• 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

When it comes to guns, the 2nd Amendment and S. Ct. rulings in regards to them, you can tell if the ruling was wrong simply by seeing who here agrees with it.
 
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...

true under the current precedent but there is nothing in the constitution that was intended to allow any federal gun control. an amendment should have been enacted to allow that
 
haymarket said:
a solid decision supported by both the Constitution and a long history of American jurisprudence giving the thumbs up to reasonable regulation and legislation in this area.

Of course, some will say these are INFRINGEMENTS - but it just goes to show you how ridiculous that argument is.
Click to expand...

Please post the backing of the constitution in this particular matter. Looking at the 2A right now. Go.
 
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.
 
HenryChinaski said:
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.
Click to expand...



true, but crooks are normally much smarter than that. they go into a few stores and price weapons They then have someone go back to the store -someone they have not been seen with in the store-buy the gun, and they prep the buyer. Good clerks can spot a straw buyer. For example, when I worked gun shows for a client years ago, and I saw a (usually a woman) trying to buy a gun, I would ask her-do you really want a Beretta 92, maybe the SIG 226 (functionally almost the same-both passed the military test) would fit you better. If they refused to even consider that alternative I figured they were buying for someone else
 
Excon said:
When it comes to guns, the 2nd Amendment and S. Ct. rulings in regards to them, you can tell if the ruling was wrong simply by seeing who here agrees with it.
Click to expand...
:lol: Surely your dissent will land a great blow to the court's credibility.
 
I really don't have a problem with this ruling. If you want to buy a gun as a gift or for someone else then follow the proper procedures.
I think there are transfer documents and things that have to be done in order for it to be legal, but it is possible to do it without having
to go through what this guy went through.

I still do not think that this affects personal transactions. you still need to document that you sold the weapon and to who you sold it to in case something happens.

i don't see a violation of the 2a here. this doesn't restrict gun ownership in the least.
 
good read from 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.

Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it would seem scarcely possible to doubt that no power whatever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the Constitution, as it originally stood, and that the amendment was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it.

But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of amendments made by Congress is introduced in the following terms:

"The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added; and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institutions."

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive, and, whether the one or the other as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government...............


The Constitution alone can answer this question. If no such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both necessary and proper to carry into execution an express power--above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a declaratory amendment to the Constitution--the answer must be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such authority..........

We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared, as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon--DO, in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; and that every power not granted thereby remains with them, and at their will. That, therefore, no right of any denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that, among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States."
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
What I mean is that the 2nd amendment does not invalidate any and all gun control laws.
Click to expand...
Right, it means what gun control laws there are should be few and far between, each law having to stand up to the Strict Scrutiny standard.

99% of all gun control fails that test and thus shouldn't exist. The only valid gun control is a restriction on fellons and mentally infirm, an age limit, and certain gun-free zones such as ERs and court rooms.

And that's it. All other gun control is unconstitutional. Mag limits, permit requierment, point-of-sale background checks, registration, machiengun bans, gun-buster signs having force of law, gun-free school zones, 'assult-weapon' bans...all unconstitutional.
 
notquiteright said:
Sorry no.... you have taken part of the 1st Amendment and attempted to graft it to the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

SORRY BUT YOU NEED TO READ THIS.

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.

THE 2ND IS A RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE PLACED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE NO LAW.


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.

this is clear proof from James Madison that the bill of rights are prohibitions on the Congress.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
poweRob said:
"We feel like you are dangerous so you will stay in jail past your term."


Laws don't work like that sooooo...
Click to expand...

Then they should have their rights restored once they do their time. Otherwise, they shouldn't be out of prison.
 
`
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.
Click to expand...
`
Good call, good jurisprudence....imho.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

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....
 
notquiteright said:
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....
Click to expand...

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
SORRY BUT YOU NEED TO READ THIS. 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. THE 2ND IS A RESTRICTIVE CLAUSE PLACED ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO MAKE NO LAW. 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. this is clear proof from James Madison that the bill of rights are prohibitions on the Congress.
Click to expand...

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)

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'.

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.

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...:peace
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I agree, since the intent of the law is to prevent a prohibited person from offering you, as a non-prohibited person, the cash to buy a gun for them; it was not intended to prevent the gifting (or sale) of a legally purchased gun to a non-prohibited person.
Click to expand...

Please define 'prohibited person.'
 
ChezC3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Maenad said:
Please define 'prohibited person.'
Click to expand...


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).
Click to expand...
 
notquiteright said:
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....
Click to expand...
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:
notquiteright said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.

notquiteright said:
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'.
Click to expand...


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.

notquiteright said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


notquiteright said:
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...:peace
Click to expand...

this shows you are interested in how the court rules and not what the constitution says.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom