White House outlines gun control moves

[Centinel]

sorry, i just thought we were engaged in a conversation based in reality and not your fantasies

Same here. The constitution is the reality. The idea that manufacturing is commerce or that commerce within a state is commerce among the state is fantasy.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Explain what you think that makes "easier"

On the application for an FFL currently it asks if you intend to sell at gun shows only. If you answer Yes you cannot submit the app. Under teh EO you can.

we've established that's a change. you said it makes things easier. what does it make easier?

Getting an FFL. There are advantages as well as disadvantages to having one. Since I have one I can buy a gun anywhere in this country either in person or by phone/internet and have it sent to me.

Wow, if you have one that's a huge hole (twice the size of a loop hole); your behavior and temperament on this message board suggests you should never have a gun.

The intellectual level of your posts suggests you spent most of your career giving blowjobs to inmates.

As I pointed out, your character flaws are clear and convincing evidence that background checks are seriously flawed, if you have a FFL.

I'm aware you're a liar, thus I seriously doubt you have such a license; and you are so dishonest, if you are licensed you likely will buy and sell guns on the black market.

 

[ogibillm]

sorry, i just thought we were engaged in a conversation based in reality and not your fantasies

Same here. The constitution is the reality. The idea that manufacturing is commerce or that commerce within a state is commerce among the state is fantasy.

keep the dream alive. but you might find dealing with reality more fruitful

 

[Wry Catcher]

sorry, i just thought we were engaged in a conversation based in reality and not your fantasies

Same here. The constitution is the reality. The idea that manufacturing is commerce or that commerce within a state is commerce among the state is fantasy.

"The Constitution is the reality?

the courts disagree with you. their opinions are the ones that count

I'm well aware that the federal government doesn't accept the limits on its powers imposed by the constitution. This, however, doesn't change what the constitution says.

The constitution grants congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states. If it's not commerce and it's not among the several states, it falls outside the commerce clause.

What events / actions make you sure "the federal government doesn't accept the limits of its powers imposed by the (C)onstitution"?

Be clear and offer the phrases you feel limit the actions which the federal government violates.

 

[Centinel]

"The Constitution is the reality?

The reality is that the constitution is the law of the land.

Be clear and offer the phrases you feel limit the actions which the federal government violates.

Congress has a small set of enumerated powers, one of which is regulating commerce among the several states. It is beyond congress' authority to exercise power not delegated to it, and the states never delegated to congress the power to regulate commerce within a state or to regulate non-commerce, such as manufacturing.

 

[The Rabbi]

On the application for an FFL currently it asks if you intend to sell at gun shows only. If you answer Yes you cannot submit the app. Under teh EO you can.

we've established that's a change. you said it makes things easier. what does it make easier?

Getting an FFL. There are advantages as well as disadvantages to having one. Since I have one I can buy a gun anywhere in this country either in person or by phone/internet and have it sent to me.

Wow, if you have one that's a huge hole (twice the size of a loop hole); your behavior and temperament on this message board suggests you should never have a gun.

The intellectual level of your posts suggests you spent most of your career giving blowjobs to inmates.

As I pointed out, your character flaws are clear and convincing evidence that background checks are seriously flawed, if you have a FFL.

I'm aware you're a liar, thus I seriously doubt you have such a license; and you are so dishonest, if you are licensed you likely will buy and sell guns on the black market.

Your posts make me think you are taking powerful psychotropic medications and have probably been institutionalized more than once.

 

[g5000]

Obama's EO will have little effect. It will not convert all the gun show private sellers into licensed dealers, and will therefore not close the "gun show loophole" and force private sellers into doing background checks.

It's lame. And it is lame because it would literally take an Act of Congress to close that loophole, and there is no way in hell Congress will do that, no matter how many dead kids you pile up on their steps.

Not only that, no one has ever shown that any of the high profile mass shootings are because of the gun show loophole.

It's like blaming a series of arsons on global warming.

"They both involve too much heat!"

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama's EO will have little effect. It will not convert all the gun show private sellers into licensed dealers, and will therefore not close the "gun show loophole" and force private sellers into doing background checks.

It's lame. And it is lame because it would literally take an Act of Congress to close that loophole, and there is no way in hell Congress will do that, no matter how many dead kids you pile up on their steps.

Its not a loophole. WHicj is why it is impossible to close it. And Congress lacks the authority to regulate this anyway.

 

[paulitician]

Yet another attack on the Constitution by a tyrant. But there will be more. He isn't done yet. He's still got a year left. It's gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

 

[g5000]

Obama's EO will have little effect. It will not convert all the gun show private sellers into licensed dealers, and will therefore not close the "gun show loophole" and force private sellers into doing background checks.

It's lame. And it is lame because it would literally take an Act of Congress to close that loophole, and there is no way in hell Congress will do that, no matter how many dead kids you pile up on their steps.

Its not a loophole. WHicj is why it is impossible to close it. And Congress lacks the authority to regulate this anyway.

It is a loophole. A very deliberate one which requires only "licensed dealers" to do background checks.

It's not impossible to close. It would be very easy to close.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You do realize the purpose of the Constitution that you claim to love was for We the People to establish a Federal Government?

Not any government though.

Only one established on certain unchangeable principles, principles that make it clear what a legitimate government is . . .

If the Federal Government violates the principles of its establishment it would no longer be --the government established by the Constitution-- it would be something else, and that would be cause for the people to rescind their consent to be governed, reclaim the powers they conferred through the Constitution and throw off the usurpers; using the means secured by the People in the 2nd Amendment if necessary.

That same Constitution provides for checks and balances as well as a judicial system to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Governement

Which part of the Constitution gives the judicial system the power to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Govt?

Article III gives the federal Courts the power to determine what is and is not legal in regards any action between a State and the Federal Government, a State and another State and a citizen and the Federal Government.

No. Article III lays out the power of the judiciary in adjudicating cases. It says nothing about hte constitutionality of any federal or state action.

It establishes that IN ANY legal dispute the Federal Court is the FINAL arbiter.Thus in any dispute between a citizen or the States and the federal Government the federal Courts DETERMINE what is and is NOT LEGAL and binding, thus it does in fact give to the Supreme Court the power to determine Federal Laws ARE OR ARE NOT constitutional.

 

[ogibillm]

Obama's EO will have little effect. It will not convert all the gun show private sellers into licensed dealers, and will therefore not close the "gun show loophole" and force private sellers into doing background checks.

It's lame. And it is lame because it would literally take an Act of Congress to close that loophole, and there is no way in hell Congress will do that, no matter how many dead kids you pile up on their steps.

Not only that, no one has ever shown that any of the high profile mass shootings are because of the gun show loophole.

It's like blaming a series of arsons on global warming.

"They both involve too much heat!"

It's important to remember that most shootings are not mass shootings.

 

[The Rabbi]

Obama's EO will have little effect. It will not convert all the gun show private sellers into licensed dealers, and will therefore not close the "gun show loophole" and force private sellers into doing background checks.

It's lame. And it is lame because it would literally take an Act of Congress to close that loophole, and there is no way in hell Congress will do that, no matter how many dead kids you pile up on their steps.

Its not a loophole. WHicj is why it is impossible to close it. And Congress lacks the authority to regulate this anyway.

It is a loophole. A very deliberate one which requires only "licensed dealers" to do background checks.

It's not impossible to close. It would be very easy to close.

Wrong.
It is not a loophole. Private individuals are free to sell their own property to whomever they want. Only licensees are required, and allowed, to do background checks. Non licenssees are neither required nor allowed to do them.
The fed gov lacks constitutional authority to require private individuals selling to other private individuals within their own state to use background checks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not any government though.

Only one established on certain unchangeable principles, principles that make it clear what a legitimate government is . . .

If the Federal Government violates the principles of its establishment it would no longer be --the government established by the Constitution-- it would be something else, and that would be cause for the people to rescind their consent to be governed, reclaim the powers they conferred through the Constitution and throw off the usurpers; using the means secured by the People in the 2nd Amendment if necessary.

That same Constitution provides for checks and balances as well as a judicial system to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Governement

Which part of the Constitution gives the judicial system the power to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Govt?

Article III gives the federal Courts the power to determine what is and is not legal in regards any action between a State and the Federal Government, a State and another State and a citizen and the Federal Government.

No. Article III lays out the power of the judiciary in adjudicating cases. It says nothing about hte constitutionality of any federal or state action.

It establishes that IN ANY legal dispute the Federal Court is the FINAL arbiter.Thus in any dispute between a citizen or the States and the federal Government the federal Courts DETERMINE what is and is NOT LEGAL and binding, thus it does in fact give to the Supreme Court the power to determine Federal Laws ARE OR ARE NOT constitutional.

Wrong. It simply lays out where the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction. It adjudicates claims between states and between states and the fed gov. That does not imply passing judgment on Constitutionality of laws.

 

[ogibillm]

Obama's EO will have little effect. It will not convert all the gun show private sellers into licensed dealers, and will therefore not close the "gun show loophole" and force private sellers into doing background checks.

It's lame. And it is lame because it would literally take an Act of Congress to close that loophole, and there is no way in hell Congress will do that, no matter how many dead kids you pile up on their steps.

Its not a loophole. WHicj is why it is impossible to close it. And Congress lacks the authority to regulate this anyway.

It is a loophole. A very deliberate one which requires only "licensed dealers" to do background checks.

It's not impossible to close. It would be very easy to close.

Wrong.
It is not a loophole. Private individuals are free to sell their own property to whomever they want. Only licensees are required, and allowed, to do background checks. Non licenssees are neither required nor allowed to do them.
The fed gov lacks constitutional authority to require private individuals selling to other private individuals within their own state to use background checks.

are you fuzzy on what 'loophole' means?

 

[ogibillm]

That same Constitution provides for checks and balances as well as a judicial system to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Governement

Which part of the Constitution gives the judicial system the power to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Govt?

Article III gives the federal Courts the power to determine what is and is not legal in regards any action between a State and the Federal Government, a State and another State and a citizen and the Federal Government.

No. Article III lays out the power of the judiciary in adjudicating cases. It says nothing about hte constitutionality of any federal or state action.

It establishes that IN ANY legal dispute the Federal Court is the FINAL arbiter.Thus in any dispute between a citizen or the States and the federal Government the federal Courts DETERMINE what is and is NOT LEGAL and binding, thus it does in fact give to the Supreme Court the power to determine Federal Laws ARE OR ARE NOT constitutional.

Wrong. It simply lays out where the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction. It adjudicates claims between states and between states and the fed gov. That does not imply passing judgment on Constitutionality of laws.

the Supremacy Clause plays a role

 

[RetiredGySgt]

That same Constitution provides for checks and balances as well as a judicial system to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Governement

Which part of the Constitution gives the judicial system the power to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Govt?

Article III gives the federal Courts the power to determine what is and is not legal in regards any action between a State and the Federal Government, a State and another State and a citizen and the Federal Government.

No. Article III lays out the power of the judiciary in adjudicating cases. It says nothing about hte constitutionality of any federal or state action.

It establishes that IN ANY legal dispute the Federal Court is the FINAL arbiter.Thus in any dispute between a citizen or the States and the federal Government the federal Courts DETERMINE what is and is NOT LEGAL and binding, thus it does in fact give to the Supreme Court the power to determine Federal Laws ARE OR ARE NOT constitutional.

Wrong. It simply lays out where the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction. It adjudicates claims between states and between states and the fed gov. That does not imply passing judgment on Constitutionality of laws.

Really, so if the Supreme Court agrees with a State that a federal law is not enforceable because it is illegal what does that mean?

 

[The Rabbi]

Which part of the Constitution gives the judicial system the power to rule on the Constitutionality of all actions of the Federal Govt?

Article III gives the federal Courts the power to determine what is and is not legal in regards any action between a State and the Federal Government, a State and another State and a citizen and the Federal Government.

No. Article III lays out the power of the judiciary in adjudicating cases. It says nothing about hte constitutionality of any federal or state action.

It establishes that IN ANY legal dispute the Federal Court is the FINAL arbiter.Thus in any dispute between a citizen or the States and the federal Government the federal Courts DETERMINE what is and is NOT LEGAL and binding, thus it does in fact give to the Supreme Court the power to determine Federal Laws ARE OR ARE NOT constitutional.

Wrong. It simply lays out where the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction. It adjudicates claims between states and between states and the fed gov. That does not imply passing judgment on Constitutionality of laws.

Really, so if the Supreme Court agrees with a State that a federal law is not enforceable because it is illegal what does that mean?

The state wins the case.
/next.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Article III gives the federal Courts the power to determine what is and is not legal in regards any action between a State and the Federal Government, a State and another State and a citizen and the Federal Government.

No. Article III lays out the power of the judiciary in adjudicating cases. It says nothing about hte constitutionality of any federal or state action.

It establishes that IN ANY legal dispute the Federal Court is the FINAL arbiter.Thus in any dispute between a citizen or the States and the federal Government the federal Courts DETERMINE what is and is NOT LEGAL and binding, thus it does in fact give to the Supreme Court the power to determine Federal Laws ARE OR ARE NOT constitutional.

Wrong. It simply lays out where the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction. It adjudicates claims between states and between states and the fed gov. That does not imply passing judgment on Constitutionality of laws.

Really, so if the Supreme Court agrees with a State that a federal law is not enforceable because it is illegal what does that mean?

The state wins the case.
/next.

And according to you the law stays on the books and is constitutional