Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 195

Thread: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

  1. #21
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,191

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    I'm consistent. I am against the school prayer ruling too..... Well, actually, I'd be for it if they allowed Pastafarianism in our schools. Talk Like a Pirate Day could become a real American tradition. ARRRRRR!!
    Yeah, I tend to think they should have taken this case and left the prayer thing alone. I don't particularly have a problem with the prayer ruling except that it's so toothless as to have no meaning. I would have liked to have seen this ruled on, but there may have been something with the case that we don't see.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  2. #22
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,691

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Paxaeon View Post
    `
    That's one popular position to take but that only adds a third reason why SCOTUS wisely stayed away....let the legislative branch do their job.
    Does that job include ignoring the US constitution?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #23
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,691

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by rocket88 View Post
    So the same people who are thrilled about the ruling on prayer are dismayed at the court bowing to "political pressure" on this one. I guess as long as it's your political pressure, it's OK.
    I assume that the prayer ruling referred to was that it is not establishing a state religion to allow various prayers to be said in the statehouse. Hardly a tough call on that. The idea that a state can mete out individual US constitutional rights only to selected citizens for a fee is also hardly a tough call.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    NE WI.
    Last Seen
    08-30-15 @ 03:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,029

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    `
    The judicial branch of the federal government has every constitutional right to decline to see a case. Congress is trying to force the judicial to do what they are elected to do: Pass laws.

  5. #25
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

    Discussion?

    Article is here.
    Even if you believe that there is a constitutional right to carry, this was probably the right choice of action. The problem is what any kind of ruling would have meant.

    Carry permits are issued by the state and local governments. If the courts would have ruled that NJ was not within their rights to insist on certain prerequisites then the court would be in essence nationalizing at least a portion of the conceal carry regulations. In otherwords, the court would unavoidably be legislating large amounts of policy all across the US.

    Local communities have a better sense of what constitutes common sense arms regulations than a national movement. Central Wyoming isn't the same as down town NYC. Communities should be allowed to set gun policy based on what makes sense for that area. I see the second amendment as saying that governments can't pass any weapon restrictions without compelling reason; and in the case of doubt error on the side of gun freedom. At the same time, courts shouldn't overrule local gun laws unless the laws serve no defensible purpose.

  6. #26
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Summerwind View Post
    I would add that to carry outside the home, one should also have full FBI variety background check, pass a required gun safety/handling/proficiency course, and register your firearm. This is what I had to do to get a CCW in Idaho, one of the reddest states in the country, well, I didn't have to register my handgun, but I think probably I should have been required to if I was going to carry such that if my gun and I got separated and the police arrived, the police would immediately know what they were looking for and what threat it might cause them.
    Why? Are you aware of any more gun incidents/accidents by people cc'ing their firearms in states without all that? Your neighbor, WA, requires almost none of that and there arent innocents being gunned down accidentally in the streets. I cant remember ever once reading of an incident like that out in public.

    We require no training, no test. Permits come in about a week.

    I do think it's interesting that the implication is that if it's not required, no one has/gets training. Cuz that is ridiculous. Many people who carry/own guns hunt, shoot for pleasure, grew up with guns, compete, voluntarily get training, any/all the above.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  7. #27
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,763

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Even if you believe that there is a constitutional right to carry, this was probably the right choice of action. The problem is what any kind of ruling would have meant.

    Carry permits are issued by the state and local governments. If the courts would have ruled that NJ was not within their rights to insist on certain prerequisites then the court would be in essence nationalizing at least a portion of the conceal carry regulations. In otherwords, the court would unavoidably be legislating large amounts of policy all across the US.

    Local communities have a better sense of what constitutes common sense arms regulations than a national movement. Central Wyoming isn't the same as down town NYC. Communities should be allowed to set gun policy based on what makes sense for that area. I see the second amendment as saying that governments can't pass any weapon restrictions without compelling reason; and in the case of doubt error on the side of gun freedom. At the same time, courts shouldn't overrule local gun laws unless the laws serve no defensible purpose.
    It's not about regulating policy. It's about leaving the Constitution alone. Screw the states. The constitution trumps them on the second amendment.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  8. #28
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:04 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    30,001

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Even if you believe that there is a constitutional right to carry, this was probably the right choice of action. The problem is what any kind of ruling would have meant.

    Carry permits are issued by the state and local governments. If the courts would have ruled that NJ was not within their rights to insist on certain prerequisites then the court would be in essence nationalizing at least a portion of the conceal carry regulations. In otherwords, the court would unavoidably be legislating large amounts of policy all across the US.

    Local communities have a better sense of what constitutes common sense arms regulations than a national movement. Central Wyoming isn't the same as down town NYC. Communities should be allowed to set gun policy based on what makes sense for that area. I see the second amendment as saying that governments can't pass any weapon restrictions without compelling reason; and in the case of doubt error on the side of gun freedom. At the same time, courts shouldn't overrule local gun laws unless the laws serve no defensible purpose.
    What? SCOTUS should come out and just say that Americans can *bear* arms in public, concealed or openly....just like the 2A clearly states when it uses the word 'bear.'
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  9. #29
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,691

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    Even if you believe that there is a constitutional right to carry, this was probably the right choice of action. The problem is what any kind of ruling would have meant.

    Carry permits are issued by the state and local governments. If the courts would have ruled that NJ was not within their rights to insist on certain prerequisites then the court would be in essence nationalizing at least a portion of the conceal carry regulations. In otherwords, the court would unavoidably be legislating large amounts of policy all across the US.

    Local communities have a better sense of what constitutes common sense arms regulations than a national movement. Central Wyoming isn't the same as down town NYC. Communities should be allowed to set gun policy based on what makes sense for that area. I see the second amendment as saying that governments can't pass any weapon restrictions without compelling reason; and in the case of doubt error on the side of gun freedom. At the same time, courts shouldn't overrule local gun laws unless the laws serve no defensible purpose.
    That makes no sense at all. Constitutional carry should not vary in each town, county or state. What other individual constitutional rights do you feel should be granted only by "may issue" permits and a after paying a non-refundable application fee? Perhaps "have an attorney present during police questioning" permits would bring in some much needed revenue, after all, that right only applies to criminals.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #30
    Educator voyager1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    05-23-16 @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    974

    Re: U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

    I am a gun owner. I have never open carried. Honestly I don't think having to conceal the weapon is an infringement. It doesn't prevent you from owning the weapon.

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •