government can regulate arms within constitutional constraints set by various court rulings.

Giving permission on who can keep and bear arms and who cannot is sure as hell a major infringement.

Some states require permits for gun ownership. These laws, as I understand it, have to be challenged.
Whether or not they 'infringe', cannot be known until they are challenged and the SC rules on it.

In my view, it does NOT infringe on a 2A right as long as you are trained to use the firearm properly, and are not denied a permit as long as it complies with constitutional constraints as ruled on by the court. There is no intent to deny anyone the right to own a firearm by requiring permits, in my view, as the intent is to improve public safety by assuring firearm owners have proper training on the use of the firearms. But whether training is required for the permit in the states that require permits, I don't know. To me, it would seem useless to require a permit without training. I would not support those permits, if that is the case.

If you have to get permission from the government to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BOR isn't worth the paper it is written on, is it?

The issue is public safety, not 'rights' per se. If you are trained to use a gun, you'll get a permit, as long as you are not mentally ill and are 18 and over (as I understand it). Of course, permit requirements may vary in the states taht require them.

How about making the crime what is illegally done with the crime and not about possessing it?

Not getting a gun permit when it is required, whether it is a felony, misdemeanor, infraction, or civil violation, varies from one state to another.

There are already laws against using a gun in a criminal act.

Sound good?

See above

 

[Rumpole]

So, you want to eliminate HIPAA, then.

Nope.

 

[Flash]

The issue is public safety, not 'rights' per se.

No, this is where you miss the boat, big time. You are confused Moon Bat.

The issue is Constitutional rights.

We have a Bill of Rights to keep the government from infringing upon our individual rights. That is what a Constitutional Republic is all about. In the US the right to keep and bear arms in an individual right, it is not a privilege from the government.

You Liberals really don't give a shit about public safety. You elect idiot Democrats in the big city shitholes that don't enforce the existing criminal laws and that is where the great majority of gun crimes takes place.

Start holding the ghetto Blacks and Browns accountable for the crimes they commit and get tough on them with gang activity, drug activity and street thuggery and gun crimes in the US would be reduced significantly. But you Libtards won't do that. You defund the police, don't require bail when they are arrested and let them out of prison when they are sentenced.

You dumbshits let millions of Illegals flood into the country and they commit a tremendous amount of the crime in the US nowadays. In the county where I live it use to be that Hispanics accounted for a small percentage of the crime. Nowadays they are 40% of the crimes, including gun crimes. How about enforcing border security before taking away Constitutional rights? That would greatly enhance public safety.

Instead of taking away my Constitutional rights how about just enforcing the existing gun crimes among the ghetto assholes that commit the crimes? That would greatly enhance public safety without destroying our Constitutional Republic.

 

[miketx]

I propose a law (if there isn't one, already, state or federal): If an individual is perscribed one or more psychotropic drugs which,, and it is for more than 7 days, that individual forfeits their right to own firearms until he or she is safely taken off such drugs, and pass a probationary period of 6 months.

Now, I realize the drugs are (I would imagine) supposed to restore an individual to some form of normalcy, but I"m addressing the underlying reason the drug was perscribed and proposing the law as a precautionary measure aligned with public safety, the concern of which is paramount.

Agree or disagree?

Agree in principle, but stipulate the terms? If so, what do you suggest?

Also since I'm not an expert on the subject, I will be happy to listen to the issue of perhaps it depends on the drugs and what it was perscribed for, and adjust the law accordingly, I welcome feedback on that point.

Come get them

 

[miketx]

If you want to see the New Right finally come round to supporting gun control legislation, we need to arm every black and brown person in America.

And all the trannies.

Start arming them. With any luck one will shoot you.

 

[Bell Huey]

I propose a law (if there isn't one, already, state or federal): If an individual is perscribed one or more psychotropic drugs which,, and it is for more than 7 days, that individual forfeits their right to own firearms until he or she is safely taken off such drugs, and pass a probationary period of 6 months.

Now, I realize the drugs are (I would imagine) supposed to restore an individual to some form of normalcy, but I"m addressing the underlying reason the drug was perscribed and proposing the law as a precautionary measure aligned with public safety, the concern of which is paramount.

Agree or disagree?

Agree in principle, but stipulate the terms? If so, what do you suggest?

Also since I'm not an expert on the subject, I will be happy to listen to the issue of perhaps it depends on the drugs and what it was perscribed for, and adjust the law accordingly, I welcome feedback on that point.

In short time, half of America moves to constitutional carry as more states embrace gun rights​

Florida became the 26th state this week to approve permitless carry, with all eyes now watching Nebraska and South Carolina as the next battlegrounds.

In short time, half of America moves to constitutional carry as more states embrace gun rights

Florida became the 26th state this week to approve permitless carry, with all eyes now watching Nebraska and South Carolina as the next battlegrounds.

justthenews.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

What I want to see is a federal law requiring states to respect concealed carry permits issued by other states when citizens of those states are visiting or in transit. Reciprocity is the law of the land when it comes to driver's licenses and auto registration, but not firearms.