Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 288

Thread: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

  1. #131
    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
    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.
    Well, someone will inherit mine when I die, as will be the case with all gun owners.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  2. #132
    Guru
    RogueWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Atheist Utopia aka Reality
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 10:47 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,631

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    The GCA of 1968 defines a prohibited person as:
    Whenever I see this list of infringements, I think of the text of the 2nd:

    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.
    I always seem to miss the 'except...' part. Where is it?
    Everyone is born a homo sapiens sapiens but not everyone is a human. -RW
    Trumplethinskin! 4 handicap and getting better every weekend!
    Alex Jones for Press Secretary!!!!!!


  3. #133
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,640

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    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.
    That was my first (and still my foremost) concern with Obamacare. The ACA sets up a structure where being adjudicated mentally incompetent for the purposes of owning a firearm can be as simple as some bureaucrat checking a box.

  4. #134
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,640

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by RogueWarrior View Post
    Whenever I see this list of infringements, I think of the text of the 2nd:



    I always seem to miss the 'except...' part. Where is it?
    While I won't dispute that these are infringements I will note that they are all based on prior acts and not a presumption of guilt upon the transferee. Such restrictions are, historically, reasonable under the law.

  5. #135
    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 RogueWarrior View Post
    Whenever I see this list of infringements, I think of the text of the 2nd:



    I always seem to miss the 'except...' part. Where is it?
    well one thing to always remember the 2nd amendment is not a power given the federal government....its a restriction on them.

  6. #136
    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 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.
    When you buy a firearm from an FFL , an NICS serch is performed on you. NICS is a warrantless serch without probable cause. That's illegal. The 4th Amendment is what makes that illegal.

  7. #137
    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
    That was my first (and still my foremost) concern with Obamacare. The ACA sets up a structure where being adjudicated mentally incompetent for the purposes of owning a firearm can be as simple as some bureaucrat checking a box.
    "Adjudication" in the legal sense refers to a court action. I do know what you are talking about, though on those forms. I think that is a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. People simply don't understand mental illness. If you are on a sleep aid, you could lose your right to own a gun. There are a lot of non addicting medications which can be used as sleep aids, but a person who is on one of them cannot get a CDL because they fall in the classes of antidepressants and antipsychotics. Mental illness is generally misunderstood.

    I think that making a clinician decide if a person is safe to own a gun based on ONE mental health center visit is patently dangerous for the clinician. The first consideration of the clinician is going to be liability and maintenance of his or her license, not the civil rights of the patient. And the above and beyond that, HIPAA and all the privacy stuff has taken the medical world by storm. In psychiatry records have ALWAYS been confidential. I think requiring this level of reporting to the government on people who seek mental health treatment, and the vast majority out there have mild illnesses treated with mild drugs, is unethical and a violation of the person's civil rights. What this means is that if you take a little Sinequan (non scheduled drug) to help you sleep, you would not be able to own a gun. Also, there are scheduled drugs that are not for anything psychiatric. One I'm thinking of is Lomotil a schedule 5 drug due to the belladonna that it contains. You could get your gun rights pulled because you have diarrhea!
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  8. #138
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Melbourne Florida
    Last Seen
    04-18-17 @ 03:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    16,763

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by HenryChinaski View Post
    Most of the gang murders here in Chicago are committed with straw purchase weapons. They're bought legally and then knowingly sold to gang members for the sole purpose of murdering people. Much of the time gang members will accompany the card holders to Gun shops and point out which pieces they want. If I buy a gun for a criminal knowing that they are going to gun down others, I am complicit in those murders.
    So what happens in Chicago is relevant to the rest of the nation and our laws should reflect that?

  9. #139
    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
    When you buy a firearm from an FFL , an NICS serch is performed on you. NICS is a warrantless serch without probable cause. That's illegal. The 4th Amendment is what makes that illegal.
    when we were in agreement the whole time.....

  10. #140
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,640

    Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    "Adjudication" in the legal sense refers to a court action. I do know what you are talking about, though on those forms. I think that is a civil rights lawsuit waiting to happen. People simply don't understand mental illness. If you are on a sleep aid, you could lose your right to own a gun. There are a lot of non addicting medications which can be used as sleep aids, but a person who is on one of them cannot get a CDL because they fall in the classes of antidepressants and antipsychotics. Mental illness is generally misunderstood.

    I think that making a clinician decide if a person is safe to own a gun based on ONE mental health center visit is patently dangerous for the clinician. The first consideration of the clinician is going to be liability and maintenance of his or her license, not the civil rights of the patient. And the above and beyond that, HIPAA and all the privacy stuff has taken the medical world by storm. In psychiatry records have ALWAYS been confidential. I think requiring this level of reporting to the government on people who seek mental health treatment, and the vast majority out there have mild illnesses treated with mild drugs, is unethical and a violation of the person's civil rights. What this means is that if you take a little Sinequan (non scheduled drug) to help you sleep, you would not be able to own a gun. Also, there are scheduled drugs that are not for anything psychiatric. One I'm thinking of is Lomotil a schedule 5 drug due to the belladonna that it contains. You could get your gun rights pulled because you have diarrhea!
    It's already started.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-co...-thoughts.html

    There are several pieces of proposed legislation bouncing around that would make even a lay determination of mental instability grounds for confiscation of firearms and a few of the EO's Obama signed after Newtown are being used as the basis for that legislation.

    We're heading in a very dangerous direction here.

Page 14 of 29 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... 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
  •