Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 195

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

  1. #51
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I'd say that would fall into the criminal negligence category. If I have a gun free zone and I don't bother to provide any security when there are known threats then sure.. the governing body is at least partially responsible. (I'd not make it 100% as the actual shooter/rapist/robber still bears a good bit of the blame).

    But once we acknowledge that the government must be allowed to regulate arms; we have to start thinking about how much they should be allowed to regulate and who gets to make the final determination as to what's the right amount and what's too much. Honest people are going to have honest disagreements about what that is. eg.. can the permitting authority mandate that you have to take an instructional class before you can conceal carry? Does a blind person have a right to conceal carry a handgun? But someone is going to have to make that determination. I'd rather that be a few of my neighbors rather than 5 people I've never met on a bench in DC.
    The gov't then has 100% of the blame for those required to be unarmed becoming easier crime victims. If armed self defense is altered from a right to a crime in that zone then it is 100% due to the gov't (or whoever defined the zone) that you are not able to be armed. This is what is always ignored by the 2A "reasonable restriction" folks. Once you define a "gun free zone" then only the law abiding are unarmed within it.
    “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

  2. #52
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Several errors in logic here. Yes, everyone (adult and not under a court order) has that and every other constitutional right. Rights are what we all have unless taken away by due process of law. Driving (on public roadways) is a state issued privilege - nobody has that "right" (actually a privilege) until and unless the state grants it. That, in a nut shell, is the difference between a right and a privilege.
    But that's exactly my point! We like the idea of the right to a concealed carry permit. That means you aren't allowed to concealed carry until you prove that you're capable of safely carrying a deadly weapon. The ability to carry doesn't come first.

    Gun owners are incredibly focused on the safe handling of weapons. I don't know anyone who carries who couldn't lecture for hours on the proper way to store a gun. They know their stuff, they're very capable, and they're proud of what they know. Do we really want gun ownership to move from that to anyone and everyone regardless of what they know? Should someone be able to buy a handgun and some hollowpoints on amazon and walk down the street with it two days later having never fired a gun in their life?

  3. #53
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,494

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    But what is constitutional carry? That's the point I was trying to get at.

    Can a community require you to take a class or pass a test before giving you a conceal carry licence? Can they charge a fee? When you get down to it, you don't need a permit to do anything that's constitutionally protected. So saying that conceal carry is a constitutional right essentially means that the entire conceal carry permit process is unconstitutional in every jurisdiction. That's a scary thought. Because lets face it, no one thinks that everyone should have a gun.

    Gun enthusiasts may be very pro second amendment, but they're also VERY pro safety. Talk to anyone with a gun and they can spend hours telling you the proper way to load, store, clean, stand, fire, etc.. IMO, everyone has a right to carry the same way that everyone has a right to drive a car. If you do it right, the government should leave you the hell alone. Do it wrong, endanger your neighbors, and yeah... please take that guys gun away.
    The issue here isn't requirements for training or licensing. It's "may issue" vs "shall issue". In "may issue" jurisdictions - like NJ - the licensing authority can deny an application for pretty much any reason whatsoever. If the licensing authority simply thinks that no citizen should ever be allowed to carry a firearm that's justification enough to deny every application. In a "shall issue" jurisdiction the license must be issue to anyone who isn't in a excluded class of citizen - typically the mentally ill and convicted felons (or sometimes violent felons).
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  4. #54
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,954

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think communities have the right to regulate arms providing the regulations serve a justifiable public benefit. There's nothing random about it.
    For instance, WA has a state constitution and it prohibits communities from specifically creating their own gun laws. This came up a few yrs ago when Seattle tried to prohibit guns from community centers and parks. It was challenged and shot down because it was unConstitutional under the state const.

    It's an undue burden on people to have to be responsible for knowing a million separate regulations and laws per community. The state Const. is protecting gun owners rights and preventing communities (not private businesses) from restricting our gun rights.
    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.

  5. #55
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,650

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    But that's exactly my point! We like the idea of the right to a concealed carry permit. That means you aren't allowed to concealed carry until you prove that you're capable of safely carrying a deadly weapon. The ability to carry doesn't come first.

    Gun owners are incredibly focused on the safe handling of weapons. I don't know anyone who carries who couldn't lecture for hours on the proper way to store a gun. They know their stuff, they're very capable, and they're proud of what they know. Do we really want gun ownership to move from that to anyone and everyone regardless of what they know? Should someone be able to buy a handgun and some hollowpoints on amazon and walk down the street with it two days later having never fired a gun in their life?
    Nonsense. The words concealed and handgun appear nowhere in the 2A while the words keep and bear (carry) do. There is no knowledge test for any other constitutional right. If you want gun education taught in public schools then, by all means, do so but, even then, to assert that only the "properly educated" have rights is also unconstitutional.

    Did the founding fathers not understand that not everyone was trained in gun use and of sound mind? Did these founding fathers live in a fantasy land and not foresee guns used in criminal acts? Of course, not - guns, morons and criminals are not something new or found only in NJ.
    “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

  6. #56
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    For instance, WA has a state constitution and it prohibits communities from specifically creating their own gun laws. This came up a few yrs ago when Seattle tried to prohibit guns from community centers and parks. It was challenged and shot down because it was unConstitutional under the state const.

    It's an undue burden on people to have to be responsible for knowing a million separate regulations and laws per community. The state Const. is protecting gun owners rights and preventing communities (not private businesses) from restricting our gun rights.
    That's what the people of Washington decided. I don't have a problem with that. Other states need different regulations. New York City isn't the same as upstate NY.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,954

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    But that's exactly my point! We like the idea of the right to a concealed carry permit. That means you aren't allowed to concealed carry until you prove that you're capable of safely carrying a deadly weapon. The ability to carry doesn't come first.

    Gun owners are incredibly focused on the safe handling of weapons. I don't know anyone who carries who couldn't lecture for hours on the proper way to store a gun. They know their stuff, they're very capable, and they're proud of what they know. Do we really want gun ownership to move from that to anyone and everyone regardless of what they know? Should someone be able to buy a handgun and some hollowpoints on amazon and walk down the street with it two days later having never fired a gun in their life?
    Who likes the idea of cc permits? Several states now do not require them. No blood in the streets yet.

    And who says someone shouldnt buy a gun, hollowpoints, and walk down the street, all brandy new? I had my permit after a (voluntary) 2 hour ladies handgun class and had my permit before my 9mm even came in the mail. I shot it at the FFL/range where it came in, re-loaded it, and off I went to Wally World in search of cheap FMJ to practice with.

    I did commit to training, still do it....but it's not up to you or anyone else to assume people are just irresponsible because they dont meet your comfort level of training or attitude. It's a *right*.
    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.

  8. #58
    Hot Flash Mama
    Summerwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Last Seen
    01-23-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,010

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Lursa View Post
    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.
    When I was cc'd in Vancouver WA before moving to Idaho, I went through training and a background check. Now is that because it was a police officer down the street who assisted me in getting cc'd or was it the law? That I can't say for sure. I assumed it was the law. Nonetheless, there's never a harm in requiring people who legally want to be able to operate a deadly machine in a public place to take a test to show reasonable knowledge of the laws, the policies, and the operation of said machine.
    jallman: "It's all good. At least you have a thick skin and can take being poked fun back at without crying. "

  9. #59
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Nonsense. The words concealed and handgun appear nowhere in the 2A while the words keep and bear (carry) do. There is no knowledge test for any other constitutional right. If you want gun education taught in public schools then, by all means, do so but, even then, to assert that only the "properly educated" have rights is also unconstitutional.

    Did the founding fathers not understand that not everyone was trained in gun use and of sound mind? Did these founding fathers live in a fantasy land and not foresee guns used in criminal acts? Of course, not - guns, morons and criminals are not something new or found only in NJ.
    But the words "well regulated" do. I think there's a huge difference between what should the gun laws be and what should the gun laws be allowed to be. IMO, SCOTUS isn't the place to make gun laws.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,954

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    That's what the people of Washington decided. I don't have a problem with that. Other states need different regulations. New York City isn't the same as upstate NY.
    States and communities are 2 very different things which you keep avoiding. And I dont think NYC should have different gun laws than the rest of the state.
    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.

Page 6 of 20 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... 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
  •