Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 288

Thread: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

  1. #121
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,640

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by ChezC3 View Post
    Another poor decision of the SCOTUS.

    Preventing the buying of a gift or buying for another LEGAL gun owner was never the intention of said law.
    I just browsed the decision and, to my reading, it doesn't change anything about buying a firearm as a gift.

    Abramski answered "Yes" to question 11.a when he was well aware that he should have answered "no". His purchase tied exactly back to the example in the instructions so, it's pretty much a no brainer that he was wrong.

    Now, if the issue were whether or not that question should even be asked we're talking about a whole different thing.

  2. #122
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:33 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,640

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    Please define 'prohibited person.'

    The GCA of 1968 defines a prohibited person as:
    The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC 922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful. 18 USC 922(d).

    These categories include any person:

    Under indictment or information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

    convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

    who is a fugitive from justice;

    who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;

    who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

    who is an illegal alien;

    who has been discharged from the military under dishonorable conditions;

    who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

    who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

    who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Except they are not unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment has a phrase 'unreasonable searches' which gives the court leeway to decide what is and isn't reasonable depending on the type of search. Forcing local Law Enforcement to run back round checks was ruled unconstitutional in '97, now with the NICS it is a Federal system... not so much.

    But if you have a court ruling saying point of sale back round checks are unconstitutional....
    As you just said, probable cause is required to run the check. Simply buying an item which is generaly legal to own isn't probable cause that the buyer is committing a crime. This means the courts are as wrong as when they upheld slavory and said the right to vote doesn't apply to women.

    Relying on faulty county rulings doesn't serve you. I suggest taking a grain of salt when you read their gospel and use a bit of independant thought.
    Last edited by Jerry; 06-16-14 at 07:03 PM.

  4. #124
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    No need to be sorry, but you are wrong- again...

    I did read the Preamble, certain states did ask for a set of Rights be listed- (Madison was against this until the Anti's lead by Patrick Henry, among others, made a huge stink about refusing to ratify without more protections)
    Madison was against a bill of rights, because he stated the constitution itself was already a bill of rights, because it granted the federal government no authority into the lives of the people.

    it is george mason who insisted on a bill of rights, and he is the father of them.

    to get the anti-federalist on board, Madison agreed to write a bill of rights, to create further protections for the people......by restricting the federal government.

    so here is the truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    Sadly for you the Courts don't see it your way. The Preamble is a simple explanation of why 10 amendments are being offered after the fact. No where does the Preamble say "make no law". The 2nd A doesn't say "make no law'.

    the preamble states all the clauses are declaratory and RESTRICTIVE Clauses placed on the federal government, ...DID YOU NOT READ MADISON WHO WROTE THEM?

    James Madison- In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Congress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain amendments, --->[BILL OF RIGHTS] which have since, by the necessary ratifications, been made a part of it; among which amendments is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the Congress, an express declaration that they should make no law abridging the freedom of the press.

    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    You are quoting Madison once more but again NOT one of his writings were ratified by the proper number of States on what the Constitution 'really' means and what the intent 'really' is.
    oh, would you believe the founders then at the constitutional convention..........WHEN THEY SAY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT[CONGRESS] HAS NO LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OFF OF FEDERAL PROPERTY.........constitutional notes, taken Sept 5 1787


    Quote Originally Posted by notquiteright View Post
    You can attempt to spin it for as long as you wish, but until you become a Court of One with a higher position than the Supremes you are just one guy with a luger...
    this shows you are interested in how the court rules and not what the constitution says.
    Last edited by Master PO; 06-16-14 at 07:00 PM.

  5. #125
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    What would constitute 'failing a background check?'
    List.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    i don't understand what the 4th, has to do with firearms purchase.

    the 4th is to be secure in person and property........the government has to have a warrant from a judge, because they cannot do just a general search it must be a defined search for an item and place......where is firearms in that.
    Google "NICS" for information on the conection.

  7. #127
    Relentless Thinking Fury
    ChezC3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,123

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    I just browsed the decision and, to my reading, it doesn't change anything about buying a firearm as a gift.

    Abramski answered "Yes" to question 11.a when he was well aware that he should have answered "no". His purchase tied exactly back to the example in the instructions so, it's pretty much a no brainer that he was wrong.

    Now, if the issue were whether or not that question should even be asked we're talking about a whole different thing.
    Yeah, I read the decision in brief and he was wrong, he even first said he was buying for another, trying to use a police discount, my contention I suppose would be with the latter part of your post.

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    What would constitute 'failing a background check?'
    Recieving a "hold" or "deny" responce from NICS during the sale of the firearm.

  9. #129
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Google "NICS" for information on the conection.
    i still don't get the connection on the 4th and a firearm purchase.

    the 4th states a warrant must be gotten to do a search, that search must be defined, and subject to a certain place, it cannot be a generality.

  10. #130
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    The GCA of 1968 defines a prohibited person as:
    Thanks. Much appreciated.

    What we are seeing right now are a lot of soldiers with PTSD who will not get the help they need because they think they won't be able to own a gun. Under this act, the person would have had to be 'adjudicated' which is a whole other level above just going to the VA for meds or counseling. The remaining issue with the 'adjudicated' thing is that once the person is treated and released from the mental institution he is supposed to be medically stable. Many people voluntarily sign in to mental institutions, and they are every bit as sick as those who have been 'adjudicated' as mental 'defectives.' Man, there was a time I thought mental illness would no longer carry any stigma. If that happens it will not be in my lifetime. Many people have one episode, get committed (adjudicated by a judge), stabilized, discharged, and then maintain their mental health for the remainder of their lives with no further inpatient treatment. This is just so wrong for someone like that to be denied second amendment rights. It is also so very wrong for people who have defended our country to be called 'lone wolf terrorists' and labeled by the government they served. Many of the mass shootings that occur do not involve veterans. Many of the people who perpetrate those crimes have some history of inadequate treatment. This too is a travesty.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 3111213141523 ... 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
  •