Why would anyone object to Virginia’s new gun laws?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Absolutely there is nothing in those laws that any rational person should find objectionable. It is about the public safety. Given comments on this board and others by right-wingers these are people that should not be anywhere near dangerous objects much less guns.

And your plan on getting CRIMINALS to obey these new laws????

Is what?

The same as your plan to stop women from having abortions once abortion is banned.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The laws are interpreted based on the constitution. They are defined by congress when they are written.

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

A law is constitutional until it is declared otherwise

Go for it

You need to go the **** back to law school.

A law that is, on its face, directly in conflict with the constitution, is unconstitutional, PERIOD. Other laws are subject to judicial review.

Thus, any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is FACIALLY in direct conflict with the constitution. Thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. **** judicial review.

.

A law is innocent until proven guilty

Once passed, it becomes the law of the land. If you disagree with it, you can go to court to have it declared unconstitutional

There is no other path

 

[Chuz Life]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

Absolutely there is nothing in those laws that any rational person should find objectionable. It is about the public safety. Given comments on this board and others by right-wingers these are people that should not be anywhere near dangerous objects much less guns.

And your plan on getting CRIMINALS to obey these new laws????

Is what?

The same as your plan to stop women from having abortions once abortion is banned.

You poor feeble minded simpleton.

Adult minded people know better than to expect that the mere passing of a law will keep women from killing their children with abortions.

The purpose of the law is not to "control" behavior. Not even when behaviors are out of control.

The purpose of a law is to make punishable the behaviors that violate the rights of others.

The legal arguments can easily be made that an abortion VIOLATES the rights and lives of the children killed.

Whos rights does the purchase of or ownership of a gun, violate?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The reason is simple

End straw buyers who buy guns for felons

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

But we already have thousands of gun laws on the books that we do not enforce so what makes you think one more law that will not be enforced is going to make any difference?

Name one

Did you know that every instance of illegal firearm possession is a federal crime and punishable by 5 years in federal prison?

That law is NEVER enforced

Wrong.

Curwensville Felon Charged with Federal Firearms Law Violation | GantNews.com

More Than Thirty Charged Across Eastern Iowa With Federal Gun Law Violations

Wilkinsburg Felon Charged with Federal Drug and Gun Law Violations

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, dope. Your argument has gone way in the weeds.
Laws are ruled as either constitutional or not based on the interpretation of the constitution made by SCOTUS.

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

The second amendment states
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th amendment says laws must be equal

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are done.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

But we already have thousands of gun laws on the books that we do not enforce so what makes you think one more law that will not be enforced is going to make any difference?

Name one

Did you know that every instance of illegal firearm possession is a federal crime and punishable by 5 years in federal prison?

That law is NEVER enforced

Wrong.

Curwensville Felon Charged with Federal Firearms Law Violation | GantNews.com

More Than Thirty Charged Across Eastern Iowa With Federal Gun Law Violations

Wilkinsburg Felon Charged with Federal Drug and Gun Law Violations

You ain't never been right

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And SCOTUS can be wrong. Plessey shows us that. SCOTUS give opinions nothing more, they may be binding at the time, but they are not the end all be all.

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

The second amendment states
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th amendment says laws must be equal

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are done.

lol

You are ignorant and ridiculous.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, or registration requirements – all three of these measures are perfectly consistent with the Constitution and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Are these bad, ineffective laws? Of course they are; but that a law might be bad or ineffective doesn’t render it un-Constitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

The second amendment states
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th amendment says laws must be equal

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are done.

lol

You are ignorant and ridiculous.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, or registration requirements – all three of these measures are perfectly consistent with the Constitution and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Are these bad, ineffective laws? Of course they are; but that a law might be bad or ineffective doesn’t render it un-Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled that weapons useful for a militia are protected
Your opinion is just like a dry well it's worthless
Make your case stop showing your ignorant opinion.

 

[rightwinger]

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

The second amendment states
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th amendment says laws must be equal

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are done.

lol

You are ignorant and ridiculous.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, or registration requirements – all three of these measures are perfectly consistent with the Constitution and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Are these bad, ineffective laws? Of course they are; but that a law might be bad or ineffective doesn’t render it un-Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled that weapons useful for a militia are protected
Your opinion is just like a dry well it's worthless
Make your case stop showing your ignorant opinion.

Which ruling is that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

The second amendment states
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th amendment says laws must be equal

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are done.

lol

You are ignorant and ridiculous.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, or registration requirements – all three of these measures are perfectly consistent with the Constitution and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Are these bad, ineffective laws? Of course they are; but that a law might be bad or ineffective doesn’t render it un-Constitutional.

The Supreme Court has ruled that weapons useful for a militia are protected
Your opinion is just like a dry well it's worthless
Make your case stop showing your ignorant opinion.

Which ruling is that?

Damn dumbass all you have to do is read the earlier post link to this post to see which case is that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A law is constitutional until it is declared otherwise

Go for it

You need to go the **** back to law school.

A law that is, on its face, directly in conflict with the constitution, is unconstitutional, PERIOD. Other laws are subject to judicial review.

Thus, any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is FACIALLY in direct conflict with the constitution. Thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. **** judicial review.

.

A law is innocent until proven guilty

Once passed, it becomes the law of the land. If you disagree with it, you can go to court to have it declared unconstitutional

There is no other path

Wrong

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Straw-man / improper description. You are not asking for permission to sell or transfer. You (by compliance) are insuring, you are not transferring to a known risk, doing your part to prevent you having something to do with supporting domestic or international terrorism, criminal activity, or passing weapons to those mentally or emotionally unfit to be trusted with them. If your neighbor left his loaded gun available for his kid, who got mad and shot your kid, would you hold your neighbor responsible? Same in society. You are morally or legally responsible for every bullet you fire or weapon that leaves your control at least for first level.

You want to make me liable for the illegal actions of a third party?

How far do we go with that? If I sell a car to a person who likes to drink and drive, now I am responsible when said drunk kills someone with the car I sold him?

.

If you applied due diligence to do s background check then you are not liable

But if you ignored a check and a criminal uses your gun. Then I hope you go to jail

And yet, you are in full support of Sanctuary policies that grant VIOLENT offenders the ability to laugh at the law and commit the same or worse crime (including murder and rape) over and over and over.

Hypocrisy much?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Bottom line....they most definitely are out to disarm America. Everything they say to cover that is smokescreen.
If we allow them, then we'll get exactly what we deserve.

If the Lunatic Left REALLY cared one iota about safety, would they be hell bent on Sanctuary cities which protect violent criminals and absolutely insane leniency for violent offenders?

The day they round up the guns is the exact same day they will put them to your head.

 

[Blues Man]

Never going to happen

How many laws do we have that make it illegal to sell prescription drugs on the street?

Has that stopped it?

No.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just because a law does not stop something completely doesn’t mean we should not have laws at all

People still drive drunk. But strict drunk driving laws have significantly reduced the practice

But we already have thousands of gun laws on the books that we do not enforce so what makes you think one more law that will not be enforced is going to make any difference?

Name one

Did you know that every instance of illegal firearm possession is a federal crime and punishable by 5 years in federal prison?

That law is NEVER enforced

Wrong.

Curwensville Felon Charged with Federal Firearms Law Violation | GantNews.com

More Than Thirty Charged Across Eastern Iowa With Federal Gun Law Violations

Wilkinsburg Felon Charged with Federal Drug and Gun Law Violations

What about the hundreds of gun charges dropped

All instances of the illegal possession of firearms are federal offenses

Your example is statistically insignificant

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[iceberg]

Sensible legislation

Virginia gun laws: What sparked Richmond gun rally tied to neo-Nazis?

Three bills passed the state Senate on Thursday: A limit to one handgun purchase per month, a requirement for universal background checks on gun sales and a rule allowing localities to ban guns in some public areas.

And how fo these steps address a gun violence issue?

 

[rightwinger]

A law is constitutional until it is declared otherwise

Go for it

You need to go the **** back to law school.

A law that is, on its face, directly in conflict with the constitution, is unconstitutional, PERIOD. Other laws are subject to judicial review.

Thus, any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is FACIALLY in direct conflict with the constitution. Thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. **** judicial review.

.

A law is innocent until proven guilty

Once passed, it becomes the law of the land. If you disagree with it, you can go to court to have it declared unconstitutional

There is no other path

Wrong

Fraid not

That is how it works....Courts get to decide something is unconstitutional
Not internet posters

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A law is constitutional until it is declared otherwise

Go for it

You need to go the **** back to law school.

A law that is, on its face, directly in conflict with the constitution, is unconstitutional, PERIOD. Other laws are subject to judicial review.

Thus, any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is FACIALLY in direct conflict with the constitution. Thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. **** judicial review.

.

A law is innocent until proven guilty

Once passed, it becomes the law of the land. If you disagree with it, you can go to court to have it declared unconstitutional

There is no other path

Wrong

Fraid not

That is how it works....Courts get to decide something is unconstitutional
Not internet posters

ok internet poster
Marbury vs Madison

 

[rightwinger]

A law is constitutional until it is declared otherwise

Go for it

You need to go the **** back to law school.

A law that is, on its face, directly in conflict with the constitution, is unconstitutional, PERIOD. Other laws are subject to judicial review.

Thus, any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is FACIALLY in direct conflict with the constitution. Thus, UNCONSTITUTIONAL. **** judicial review.

.

A law is innocent until proven guilty

Once passed, it becomes the law of the land. If you disagree with it, you can go to court to have it declared unconstitutional

There is no other path

Wrong

Fraid not

That is how it works....Courts get to decide something is unconstitutional
Not internet posters

ok internet poster
Marbury vs Madison

Exactly

And the court gets to decide what is contrary to the constitution

 

[martybegan]

As evidenced by the number of rulings that have been reversed

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

Derp.....
Until it's reversed, it's the law.

DERP any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void Mulberry vs Madison

And AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and registration requirements are not contrary to the Constitution.

The supreme court U.S. vs Miller 1939 ruled that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

So tell me what firearm is there that is in common use that would have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia?

The second amendment states
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The 14th amendment says laws must be equal

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are done.

lol

You are ignorant and ridiculous.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, or registration requirements – all three of these measures are perfectly consistent with the Constitution and in no manner violate the Second Amendment.

Are these bad, ineffective laws? Of course they are; but that a law might be bad or ineffective doesn’t render it un-Constitutional.

How are they not infringement?