• 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

Blue_State said:
So what was the point of bringing up well regulated militias? That doesn't seem to have anything to do with background checks.
Click to expand...

The wording indicates that gun regulations can, in fact, be constitutional. I don't see any issue with preventing a murderer from owning a gun, but he does.
 
HenryChinaski said:
If you hand your pistol over to someone that you know is a criminal(or not) and they go out and murder someone with that gun then you are most definitely complicit and should and can be held accountable. A few months back a local man was sentenced for buying dozens of weapons for the Gangster disciples which ended up murdering not only rival gang members but also innocent bystanders including children.
Click to expand...

That trumps my rights how?
 
Deuce said:
FASTSTATS - Homicide
NIH Fact Sheets - Underage Drinking

Not that this will change your opinion. You can't reason someone out of an opinion they didn't reason themselves into.
Click to expand...
Underage drinking is a leading contributor to death from injuries, which are the main cause of death for people under age 21. Each year, approximately 5,000 persons under the age of 21 die from causes related to underage drinking. These deaths include about 1,600 homicides and 300 suicides. Firearm homicides
•Number of deaths: 11,078
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
 
CRUE CAB said:
Underage drinking is a leading contributor to death from injuries, which are the main cause of death for people under age 21. Each year, approximately 5,000 persons under the age of 21 die from causes related to underage drinking. These deaths include about 1,600 homicides and 300 suicides. Firearm homicides
•Number of deaths: 11,078
•Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.6
Click to expand...
Your two examples do not reflect a challenge to what I said at all.
 
CRUE CAB said:
That trumps my rights how?
Click to expand...
Hoard all of the guns that you want. But the moment that you give or sell one of those pieces to a convicted felon/criminal and they go out and shoot someone you're responsible for that crime. You have no right to give a gun that you own to someone who you know is going to go out and commit murder. Same as if you give your car keys to an unlicensed drunk driver and they run someone down, you're responsible for that as well.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Hoard all of the guns that you want. But the moment that you give or sell one of those pieces to a convicted felon/criminal and they go out and shoot someone you're responsible for that crime. You have no right to give a gun that you own to someone who you know is going to go out and commit murder. Same as if you give your car keys to an unlicensed drunk driver and they run someone down, you're responsible for that as well.
Click to expand...
My property, will do as I please. And pleasing you are anyone else is not my issue. Its called personal responsibility. I handle my responsibilities and you handle yours, and I don't need the government telling me how.
 
CRUE CAB said:
My property, will do as I please. And pleasing you are anyone else is not my issue. Its called personal responsibility. I handle my responsibilities and you handle yours, and I don't need the government telling me how.
Click to expand...
Only in your mind. You hand over a weapon or a car to someone and they kill someone with them, then you are complicit. Same as if you were the felon shooter or drunk driver.
 
HenryChinaski said:
Only in your mind. You hand over a weapon or a car to someone and they kill someone with them, then you are complicit. Same as if you were the felon shooter or drunk driver.
Click to expand...

You are still not understanding my question. How does this trump my 2A rights?
 
HenryChinaski said:
Hoard all of the guns that you want. But the moment that you give or sell one of those pieces to a convicted felon/criminal and they go out and shoot someone you're responsible for that crime.
Click to expand...

Why do those on the left have so much problem assigning responsibility to those that actually commit murder? It's the gun, it's the shop, it's the manufacturer. No, it's the PERSON THAT KILLED PEOPLE.
 
CRUE CAB said:
You are still not understanding my question. How does this trump my 2A rights?
Click to expand...
You have ZERO right to give or sell a firearm that you legally own to a convicted criminal for the intent of murder.
 
Arbo said:
Why do those on the left have so much problem assigning responsibility to those that actually commit murder? It's the gun, it's the shop, it's the manufacturer. No, it's the PERSON THAT KILLED PEOPLE.
Click to expand...
Agai,n someone who sells buys a gun for a criminal who can't purchase a gun on their own for the intent of murder is also responsible for that murder.
 
Deuce said:
What I mean is that the 2nd amendment does not invalidate any and all gun control laws. Background checks are constitutionally valid.
Click to expand...

under the tortured FDR mutation of the commerce clause yes-because Federally licensed dealers engage in interstate commerce by receiving firearms made in other states. However, a private seller of a second hand firearm is PROHIBITED by federal law from selling that firearm ACROSS state lines and thus a federal law requiring such a seller to conduct a background check is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because intra-state sales of second hand goods that no longer move in INTER state commerce is not a sufficient nexus-pursuant to the LOPEZ V USA holding-to create federal jurisdiction
 
HenryChinaski said:
Agai,n someone who sells buys a gun for a criminal who can't purchase a gun on their own for the intent of murder is also responsible for that murder.
Click to expand...

the law is going to see otherwise. now if you knew the criminal was planning a hit and you supply him a firearm for the hit, that would clearly be an aiding and abetting charge or a conspiracy before the fact indictment
 
HenryChinaski said:
Only in your mind. You hand over a weapon or a car to someone and they kill someone with them, then you are complicit. Same as if you were the felon shooter or drunk driver.
Click to expand...

YOu are wrong. you have to have knowledge. the act alone is not sufficient. Where we live coyotes are becoming a major nuisance-killing pets, livestock, poultry. Suppose my neighbor who has a massive number of small donkeys comes over and says-hey turtle, the coyotes killed three of my young donkeys-can I borrow one of your 22 rifles tonight

and I say sure

and the next day some kid is shooting a slingshot at a donkey and the donkey owner becomes Irate and shoots the kid dead

I have no legal liability

now on the other hand, the neighbor tells me that some kid has been tormenting his donkeys and he wants to waste the kid and I still give him the weapon

I am gonna be in serious trouble
 
Arbo said:
Why do those on the left have so much problem assigning responsibility to those that actually commit murder? It's the gun, it's the shop, it's the manufacturer. No, it's the PERSON THAT KILLED PEOPLE.
Click to expand...

Its in their DNA I believe. They are fine with taking the rights of million over the bad acts of a few.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
What part of “…shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
Click to expand...

oh come on Bob-you know that "shall not be infringed" was crafted by the founders to ALLOW all sorts of infringements. that is why the power to so infringe was clearly set forth in the Commerce Clause:mrgreen:
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

Bob Blaylock said:
Laws which are blatantly unconstitutional in the first place.
Click to expand...
One of the jobs of the SCOTUS is to verify the constitutionality of a law. If this law was "blatantly" unconstitutional, it would have gotten shot down.

Keep in mind that this is the same composition of the Court that shot down handgun restrictions in DC in the Heller case.


Why is it OK for government to “bypass” the highest law of the land, in order to enact and enforce laws which violate this highest law, but not OK for us, the rightful masters of this nation, to “bypass” these illegal and unconstitutional laws that the government has no authority to enact or enforce against us?
Click to expand...
To start with, rights are not absolute.

The 1st Amendment does not grant you the right to defame someone, or to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, to directly threaten someone. The police can enter your home without a warrant if there are expedient circumstances, e.g. in hot pursuit of a criminal who is fleeing a scene.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. It can be interpreted as "you have the right to own a gun." It doesn't say that "you can transfer a gun to whomever you want, for any reason at any time." It doesn't allow you to own mortars, or a machine gun, or a tank. It doesn't grant you the right to bring a gun into a federal courthouse.

So yes, the Federal Government can decide that some people should not be allowed to own guns, and it can enact laws that regulate the transfer of guns.


Bob Blaylock said:
The law needs to be changed to harshly punish public servants who refuse to obey the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Uh huh. According to whose interpretation?

Like it or not, the Constitution is not so crystal-clear that every single person in the US agrees about what it says, let alone what it says about laws passed hundreds of years after the Constitution was ratified. In fact, and again: It's the job of the SCOTUS to determine what the Constitution says, and you really aren't going to get a significantly better or different mechanism for this task.

I might add that if sentence "repeat offenders" to death, we'd have to execute a bunch of the Founding Fathers. Even they didn't agree on what the Constitution meant, e.g. Hamilton supported the idea of a central bank, and many opposed it; Jefferson believed his own purchase of the Louisiana Territory was unconstitutional; many Founding Fathers voted for the Alien and Sedition Acts, which were criticized at the time for violating the 1st Amendment, and would surely be seen that way today as well.
 
TurtleDude said:
YOu are wrong. you have to have knowledge. the act alone is not sufficient. Where we live coyotes are becoming a major nuisance-killing pets, livestock, poultry. Suppose my neighbor who has a massive number of small donkeys comes over and says-hey turtle, the coyotes killed three of my young donkeys-can I borrow one of your 22 rifles tonight

and I say sure

and the next day some kid is shooting a slingshot at a donkey and the donkey owner becomes Irate and shoots the kid dead

I have no legal liability

now on the other hand, the neighbor tells me that some kid has been tormenting his donkeys and he wants to waste the kid and I still give him the weapon

I am gonna be in serious trouble
Click to expand...
These guns that are killing children in American cities are bought by people who know full ****ing well that the guns are being put in the hands of criminals street gangs for the purpose of murder.
 
TurtleDude said:
the law is going to see otherwise. now if you knew the criminal was planning a hit and you supply him a firearm for the hit, that would clearly be an aiding and abetting charge or a conspiracy before the fact indictment
Click to expand...

Bull****, If I give my gun to someone I know can't legally buy it themselves and also know that they are going to use that weapon to intentionally kill someone, I'm also responsible.
 
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'straw purchaser' law….

Visbek said:
The 2nd Amendment is not absolute. It can be interpreted as "you have the right to own a gun." It doesn't say that "you can transfer a gun to whomever you want, for any reason at any time."…
·
·
·​
Like it or not, the Constitution is not so crystal-clear…
Click to expand...

What part of “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed” is unclear?
 
Last edited:
Re: Supreme Court rules on 'Straw Purchaser' Law.....

MMC said:
See I would harp about her sanity, and mental faculties.
Click to expand...
And your reaction is exactly why the Founding Fathers set up the SCOTUS with lifetime appointments.

There is no more reason to question Ginsburg's sanity than Scalia's or Roberts' or any other justice. Your suggestion is clearly based on political preferences, and judges (the SCOTUS in particular) are appointed specifically to resist being subjected to those kinds of political pressures.

I might add that she actually didn't say anything that horrific. There is absolutely nothing impeachable, let alone "insane," about her comments, nor is an expert on the US Constitution obliged to slavishly worship that document. Nations around the world stopped using the US Constitution as a model for managing and articulating protected rights a long time ago, and few do so today. In fact, it's better that we have someone on the court who is familiar with not just US constitutional law, but with the constitutions of many other nations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom