• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court sided with gun control groups and the Obama administration Monday, ruling that the federal ban on "straw" purchases of guns can be enforced even if the ultimate buyer is legally allowed to own a gun.

To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.
 
So which Constitution did the Supreme court look at? It was clearly not the US Constitution judging by the ruling.
 
So which Constitution did the Supreme court look at? It was clearly not the US Constitution judging by the ruling.

You think background checks are unconstitutional?
 
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Your birthday gift complaint is easily circumvented by a gift certificate. I have no problem with the ruling. It was the right thing to do.

Just make sure the gun shop has access to these:

Lisa%20splatter%20paing%20Glock%2017web.jpg
 

Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
 
I'm not in favor of straw purchases and I don't see them as being against the 2nd Amendment. Since real journalism is dead, I don't know what law it is that was mentioned in the article. If 3 justices say that the language of the law didn't support the punishment, then the news story should have said what the law said.
 
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.

You mean while they're in jail? Oh right, you mean after they do their time. Yeah, that's a problem.
 
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.

sorry that has nothing to do with the "yes", voiced.....the federal government has no authority over firearms as a whole for the "people", ...because the bill of rights places a restriction on them to create any such law.

rights for an individual citiznes can be curtailed, if they have broken the law.......
 
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.

And what of those who inherit your guns when you die?
 
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.

As far as a gift purchase goes, one could simply give them cash or a store gift card instead and let the gift recipient make the actual gun purchase.
 
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.

The whole purpose of incarceration is to keep them in jail for the appropriate time of punishment. If they aren't deemed to be safe in society if they own a firearm, they shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.
 
sorry that has nothing to do with the "yes", voiced.....the federal government has no authority over firearms as a whole for the "people", ...because the bill of rights places a restriction on them to create any such law.

rights for an individual citiznes can be curtailed, if they have broken the law.......

Well-regulated militia.
 
The whole purpose of incarceration is to keep them in jail for the appropriate time of punishment. If they aren't deemed to be safe in society if they own a firearm, they shouldn't be out of jail in the first place.

I'm sure the prison-industrial complex would agree.
 
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.
There shouldn't be any background checks in the first place.
 
I'm sure the prison-industrial complex would agree.

It's simple logic. If they are too dangerous to own a firearm, they shouldn't be out. It's completely idiotic, that someone who gets a felony for possession of marijuann when their 19 can't even own a firearm when their 50. The logic is completely out the window on that one.
 
Well-regulated militia.
sorry no...the 2nd is not a power to the federal government ...ITS A RESTRICTION ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [FEDERAL] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

"congress shall make no law"....... concerning the right to bear arms of the people
 
You think background checks are unconstitutional?
Yes. Simply buying a gun is not probable cause to violate my 4th amendment right and perform a background check. Background checks at point-of-sale are unconstitutional.
 
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Once I buy it, its mine to do with what I want. Period end of story.
 
Your birthday gift complaint is easily circumvented by a gift certificate. I have no problem with the ruling. It was the right thing to do.

Just make sure the gun shop has access to these:

Lisa%20splatter%20paing%20Glock%2017web.jpg
And the next law, and the one after that, then the next one?
 
Well, they aren't. Rights can be taken away with due process of law. Someone who robs a bank with a gun doesn't get to own a gun any more, sorry if this bothers you so much.
You are correct, they don't. So if they purchase one or somehow acquire one, it would have to be by fraudulent means which in theory would be in addition to the illegal possession of a firearm charge they would be facing.

Still not seeing what effect a background check has here...
 
To be honest, I am a bit torn on this decision. On one hand, buying a gun to give to another, in order to circumvent the system of background checks, should be a crime. On the other hand, if I wanted to buy a present for a friend who is having a birthday, would I be breaking the law? It appears that I would be, and that is where I disagree with this decision.

Discussion?

Article is here.

Pretty simple response from me. I agree with what you said, which is exactly how I feel about it. I don't like straw purchases to allow criminals to circumvent the law, but there should be a way to buy a gun for a present for someone, even if that means giving their info at the time of purchase for them to go through a background check as well. And, for that reason, I disagree with the ruling.
 
Back
Top Bottom