View Poll Results: Which of those would not pass Supreme Court scrutiny

Voters
8. You may not vote on this poll
  • Any Executive Order

    3 37.50%
  • Any Executive Action

    5 62.50%
  • Expanding background checks

    1 12.50%
  • Reinstituting the "assualt weapons" ban

    6 75.00%
  • National database on those banned from owning guns due to mental health

    1 12.50%
  • Ban the sale or manufacture of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds

    6 75.00%
  • Ban "armor-piercing" amunition

    4 50.00%
  • Outlaw "straw Purchasers"

    2 25.00%
  • Background checks to return guns siezed as part of criminal investigations

    2 25.00%
  • Allow health care providers to, if they wish, talk to patients about guns

    2 25.00%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

  1. #1
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Lots of talk lately about gun control, and about the constitutionality of said measures. Since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality in this country, which of these would not pass a Supreme Court challenge?

    Note: Lots of poll options, please be patient as I type them all in. The poll will be up soon(tm).

    Edit: poll up, choose as many as you want.

    Source for info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa..._time_full.pdf
    Last edited by Redress; 01-27-13 at 04:46 PM.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  2. #2
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Sadly it depends on the make up of the supreme court and their "interpretation" of the Constitution. Not what the Constitution says and the intent of the authors who wrote the constitution and its various amendments.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  3. #3
    Sage
    Fisher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-06-13 @ 02:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    17,002

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Depends on the details of the laws/acts more than anything else. I suspect the ban ones would have the worst chance of making it.

  4. #4
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Use of "executive orders" instead of laws is insane. We have a Constitution that says that congress, not the president, makes the laws. The president, via the departments and agnencies that he oversees enforces, not makes, the law.

    NICS background checks at the point of sale are very inefficient. Currently thousands of FFL dealers exist, yet they are not the only folks that transfer/sell guns and ammo. To better assure that ALL sales of guns/ammo are made to those legally allowed to purchase them is best dealt with much as driving permit checks are done. Simply require all states, upon the issue/update/renewal of their official, state issued, photo ID cards to adult US citizens, to perform the NICS database background checks; if the check is "passed" then incude "GUN OK" of the face of that ID card. Any sales/transfers, commercial or private, of guns//ammo must be made only to those bearing a valid, state issued, photo ID indicated to be "GUN OK".

    The "style" of a gun, be it a pistol, rifle or shotgun has no bearing on its rate of fire. Legal civilian arms, without need of any further restrictions, are now those capable of only firing one round per trigger pull; as far as I know this is the current law. Having a semi-automatic gun with a detachable/changeable magazine is not a new invention - see Colt 1911.

    The capacity of the magazine is a minor issue, since no limit of total rounds available or total mumber of magazines is proposed. Those that think the number of targets hit during the average time for LEO response will decrease signifcantly by using a limit of ten rounds per magazine, yet no limit on the number of guns, or total magazines would be sadly mistaken at a range test event. Example: I have two guns, each with a ten round magazine; I fire as rapidly as my skill will accomodate at targets down range, changing one or both magazines (three seconds each), thus for every twenty rounds fired I lose six seconds in magazine changes. You may ask; why the second gun? This is my "insurance" since, should someone try to "rush me", I have it fully loaded and available to deal with anyone thinking that after ten rounds I am then "defenseless", until I change magazines in my first gun.

    The talk of "armor piercing" bullets is simply a ruse to make this largely undefined thing suffice to disallow many common rounds that can now penetrate metal and standard body armor. Remember when lead was going to be banned from use as a bullet material?

    The more local cops on the street nonsense is simply a classic liberal income redictribution scheme. While presidents and congress critters love to talk about teachers, firefighters and police officers, unless they are federal employees, they are NOT a federal gov't power or responsibility. This nonsense is simply code for more borrow and spend. If taxation is to be used for these folks then it should be collected by the level of gov't for which they work. It is insane, and unconstitutional, to tax a Texan to put a cop in a school in CT.

    Moronic duplication of gun violence by several federal agencies is insane. CDC has no businees concerning itself with gun crime statistics just as the FBI has no business in keeping school vaccination staitistics; this is simply useless expansion of dupicate federal efforts. Even more likely merely a lame attempt at using PPACA (or its desired UHC follow on) to treat gunshot wounds as a public health issue to try another angle on further restrictions of our 2A rights.

    Of course, the "perfect" PPACA law forgot to address this gun realted "mental health crisis" so, while the federal cash is freely flowing with no need for "pay as you go", Obama will try to "beef up" his infamous PPACA with a few more unfunded "menatal health" mandates making it even more expensive.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 01-27-13 at 06:16 PM.
    “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

  5. #5
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Use of "executive orders" instead of laws is insane. We have a Constitution that says that congress, not the president, makes the laws. The president, via the departments and agnencies that he oversees enforces, not makes, the law.

    NICS background checks at the point of sale are very inefficient. Currently thousands of FFL dealers exist, yet they are not the only folks that transfer/sell guns and ammo. To better assure that ALL sales of guns/ammo are made to those legally allowed to purchase them is best dealt with much as driving permit checks are done. Simply require all states, upon the issue/update/renewal of their official, state issued, photo ID cards to adult US citizens, to perform the NICS database background checks; if the check is "passed" then incude "GUN OK" of the face of that ID card. Any sales/transfers, commercial or private, of guns//ammo must be made only to those bearing a valid, state issued, photo ID indicated to be "GUN OK".

    The "style" of a gun, be it a pistol, rifle or shotgun has no bearing on its rate of fire. Legal civilian arms, without need of any further restrictions, are now those capable of only firing one round per trigger pull; as far as I know this is the current law. Having a semi-automatic gun with a detachable/changeable magazine is not a new invention - see Colt 1911.

    The capacity of the magazine is a minor issue, since no limit of total rounds available or total mumber of magazines is proposed. Those that think the number of targets hit during the average time for LEO response will decrease signifcantly by using a limit of ten rounds per magazine, yet no limit on the number of guns, or total magazines would be sadly mistaken at a range test event. Example: I have two guns, each with a ten round magazine; I fire as rapidly as my skill will accomodate at targets down range, changing one or both magazines (three seconds each), thus for every twenty rounds fired I lose six seconds in magazine changes. You may ask; why the second gun? This is my "insurance" since, should someone try to "rush me", I have it fully loaded and available to deal with anyone thinking that after ten rounds I am then "defenseless", until I change magazines in my first gun.

    The talk of "armor piercing" bullets is simply a ruse to make this largely undefined thing suffice to disallow many common rounds that can now penetrate metal and standard body armor. Remember when lead was going to be banned from use as a bullet material?

    The more local cops on the street nonsense is simply a classic liberal income redictribution scheme. While presidents and congress critters love to talk about teachers, firefighters and police officers, unless they are federal employees, they are NOT a federal gov't power or responsibility. This nonsense is simply code for more borrow and spend. If taxation is to be used for these folks then it should be collected by the level of gov't for which they work. It is insane, and unconstitutional, to tax a Texan to put a cop in a school in CT.

    Moronic duplication of gun violence by several federal agencies is insane. CDC has no businees concerning itself with gun crime statistics just as the FBI has no business in keeping school vaccination staitistics; this is simply useless expansion of dupicate federal efforts. Even more likely merely a lame attempt at using PPACA (or its desired UHC follow on) to treat gunshot wounds as a public health issue to try another angle on further restrictions of our 2A rights.

    Of course, the "perfect" PPACA law forgot to address this gun realted "mental health crisis" so, while the federal cash is freely flowing with no need for "pay as you go", Obama will try to "beef up" his infamous PPACA with a few more unfunded "menatal health" mandates making it even more expensive.
    My question deals specifically with whether these actions would be found to be constitutional. There have been lots of claims that Obama is implementing unconstitutional measures. I want to know which are.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #6
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Lots of talk lately about gun control, and about the constitutionality of said measures. Since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality in this country, which of these would not pass a Supreme Court challenge?

    Note: Lots of poll options, please be patient as I type them all in. The poll will be up soon(tm).

    Edit: poll up, choose as many as you want.

    Source for info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defa..._time_full.pdf
    I've assumed that you're asking to vote for which actions you think would be unconstitutional if issued in the form of an Executive Order or Execution Action. I voted for four of them, since I think the others could be viewed as fine-tuning legislation already in place: assault weapons ban, outlawing straw purchasers, banning the mfgr of high capacity magazines and banning armor piercing ammunition. If those things were done by EO or EA, that would constitute making law rather than facilitating laws already in place.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  7. #7
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,328
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I've assumed that you're asking to vote for which actions you think would be unconstitutional if issued in the form of an Executive Order or Execution Action. I voted for four of them, since I think the others could be viewed as fine-tuning legislation already in place: assault weapons ban, outlawing straw purchasers, banning the mfgr of high capacity magazines and banning armor piercing ammunition. If those things were done by EO or EA, that would constitute making law rather than facilitating laws already in place.
    No. I am asking which of those things is in itself unconstitutional.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  8. #8
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    My question deals specifically with whether these actions would be found to be constitutional. There have been lots of claims that Obama is implementing unconstitutional measures. I want to know which are.
    Most would not be constitutional, as laid out in his "plan" linked to in the OP. Some clearly require legislation, obviously not included, so they can not be discussed. Generally attempting to restrict the "style" of a gun, now legal and in general circulation, to new manufacture and sale should be unconstitutional, without making its used sale illegal as well. This was not challenged in the 1994 law since the makeup of the SCOTUS was unfavorable for a positive result.

    Trying to mandate a federal registry of all gun sales/possession is also unconstitutional, as once you impose a tax on a right it is then reduced to a mere privilege; no tax paid = no right maintained. Unfortunately this taxation was allowed on real property, that too should have been unconstitutional; how is paying the gov't rent to simply keep your own land legal? You never really "own" land, you just "long term" lease it from the gov't for the required taxation, when you sell it, you simply transfer the lease and pay more taxation on the proceeds as well. It appers that this taxation of all guns, is the real intent of these latest "minor" gun control efforts.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 01-27-13 at 06:49 PM.
    “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

  9. #9
    User listener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    08-22-13 @ 12:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    52

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    I do not think any would be found unconstitutional

  10. #10
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Which Of These Would Not Pass Supreme Court Scrutiny?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    No. I am asking which of those things is in itself unconstitutional.
    I see. In that case then, Executive Orders and/or Executive Actions would have to be evaluated individually. Either of those could be found unconstitutional -- and have been. The rest of them? I don't think any of them would be found unconstitutional.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •