• 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

ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...
Google "NICS" for information on the conection.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I read the decision in brief and he was wrong, he even first said he was buying for another, trying to use a police discount, my contention I suppose would be with the latter part of your post.
 
Jerry said:
Google "NICS" for information on the conection.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lutherf said:
The GCA of 1968 defines a prohibited person as:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, someone will inherit mine when I die, as will be the case with all gun owners.
 
Lutherf said:
The GCA of 1968 defines a prohibited person as:
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I always seem to miss the 'except...' part. Where is it?
 
Maenad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RogueWarrior said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
RogueWarrior said:
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?
Click to expand...

well one thing to always remember the 2nd amendment is not a power given the federal government....its a restriction on them.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Lutherf said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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!
 
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...
So what happens in Chicago is relevant to the rest of the nation and our laws should reflect that?
 
Maenad said:
"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!
Click to expand...

It's already started.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/195314-gun-confiscation-order-bad-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.
 
Lutherf said:
It's already started.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/gun-control/195314-gun-confiscation-order-bad-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.
Click to expand...

Well, when it comes to 'confiscation' I have to wonder who is subject to said confiscation when the patient is a minor. Parents? Grandparents? Aunts/Uncles? Parents of friends? I mean, if I were to carry this out to its final conclusion no one would be allowed to have a gun because we all have someone mentally ill in our families. And I am including in that definition those who over imbibe.
 
Deuce 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.
Click to expand...

If that person is too dangerous to own a gun he is too dangerous to be on the streets and should be in jail.
 
Maenad said:
Well, when it comes to 'confiscation' I have to wonder who is subject to said confiscation when the patient is a minor. Parents? Grandparents? Aunts/Uncles? Parents of friends? I mean, if I were to carry this out to its final conclusion no one would be allowed to have a gun because we all have someone mentally ill in our families. And I am including in that definition those who over imbibe.
Click to expand...

"....no one would be allowed to have a gun because .....".

Yeah, that's pretty much the plan as far as I can tell.

-edit-
The idea is that if you can't repeal the 2A (which would be the gun grabbers first choice) then you come up with a way to circumvent it.
 
Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually no, have you tried buying a beer, some cigarettes maybe? Did you get carded? Most places card everyone who looks under 25 (hell some card everyone who buys beer or cigarettes) Both are 'generally legal' to own.

Slavery and sufferage are poor eqivs. How did both become 'legal'? Laws were passed and the Courts held they were Constitutional. THAT is how our system works...
 
apdst said:
If that person is too dangerous to own a gun he is too dangerous to be on the streets and should be in jail.
Click to expand...

Who was it who said, 'no generalization is worth a damn, including this one?'
 
danarhea said:
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.
Click to expand...


If it is bought for someone who is legal to own a gun, it should not be a crime.


Think about how ridiculous this is... making it a CRIME punishable by imprisonment, to legally buy a legal product and give it to someone who is legally allowed to own same. Insanity.
 
CRUE CAB said:
I said I bet. You are right. But in my 51 years, I have heard and seen more kids dying from underage drinking than from gun shots. Through my job and from just paying attention. You may want to try it.
Click to expand...
Last month a 4 year old child was gunned down outside of her home by a Gang member with a gun bought by someone else legally then sold to this piece of ****. The buyer knew whom he was selling too and what the weapon was going to be used for. This is a common thing. These bangers aren't law abiding citizens legally buying guns. If you buy a gun for someone that you know is a criminal and they're going out and murder with that weapon then you also pulled the trigger of that firearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom