|
|
Post by moose1am on Oct 11, 2015 21:03:21 GMT -5
www.msnbc.com/msnbc/assault-weapons-ban-us-supreme-court
www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/assault-weapon-ban-u-s-supreme-court-n442056?cid=sm_tw&hootPostID=223c66883f3f215efa5c8277c47ab761
Let us all hope and pray that the US Supreme Court may take up and vote to disallow these AR15 and magazine capacity laws that are against the US Constitution. These laws are plainly against the US Constitution IMHO and a way to bypass changing the US Constitution by trying to amend it. Instead of trying to change the constitution properly they simply ignore it and pass illegal laws anyway. I'm not in favor of these type of laws. I'm all for the right to bear arms and always have been. I wish that more democrats would think this way instead of being afraid of guns and trying to pass laws to ban guns. This is becoming a more major issue with me these days. I've always owned guns since I was 8 years old and hunted all my life. I'm not a member of the NRA ... yet but I may have to join if this keeps up. This is the one main issue that I disagree with the Dems.
But the only way to really stop them from doing this is up to the US Supreme Court Justices. Hopefully they will not try to make new law and just rule this city bans unconstitutional as they should be.
If these people wish to ban Modern Sporting Arms they need to get together and try to change the US Constitution which very clearly gave the citizens of the United States the Right to bear arms without any restrictions on that right.
Back in 1776 they didn't say that the people could not use the most modern firearms of the day back then. No they allowed everyone to take up the most modern arms of their day. The same applies today until they change the US Constitution the proper way. The founding fathers took time to give us these rights and they also made it very hard to change the US Constitution in order to preserve those rights to bear arms and other rights such as free speech and freedom of the press. |
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Oct 11, 2015 22:41:21 GMT -5
Yep, and they wrote these rights so we could fight against future governments trying to take them away from us.
They won't have to change the Constitution. The Supreme Court will allow a tax in the same way they allowed the penalty for not having Obamacare. They can tax ammo or guns to where most people can't afford them. They can tackle the mental issue with not allowing anyone on an antidepressant to own a gun. This would impact a lot of people, military, police and others may lose their job for taking antidepressants.
It will get uglier as this fear you speak of is strongly influenced by left-wing propaganda through the media. They actually believe we will be safer with guns outlawed. No, the left-winger politicians don't; they're not stupid like the public. They want to control us and the only way to really do it is to take away our ability to overthrow them. This is what it's all about, and our forefathers had the foresight to know it would happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Oct 12, 2015 6:35:09 GMT -5
Hmmm........I'm going to guess they don't take the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by trapperdave on Oct 12, 2015 7:03:07 GMT -5
the courts have been flipping states antigun laws left and right the past few years....i dont see this playing out the way the gun grabbers want it to  |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Oct 12, 2015 7:51:19 GMT -5
Im not sure if I want them to hear this one now or not ....
We had DC vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago but we need another case that establishes the 2nd applies to individuals outside of their homes. Im confident when the right case comes before the SCOTUS that the case will be won ....
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Oct 17, 2015 11:14:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Oct 22, 2015 18:31:18 GMT -5
The case is Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 15-133 www.grandviewoutdoors.com/guns/supreme-court-could-rule-on-assault-weapon-bans/The right to bear arms should extend to all places and all types of arms until the US Congress and the States vote to change the 2nd amendment. And that won't happen IMHO. What will happen is the city's and states will individually try to continue to ban arms of all types and ignore the 2nd amendment. It's up to the US Supreme Court Justices to take up this case and once and for all decide what the 2nd amendment actually says. I know what it says. It's clear as a bell. The Courts need to stand up and give us back the 2nd Amendment for good. The city's and States need to stop tying to take our guns away. |
|
|
|
Post by BOWn Hunter on Oct 26, 2015 11:51:25 GMT -5
Taking guns is only going to affect us law abiding citizens. Won't bother the criminals in the least. In fact they're probably for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Dec 7, 2015 10:45:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Dec 7, 2015 10:53:10 GMT -5
The latest with Obama saying that people on the No-fly list should be banned from owning a gun made my jaw drop. I seriously cannot believe he would say that. Lost all respect for him.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Dec 7, 2015 12:12:51 GMT -5
The latest with Obama saying that people on the No-fly list should be banned from owning a gun made my jaw drop. I seriously cannot believe he would say that. Lost all respect for him. Also, many people, on the "No-fly" list, HAVE the same names as those who have no record and not even a terrorist.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2015 12:33:01 GMT -5
Taking guns is only going to affect us law abiding citizens. Won't bother the criminals in the least. In fact they're probably for it. Very true. Something I can't seem to get through to my most liberal friends. They always become exasperated and say, "Well, we have to do SOMETHING!" They mean well, but they are looking in the wrong direction for the answers. |
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 7, 2015 13:03:24 GMT -5
Speaking of the no fly list thing ..... I wonder if this is really how a conversation with him would go? What other answer would he give? The list is a joke ... its bad enough it is used to keep folks from flying but it would be something else entirely to prohibit them from buying a gun. If the list were reliable and fool proof I'd give it a maybe .... but its anything but reliable and fool proof.
"Mr. President, if the people on that list are suspected terrorists then why dont we just arrest them?"
"Well, they have not done anything wrong in the eyes of the law and the 4th Amendment protects them from being questioned or detained without just cause"
"So there is no reason they shoudlnt be able to purchase a firearm then?"
"Well, they are suspected terrorists and there is no good reason for them to be allowed to purchase a firearm"
"Mr. President, if the people on that list are suspected terrorists then why dont we just arrest them?"
"Well, they have not done anything wrong in the eyes of the law and the 4th Amendment protects them from being questioned or detained without just cause"
"So there is no reason they shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm then?"
"Well, they are suspected terrorists and there is no good reason for them to be allowed to purchase a firearm"
Repeat ... again and again.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Dec 7, 2015 13:13:32 GMT -5
I'm a bit lost on the complaint that we can buy a gun on line without a background check. Sure, I can buy them all day, but I can't get them unless I go through a FFL and he does the background check. Is this correct, or is there an easier way to buy on line?
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Dec 7, 2015 13:19:51 GMT -5
You mean to buy online and have it shipped directly to you without the 4473?
Not legally.
Unless of course they were made in 1898 or prior .....
|
|
|
|
Post by chubwub on Dec 7, 2015 15:28:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Dec 7, 2015 15:43:43 GMT -5
As soon as a bill like this is passed the "no fly list" will quadruple over night.. if not more. That is not due process in denying gun ownership. |
|
|
|
Post by parson on Dec 7, 2015 17:31:47 GMT -5
I can see the "mental health" thing becoming a basis for disallowing gun ownership. Family Dr. asks something like "Have you ever been bothered by depression?" Then you go on "the list"!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jamie Brooks 1John5:13 on Dec 7, 2015 17:49:56 GMT -5
I can see the "mental health" thing becoming a basis for disallowing gun ownership. Family Dr. asks something like "Have you ever been bothered by depression?" Then you go on "the list"! or everyone taking an antidepressant going on a list. Can you imagine how many military people who will have to quit or police officers? I've said it before that I have taken one for 15 years and not entertained the thought of shooting someone. Getting someone in a headlock is different. |
|
|
|
Post by parson on Dec 7, 2015 20:31:39 GMT -5
I can see the "mental health" thing becoming a basis for disallowing gun ownership. Family Dr. asks something like "Have you ever been bothered by depression?" Then you go on "the list"! or everyone taking an antidepressant going on a list. Can you imagine how many military people who will have to quit or police officers? I've said it before that I have taken one for 15 years and not entertained the thought of shooting someone. Getting someone in a headlock is different. Exactly! There are most certainly those who prefer "subjects" over "citizens", and they are looking for a way around that pesky ol' 2nd amendment that stands squarely in their way! |
|
