SCOTUS leaves gun carry limits in place

[Skull Pilot]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

It costs nothing to keep an ID up to date.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How the hell is that voter fraud ??

This is what the GOP wants : Mr Smith is 80 years old , has voted in the same place for 50 years . Everyone in town knows him. He goes to vote and is asked for an ID . He pulls out his drivers license . Has his name and picture . Same address as ever .

Can he vote ?...... NOPE ! Ya see it's expired since he stopped driving 10 years ago! Screw off old man, you'd just vote for the Dems anyway !

Why should the same guy have to present his id for a firearm purchase? Every time

You need to quit falling down the ******* well

If you lose your ID . Are all your guns taken away ? You lose your right to bear arms ?

if you lose your CCW permit you do lose your right to carry until you gt a replacement

 

[jon_berzerk]

You mean like local state issued voter ID LAWS you righties love so much ?

Quit falling down the well
You have to have a valid ID to buy a firearm… Dip shit

So? The point is you argue that there can't be limits on the 2nd , but then want all kinds of voting limits .

Did our founding fathers have to show a specific state ID when they voted ?

Wait a minute
How is asking a person to prove via ID who they are and if they are indeed eligible to vote limiting anyone's legal right to vote?

Oh yeah it's not.

It's limited when you ask for a specific form of ID designed to surpress the vote .

Now I ask you . How does a gun registry limit your 2nd amendment rights ?

No it's not.

Give me a good reason why the governemnt has to know if I own a gun. And BTW what a criminal might do with a gun is not a good reason.

Why is it that all you control freaks refuse to target actual criminals who use guns (most illegally obtained) to commit crimes?

Give me a good reason why the government has to know if I own a gun.

there is no good reason

 

[Geaux4it]

meh, good thing I left California where one is oppressed beyond belief. Simple, just carry anyway as its better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6

-Geaux

 

[WorldWatcher]

You might want to read that again, I say this because, YOU'RE WRONG.


.

I provided the link to the bill. Reciprocity only applies to recognition on Federal Land, which makes sense since it's a Federal law.


“(2) A person possessing or carrying a concealed handgun in a State under subsection (a) may do so in any of the following areas in the State that are open to the public:
“(A) A unit of the National Park System.
“(B) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
“(C) Public land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
“(D) Land administered and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
“(E) Land administered and managed by the Bureau of Reclamation.”.



>>>>

 

[2aguy]

[QU

I never said citizens don't have the right to defend themselves away from home, and I am not too sure the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a gun out in public. Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Is carrying a firearm a right or a privilege? Not sure. IMHO it should be up to the locals to determine what criteria to use for who can carry and who can't. Security and self defense ought to be a local call, I am not a fan of the federal gov't telling everybody what they can and cannot do. So long as whatever restrictions that are put in place are not so broad as to deny just about everybody the permission to carry, it should be up to the locals to use the democratic process to change the current official position.

The purpose of having a Bill of Rights is to protect Americans from the abuse and oppression of a Democracy where the majority can take away the rights of the individual. Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government when the 51% votes to take away the rights of the 49%.

Our Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some filthy ass elected Mayor or city council should not have the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

As far as SCOTUS rulings go they are political just like everything else. It is clear that the Conservatives on the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the abuse to the Bill of Rights as it pertains to the right to keep and bear arms due to the 4-4 split and a unknown swing Justice. That was the smart thing to do.

After Trump appoints a couple of more Conservatives to the Court that will be fixed.

Yes.....5, politically appointed lawyers should not determine what is or is not Constitutional for 320 million people.....

 

[task0778]

[QU

I never said citizens don't have the right to defend themselves away from home, and I am not too sure the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a gun out in public. Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Is carrying a firearm a right or a privilege? Not sure. IMHO it should be up to the locals to determine what criteria to use for who can carry and who can't. Security and self defense ought to be a local call, I am not a fan of the federal gov't telling everybody what they can and cannot do. So long as whatever restrictions that are put in place are not so broad as to deny just about everybody the permission to carry, it should be up to the locals to use the democratic process to change the current official position.

The purpose of having a Bill of Rights is to protect Americans from the abuse and oppression of a Democracy where the majority can take away the rights of the individual. Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government when the 51% votes to take away the rights of the 49%.

Our Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some filthy ass elected Mayor or city council should not have the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

As far as SCOTUS rulings go they are political just like everything else. It is clear that the Conservatives on the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the abuse to the Bill of Rights as it pertains to the right to keep and bear arms due to the 4-4 split and a unknown swing Justice. That was the smart thing to do.

After Trump appoints a couple of more Conservatives to the Court that will be fixed.

Yes.....5, politically appointed lawyers should not determine what is or is not Constitutional for 320 million people.....

And yet that's pretty much the way it is. Somebody gotta be the final arbiter, no? Do you have a better idea for how to decide what laws the Congress passes or what executive actions the President takes exceeds his/her authority?

For you and Flash and others: are we a nation of laws or not? Do we as individuals or local politicians get to decide which federal laws we will adhere to and which ones we won't? No.

Every Constitutional right has it's restrictions and boundaries. There are limits to every right, you can't holler "Fire!" in a crowded room for instance. Freedom of religion has it's limits too. Do we allow people to own howitzers and missiles under the 2nd Amendment? No. Similarly, carry laws may be as restrictive as the local authorities deem necessary; you and I may believe such laws to be and infringement that shouldn't exist, but it seems to me the local citizens ought to decide that. Which they can do by voting the local authorities out of office, that's the way the system is supposed to work.

Maybe some day the SCOTUS will determine that carry laws should be considered inviolate. Personally, it makes me nervous when 5 politically appointed lawyers determine what is or is not Constitutional for 320 million people. I would rather see them with less power. and more to the states and locals.

 

[2aguy]

[QU

I never said citizens don't have the right to defend themselves away from home, and I am not too sure the right to keep and bear arms extends to the right to carry a gun out in public. Has the SCOTUS ruled on that? Is carrying a firearm a right or a privilege? Not sure. IMHO it should be up to the locals to determine what criteria to use for who can carry and who can't. Security and self defense ought to be a local call, I am not a fan of the federal gov't telling everybody what they can and cannot do. So long as whatever restrictions that are put in place are not so broad as to deny just about everybody the permission to carry, it should be up to the locals to use the democratic process to change the current official position.

The purpose of having a Bill of Rights is to protect Americans from the abuse and oppression of a Democracy where the majority can take away the rights of the individual. Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government when the 51% votes to take away the rights of the 49%.

Our Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some filthy ass elected Mayor or city council should not have the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.

As far as SCOTUS rulings go they are political just like everything else. It is clear that the Conservatives on the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the abuse to the Bill of Rights as it pertains to the right to keep and bear arms due to the 4-4 split and a unknown swing Justice. That was the smart thing to do.

After Trump appoints a couple of more Conservatives to the Court that will be fixed.

Yes.....5, politically appointed lawyers should not determine what is or is not Constitutional for 320 million people.....

And yet that's pretty much the way it is. Somebody gotta be the final arbiter, no? Do you have a better idea for how to decide what laws the Congress passes or what executive actions the President takes exceeds his/her authority?

For you and Flash and others: are we a nation of laws or not? Do we as individuals or local politicians get to decide which federal laws we will adhere to and which ones we won't? No.

Every Constitutional right has it's restrictions and boundaries. There are limits to every right, you can't holler "Fire!" in a crowded room for instance. Freedom of religion has it's limits too. Do we allow people to own howitzers and missiles under the 2nd Amendment? No. Similarly, carry laws may be as restrictive as the local authorities deem necessary; you and I may believe such laws to be and infringement that shouldn't exist, but it seems to me the local citizens ought to decide that. Which they can do by voting the local authorities out of office, that's the way the system is supposed to work.

Maybe some day the SCOTUS will determine that carry laws should be considered inviolate. Personally, it makes me nervous when 5 politically appointed lawyers determine what is or is not Constitutional for 320 million people. I would rather see them with less power. and more to the states and locals.

Yes....we need an Amendment that allows congress and the President to over rule the Supreme Court...as a check on their ability to make stupid rulings...

Did you read Heller.....the ruling discusses your point and discusses bearable arms, that are not unusual, a howizter is not bearable or usual....

Your Right to carry a gun should be pulled when you break the law, not before.....just like you get to vote until you become a felon.....

The "local" citizens also decided they didn't want blacks voting so they had poll taxes and literacy tests.....


Rights are not taken before you break the law, only after, as your fire in a crowded theater shows...you do not have to get permission from the local government to write a book, a speech or to speak in public.....