jlf1961
Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Well, so far they have added individuals on the terrorist watch list, but hey, that sorta makes sense.
But, to be honest, that is the only addition that has been made in 49 years, or almost half a century, and that was done under the patriot acts, which makes it hard for a Muslim to purchase a firearm generally because of the similarity of male names which may match someone on the watch list, like a six month old child that was bared from taking a flight to see a heart specialist because he had the same name as one on the terrorist watch list.
So the people on the list are not properly identified but is a good thing to deprive people of their rights?
Is it used for voters?
No, I am saying that the terrorist watch list has names of people that are the same as citizens in the US, without any photo or age etc, just the name, so some infant with a heart condition born in the United States is barred from a plane because of a name, although there are some on these boards that will claim if it stops one terrorist....
The point is that when a person is found mentally deficient in a competency hearing, then their name should go on the prohibited register. And even if they voluntarily commit themselves, if it is found that there is a serious danger warranting holding them in an institution, then there is a hearing with a judge to decide that, so again, there is due process.
A mental health provider can also either on his own after some sessions with the patient or at the request of a patient's family make the recommendation for someone to be committed for up to 7 days for observation, since the 73 hour period that police can request rarely reveal a persons nature (primarily because for that 72 hours, they are medicated.)
There is a process to either put someone on the prohibited list or even remove them, including felons who petition the governor to restore their full civil rights. Thus it is not a permanent thing that follows someone around for their entire life.
However, by withholding that information it allows individuals who are emotionally or mentally unstable to purchase guns and then we get Virginia Tech, or in the case of Sandy Hook, the shooters father tried to get the man committed and the mother fought it, and ended up being killed by the shooter and her guns used in the school shooting.
However, getting to your regulation argument, as I said, you basically already registered the damn thing at purchase when the required forms are filled out. The only real argument at this point is being required to pay an additional fee to whatever agency you would have to register the gun with.
You say it would be used for confiscation, yes, it could be.
However, if that meant that the authorities confiscated the gun belonging to those very people who are not, by law, allowed to possess them, i.e:
convicted in any court 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 (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);
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 Armed Forces 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.
Would that not be enforcing an already existing law?
As for the government coming after your guns, all it takes is a court order (if they do it legally) or a police raid to get all those forms from a gun retailer then it wouldnt matter one way or the other, they would know where the owners of guns are and how to get them.
At that point, if the 2nd has not been repealed, then would that not be the exact argument that many of us are putting forth as for the reason that it should not be?
They will do like CA and NY and only confiscate one class of weapons
and claim that doesn't count as confiscation because they didn't take every gun.
OR they will do like NO and claim an emergency.
Guess you forgot this fact:
quote:
President George W. Bush signed into law the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which contained an NRA-backed amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter (R-La.). The amendment prohibits persons acting under color of federal law, receiving federal funds, or acting at the direction of a federal employee from seizing or authorizing the seizure of lawfully-possessed firearms or imposing or enforcing certain restrictions on firearms during a state of emergency.
As for the california law, it is still under injunction pending appeals.
Unless you are referring to California SB104, which only allows the confiscation of guns from people who may have purchased them legally, but are no longer legally allowed to own or possess firearms under the federal regulations set up 49 years ago.
As for the New York SAFE act, again that has been stopped pending lawsuits, many will most likely end up before SCOTUS and with the present court being heavily conservative, its a safe bet they will be thrown out.
However, once again, in each case you have cited, the state has been stopped and appeals and lawsuits filed, and so far, the only one appealing decisions are the states, and they are losing.
The actions in New Orleans was thrown out and a law passed preventing it from happening again.
We have a heavily pro gun SCOTUS and with Trump in office, it is sure to stay that way until the dems get elected again.
Do you really have a problem with those who have been convicted of crimes that would prohibit them from owning guns having their guns confiscated?
Hell the three cases under the NY safe act that turned out to be bullshit and the gun owners sued and got their guns back and are nailing a nearly bankrupt state by winning the cases, NY is quickly running out of options.
The only way to beat the anti gun movement is just as true today as it always has been, meet them halfway or kick their ass in court, SCOTUS has pretty much killed every attempt at local bans for years, all citing the 2nd.
The only way a ban is going to happen is if the present laws are not fixed, meaning the back ground checks and some nut job takes manages to break a hundred in a one time body count.
Oh, FYI, the lack of registration of firearms is pretty much a deal of the last 60 or 70 years, sorta stopped when some states started disbanding their militias.
_____________________________
Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?
You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.
Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI
|
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 
Profile
RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread