Waiting period to buy a gun...?

[August West]

No rights being taken away here. They're being protected in point of fact and a helluva lot more efficiently than the all-or-nothing approach. Your approach is doomed to failure, mine actually protects our rights to own weapons.

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

All rights comes with responsibility. I don't see why you couldn't take your gun to Heinz Field.

Vending machines huh? Using that logic every item in every store could be sold in vending machines, sheets, shirts, dresses, towels, shoes, laptop computers, mouse pads, dog food......etc. Dumbass analogy you used there huh?[/QUOTE

You think 65,000 mostly intoxicated NFL fans should be able to take their guns to the stadium? You`re just pretending to be that stupid....I hope.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

All rights comes with responsibility. I don't see why you couldn't take your gun to Heinz Field.

Vending machines huh? Using that logic every item in every store could be sold in vending machines, sheets, shirts, dresses, towels, shoes, laptop computers, mouse pads, dog food......etc. Dumbass analogy you used there huh?[/QUOTE

You think 65,000 mostly intoxicated NFL fans should be able to take their guns to the stadium? You`re just pretending to be that stupid....I hope.

I don't think that they're mostly intoxicated. Just because your wimpy ass can't handle your liquor doesn't mean no one else can.

 

[2aguy]

You already admitted that your course of action - taking the lesser of two evils offered - guarantees the rights will be eventually taken away.

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

All rights comes with responsibility. I don't see why you couldn't take your gun to Heinz Field.

Vending machines huh? Using that logic every item in every store could be sold in vending machines, sheets, shirts, dresses, towels, shoes, laptop computers, mouse pads, dog food......etc. Dumbass analogy you used there huh?[/QUOTE

You think 65,000 mostly intoxicated NFL fans should be able to take their guns to the stadium? You`re just pretending to be that stupid....I hope.

People get behind the wheel of machines capable of hurting or killing a lot of people, and they do it everyday.....when they drink before they drive and they are caught they are arrested.....if a stadium, a private organization, said they would allow people to attend games armed, they would be prohibited from drinking...and if they carried their weapon while intoxicated, they would be arrested...just as happens when you get behind the wheel of a machine capable of killing people that you take on a public road....

guns are no different....

in fact, those who get concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the average citizen, and even sworn police officers....

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No I didn't. Maybe somoene did but I know I didn't because I'm all about the Constitution.

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

All rights comes with responsibility. I don't see why you couldn't take your gun to Heinz Field.

Vending machines huh? Using that logic every item in every store could be sold in vending machines, sheets, shirts, dresses, towels, shoes, laptop computers, mouse pads, dog food......etc. Dumbass analogy you used there huh?[/QUOTE

You think 65,000 mostly intoxicated NFL fans should be able to take their guns to the stadium? You`re just pretending to be that stupid....I hope.

People get behind the wheel of machines capable of hurting or killing a lot of people, and they do it everyday.....when they drink before they drive and they are caught they are arrested.....if a stadium, a private organization, said they would allow people to attend games armed, they would be prohibited from drinking...and if they carried their weapon while intoxicated, they would be arrested...just as happens when you get behind the wheel of a machine capable of killing people that you take on a public road....

guns are no different....

in fact, those who get concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the average citizen, and even sworn police officers....

We're not talking about automobiles or drinking and driving. Guns are very different than automobiles.

 

[2aguy]

Where in the Constitution does it require a waiting period "to keep and bear arms"?

The Constitution doesn`t say we can`t yell fire in a crowded theater and it doesn`t say that we can`t take our guns into Heinz Field to watch the Steelers play either. All rights come with restrictions. If they didn`t we could sale guns out of vending machines.

All rights comes with responsibility. I don't see why you couldn't take your gun to Heinz Field.

Vending machines huh? Using that logic every item in every store could be sold in vending machines, sheets, shirts, dresses, towels, shoes, laptop computers, mouse pads, dog food......etc. Dumbass analogy you used there huh?[/QUOTE

You think 65,000 mostly intoxicated NFL fans should be able to take their guns to the stadium? You`re just pretending to be that stupid....I hope.

People get behind the wheel of machines capable of hurting or killing a lot of people, and they do it everyday.....when they drink before they drive and they are caught they are arrested.....if a stadium, a private organization, said they would allow people to attend games armed, they would be prohibited from drinking...and if they carried their weapon while intoxicated, they would be arrested...just as happens when you get behind the wheel of a machine capable of killing people that you take on a public road....

guns are no different....

in fact, those who get concealed carry permits are more law abiding than the average citizen, and even sworn police officers....

We're not talking about automobiles or drinking and driving. Guns are very different than automobiles.

In that more people are killed by them each year....? And we let 15 year olds drive them with a few weeks experience....you mean like that?

 

[westwall]

Keep pushing the envelope and one day a sane majority on the Supreme Court will finally decide the right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun is a privilege, not a right.

And that day will be the beginning of the revolution. Be careful what you wish for.

they make statements like that and wonder why we don't trust them....

Gun control should be a privilege, only sober, sane, non violent and honest citizens should be able to have a license to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. It's really that simple, do the crime (dui, sell drugs, commit domestic violence, rape, rob, or murder) and you lose the license; if later you have a gun you go to prison for life, or you can surrender your US Citizenship and passport and move to a gun friendly nation if you can find one.

Fortunately for us the Founders didn't hold to your provincial, elitist, point of view. Fortunately the Founders realized the problems endemic in a Class based society, such as existed in the UK when the US broke away from that oppressive system that consigned millions to working at near slave wages so the "privileged" could lead their lives of luxury.

Must piss you off that the peasants get all the rights that you do.

History simplified to fit a 21st Century ideology. Have you read 1984?

Yes. Probably before you were born. Have you read "Brave New World"? Amazing how you advocate for a centralized, all powerful government, all of the time.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Keep pushing the envelope and one day a sane majority on the Supreme Court will finally decide the right to own, possess or have in one's custody and control a gun is a privilege, not a right.

What possible explanation would be presented that would justify the Court not just up-heaving but completely reversing and rewriting the rights doctrine it has enforced since the beginning?

I don't know whether I should consider your statement as an ignorant flail in constitutional argument or treat it as some sort of poorly executed joke.

Maybe you should seriously consider it, given the dearth of Supreme Court cases. Here's a rundown for you:

Second Amendment Law Library of Congress

 

[Abatis]

Maybe you should seriously consider it, given the dearth of Supreme Court cases. Here's a rundown for you:

Second Amendment Law Library of Congress

Is it your position that the Court has distinguished the right to arms, as secured by the 2nd Amendment, from other rights?

I am well versed in 2nd Amendment case law and none of the Court's statements from 1876 to 2010, allow one to believe that the right to arms can be dissected out of the rights concept that the Court has enforced since the beginning.

To look at it from another direction, the foundational premise for penumbral rights (see Griswold v CT, Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood v Casey) includes the right to arms as an integral link in "the continuum of liberty" from which the right to privacy is recognized and protected.

I asked this question in another thread and nobody gave me an answer, perhaps you will (given your double-down you certainly should). Can a right like privacy, that is found to exist in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (including the right to arms) be more respected, more vital and more secure than the right to arms that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

What aspects of Cruikshank, Presser, Miller and Heller do you consider is subject to being reversed and exactly what legal reasoning do you envision being used to reverse SCOTUS right to arms / 2nd Amendment holdings?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Maybe you should seriously consider it, given the dearth of Supreme Court cases. Here's a rundown for you:

Second Amendment Law Library of Congress

Is it your position that the Court has distinguished the right to arms, as secured by the 2nd Amendment, from other rights?

I am well versed in 2nd Amendment case law and none of the Court's statements from 1876 to 2010, allow one to believe that the right to arms can be dissected out of the rights concept that the Court has enforced since the beginning.

To look at it from another direction, the foundational premise for penumbral rights (see Griswold v CT, Roe v Wade, Planned Parenthood v Casey) includes the right to arms as an integral link in "the continuum of liberty" from which the right to privacy is recognized and protected.

I asked this question in another thread and nobody gave me an answer, perhaps you will (given your double-down you certainly should). Can a right like privacy, that is found to exist in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights (including the right to arms) be more respected, more vital and more secure than the right to arms that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

What aspects of Cruikshank, Presser, Miller and Heller do you consider is subject to being reversed and exactly what legal reasoning do you envision being used to reverse SCOTUS right to arms / 2nd Amendment holdings?

What legal reasoning? Let's try common sense, first. Scalia needed twenty pages to try and convince the other justices to vote with him on Heller, he succeeded only to convince the other three conservatives.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which theSupreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Waiting period to buy a gun... Page 15 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Abatis]

What legal reasoning? Let's try common sense, first. Scalia needed twenty pages to try and convince the other justices to vote with him on Heller, he succeeded only to convince the other three conservatives.

The liberals were not going to be swayed by any argument no matter how long or short. They were unwaveringly on the side of upholding the DC statutes no matter how ridiculous their explanations sounded . . .

You are correct, Heller was much too long. Scalia screwed the pooch with a textual analysis. Heller should have been a five sentence opinion just quoting SCOTUS precedent.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), . . . was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense"
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sigh . . . Wikipedia scholarship sure is lacking.

What you highlight is wrong.

In the very first RKBA case heard by the the Court it recognized the right to keep and bear arms of two Freemen in 1873 Louisiana for the "lawful purpose" of self-defense from the KKK outside their home.

Reading from and quoting the indictment of the men who disarmed, kidnapped and lynched the two former slaves, the Court said:

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."​

Ten years later in Presser, the Court revisited Cruikshank and quoted it but substituted the Cruikshank case specific language with the simple and recognizable wording of the 2nd Amendment (internal quotation marks removed):

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."​

In Heller, the Court re-re-re-affirmed the principle of retained, pre-existing rights and revisited Cruikshank:

"it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"​

Your "common sense" is legal nonsense.

Please explain the legal reasoning you think will force the Court to ignore its earlier ruling on the pre-existing nature of the right to arms and to find that the right is actually entirely dependent upon a collectivist interpretation of words that the Court has said repeatedly the right in no manner depends upon.

Yeah, you're just a fountain of common sense . . .

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ABATIS SAID:

“The liberals were not going to be swayed by any argument no matter how long or short. They were unwaveringly on the side of upholding the DC statutes no matter how ridiculous their explanations sounded.”

Incorrect.

The issue before the Heller Court was whether the Second Amendment enshrined a collective right predicated on militia service or an individual right predicated on self-defense – where both theories of the right were equally valid and justified, with the collective right theory generally recognized by the legal community.

Indeed, all the justices had come to their respective understandings of the Second Amendment right long before the ruling in 2008 – where the ruling was as much the consequence of the democratic process as the judicial.

And in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution, recognizing the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the Court to determine what the Constitution means, the Second Amendment right as an individual right became the law of the land and settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – a product of both politics and the law, as intended by the Framers.

 

[Judicial review]

My friends mentally ill because he hallucinates. Can he buy a gun?

 

[Abatis]

The issue before the Heller Court was whether the Second Amendment enshrined a collective right predicated on militia service or an individual right predicated on self-defense

No, that was not the question before the Court.

The Court crafted its own narrow question that it wanted to be briefed on and hear argument on:

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"​

As far as SCOTUS was concerned, there is no question of whether the right is individual or collective; it has been long settled that the right secured is individual. The collective right interpretations were 1940's creations of the lower federal courts arrived at by ignoring and dismissing SCOTUS. The dissents admitted this, Stevens stipulated that the right is individual and admitting the '"collective right" theory is dead. Breyer admitted he takes, "as a starting point . . . , based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes" that the 2nd Amendment, "protects an “individual” right . . . "

The Heller dissents recognize that the "collective right" theories are dead and the "individual right" is what the Court has consistently recognized and upheld and that flows through the Heller majority and both dissenting opinions.

– where both theories of the right were equally valid and justified, with the collective right theory generally recognized by the legal community.

No, the collective right theories were always invalid. All Heller did was slap the lower federal courts back into the constitutional fold, abrogating U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) --- which created the "militia right" interpretation and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) --- which created the "state's right" interpretation . . . and their illegitimate progeny.

Indeed, all the justices had come to their respective understandings of the Second Amendment right long before the ruling in 2008 – where the ruling was as much the consequence of the democratic process as the judicial.

I have no interest in trying to discern what that gobbledygook is supposed to mean . . .

And in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution, recognizing the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the Court to determine what the Constitution means, the Second Amendment right as an individual right became the law of the land and settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – a product of both politics and the law, as intended by the Framers.

That was always the position of the Court. It was the lower courts that were off the rails and required SCOTUS to set them right.

 

[Abatis]

My friends mentally ill because he hallucinates. Can he buy a gun?

There is a legal standard to be met to effect the legal disablement of gun rights.

That legal threshold requires the person to be, "adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;" -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)

Simply having the lunch-lady or mailman say he's nutty as squirrel shit won't do it.

As of February 28, 2015 there were 3,835,432 mental health records in the National Instant Check System database (11kb pdf) out of 13,047,705 total records of prohibited persons.

 

[2aguy]

What legal reasoning? Let's try common sense, first. Scalia needed twenty pages to try and convince the other justices to vote with him on Heller, he succeeded only to convince the other three conservatives.

The liberals were not going to be swayed by any argument no matter how long or short. They were unwaveringly on the side of upholding the DC statutes no matter how ridiculous their explanations sounded . . .

You are correct, Heller was much too long. Scalia screwed the pooch with a textual analysis. Heller should have been a five sentence opinion just quoting SCOTUS precedent.

"District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), . . . was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense"
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Sigh . . . Wikipedia scholarship sure is lacking.

What you highlight is wrong.

In the very first RKBA case heard by the the Court it recognized the right to keep and bear arms of two Freemen in 1873 Louisiana for the "lawful purpose" of self-defense from the KKK outside their home.

Reading from and quoting the indictment of the men who disarmed, kidnapped and lynched the two former slaves, the Court said:

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."​

Ten years later in Presser, the Court revisited Cruikshank and quoted it but substituted the Cruikshank case specific language with the simple and recognizable wording of the 2nd Amendment (internal quotation marks removed):

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."​

In Heller, the Court re-re-re-affirmed the principle of retained, pre-existing rights and revisited Cruikshank:

"it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"​

Your "common sense" is legal nonsense.

Please explain the legal reasoning you think will force the Court to ignore its earlier ruling on the pre-existing nature of the right to arms and to find that the right is actually entirely dependent upon a collectivist interpretation of words that the Court has said repeatedly the right in no manner depends upon.

Yeah, you're just a fountain of common sense . . .

.

 

[2aguy]

The issue before the Heller Court was whether the Second Amendment enshrined a collective right predicated on militia service or an individual right predicated on self-defense

No, that was not the question before the Court.

The Court crafted its own narrow question that it wanted to be briefed on and hear argument on:

"Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"​

As far as SCOTUS was concerned, there is no question of whether the right is individual or collective; it has been long settled that the right secured is individual. The collective right interpretations were 1940's creations of the lower federal courts arrived at by ignoring and dismissing SCOTUS. The dissents admitted this, Stevens stipulated that the right is individual and admitting the '"collective right" theory is dead. Breyer admitted he takes, "as a starting point . . . , based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes" that the 2nd Amendment, "protects an “individual” right . . . "

The Heller dissents recognize that the "collective right" theories are dead and the "individual right" is what the Court has consistently recognized and upheld and that flows through the Heller majority and both dissenting opinions.

– where both theories of the right were equally valid and justified, with the collective right theory generally recognized by the legal community.

No, the collective right theories were always invalid. All Heller did was slap the lower federal courts back into the constitutional fold, abrogating U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) --- which created the "militia right" interpretation and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) --- which created the "state's right" interpretation . . . and their illegitimate progeny.

Indeed, all the justices had come to their respective understandings of the Second Amendment right long before the ruling in 2008 – where the ruling was as much the consequence of the democratic process as the judicial.

I have no interest in trying to discern what that gobbledygook is supposed to mean . . .

And in accordance with Articles III and VI of the Constitution, recognizing the doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the Court to determine what the Constitution means, the Second Amendment right as an individual right became the law of the land and settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence – a product of both politics and the law, as intended by the Framers.

That was always the position of the Court. It was the lower courts that were off the rails and required SCOTUS to set them right.

Sadly.....your legal reasoning is correct, but your analysis of the liberal Justices is also correct...which is why it is so important to put a Republican in the Presidency in 2016 and keep a strong majority in the Senate......a Democrat President with a democrat Senate will likely replace several justices...and if they take out one conservative Justice, the law won't matter, and they will reverse themselves on Heller and Macdonald.....

 

[2aguy]

My friends mentally ill because he hallucinates. Can he buy a gun?

There is a legal standard to be met to effect the legal disablement of gun rights.

That legal threshold requires the person to be, "adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;" -- 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)

Simply having the lunch-lady or mailman say he's nutty as squirrel shit won't do it.

As of February 28, 2015 there were 3,835,432 mental health records in the National Instant Check System database (11kb pdf) out of 13,047,705 total records of prohibited persons.

Abatis.....I enjoy your posts....please keep posting.....it is nice to have someone who can argue the law on this issue....

 

[chikenwing]

Apparently, some people still think this is not just a good idea, but necessary.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

To this end, a federal judge struck the waiting period on CA for most gun buyers
Federal judge strikes down California gun purchase waiting period in some cases Fox News

If a waiting period for an abortion is insufferable, how is if OK to force people to wait to buy a gun?
Fewer Waiting Periods For Guns Than For Abortions INFOGRAPHIC

I already own several guns and have a CCW permit -- why should I have to wait some arbitrary amount of time before I can exercise my right to arms?

If you already have guns, why is there such an emergency to get another today?

so constitutional rights should be delayed,how about we have a voting waiting period?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Apparently, some people still think this is not just a good idea, but necessary.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

To this end, a federal judge struck the waiting period on CA for most gun buyers
Federal judge strikes down California gun purchase waiting period in some cases Fox News

If a waiting period for an abortion is insufferable, how is if OK to force people to wait to buy a gun?
Fewer Waiting Periods For Guns Than For Abortions INFOGRAPHIC

I already own several guns and have a CCW permit -- why should I have to wait some arbitrary amount of time before I can exercise my right to arms?

If you already have guns, why is there such an emergency to get another today?

so constitutional rights should be delayed,how about we have a voting waiting period?

We do, in some states. Closing polling places and moving the polling place from neighborhoods likely to vote for Democrats two and three bus transfers away, creating long lines where voters need to wait hours to cast their ballot

 

[2aguy]

Apparently, some people still think this is not just a good idea, but necessary.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Gun Law Information Experts

To this end, a federal judge struck the waiting period on CA for most gun buyers
Federal judge strikes down California gun purchase waiting period in some cases Fox News

If a waiting period for an abortion is insufferable, how is if OK to force people to wait to buy a gun?
Fewer Waiting Periods For Guns Than For Abortions INFOGRAPHIC

I already own several guns and have a CCW permit -- why should I have to wait some arbitrary amount of time before I can exercise my right to arms?

If you already have guns, why is there such an emergency to get another today?

so constitutional rights should be delayed,how about we have a voting waiting period?

We do, in some states. Closing polling places and moving the polling place from neighborhoods likely to vote for Democrats two and three bus transfers away, creating long lines where voters need to wait hours to cast their ballot

Yeah...try voting Republican in Chicago..........