No State Here wrote:“What reason can there be for anyone to own more guns than a small country’s military?”
You don’t need a reason, it’s your right
Advertisement
by No State Here » Thu Sep 24, 2020 3:20 pm
No State Here wrote:“What reason can there be for anyone to own more guns than a small country’s military?”
You don’t need a reason, it’s your right
by Pax Nerdvana » Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:21 am
Grinning Dragon wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:A Federal Judge denied California's motion to dismiss an ongoing case against the Assault Weapons Ban.
If the Supreme Court seat pans out there's a lot of reason for hope here.
In other news the derp continues.
A BB gun was seen in a Harvey fourth grader's bedroom during virtual class. Now, he's suspended.
by Grinning Dragon » Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:32 am
Pax Nerdvana wrote:Grinning Dragon wrote:
In other news the derp continues.
A BB gun was seen in a Harvey fourth grader's bedroom during virtual class. Now, he's suspended.
This story just makes me mad.
The categorical ban on gun possession by people with felony records is therefore “wildly overinclusive,” Barrett noted, quoting UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “It includes everything from Kanter’s offense, mail fraud, to selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan, and countless other state and federal offenses,” she wrote.
The ban is also underinclusive, she added, since people may reasonably be deemed dangerous even when they have not been convicted of a felony—for example, when they commit certain violent misdemeanors (another disqualification under federal law).
Given the poor fit between the ban’s scope and its ostensible purpose, Barrett said, it is not “substantially related to an important government interest”—the test under the “intermediate scrutiny” that the majority said it was applying in this case. “Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe,” she wrote.
“Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”
- The Crimson PirateAnyone who is safe and stable enough to be out of prison and in normal society should have all of their rights restored. If they can’t be trusted with weapons then they should still be locked up.
by Novus America » Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:41 am
Grinning Dragon wrote:Pax Nerdvana wrote:This story just makes me mad.
Yeah. It wasn't as if the kid was waving it around. I'm just at a loss of words at how much bullshit the suspension is. I hope the parents are able to file a lawsuit.
Barrett: Nonviolent Offenders Should Not Lose Their Second Amendment RightsThe categorical ban on gun possession by people with felony records is therefore “wildly overinclusive,” Barrett noted, quoting UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “It includes everything from Kanter’s offense, mail fraud, to selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan, and countless other state and federal offenses,” she wrote.
The ban is also underinclusive, she added, since people may reasonably be deemed dangerous even when they have not been convicted of a felony—for example, when they commit certain violent misdemeanors (another disqualification under federal law).
Given the poor fit between the ban’s scope and its ostensible purpose, Barrett said, it is not “substantially related to an important government interest”—the test under the “intermediate scrutiny” that the majority said it was applying in this case. “Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe,” she wrote.
“Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”
I agree with this line of thinking as another poster said:- The Crimson PirateAnyone who is safe and stable enough to be out of prison and in normal society should have all of their rights restored. If they can’t be trusted with weapons then they should still be locked up.
by Grinning Dragon » Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:12 pm
Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.
by Telconi » Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:16 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.
Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns
by The Chuck » Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:16 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.
Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by Novus America » Fri Sep 25, 2020 2:54 pm
The Chuck wrote:Grinning Dragon wrote:Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.
Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns
Bullshit. Fuck him and his buy back idiocy. Arm everyone and let freedom ping.
by The Chuck » Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:08 pm
Novus America wrote:The Chuck wrote:
Bullshit. Fuck him and his buy back idiocy. Arm everyone and let freedom ping.
Although he at least showed his true colors. This completely undermines the “we will not take your guns” argument gun seizure advocates try to to claim. Him and Beto show it really is about seizing our guns by force.
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by West Leas Oros 2 » Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:14 pm
The Chuck wrote:Novus America wrote:
Although he at least showed his true colors. This completely undermines the “we will not take your guns” argument gun seizure advocates try to to claim. Him and Beto show it really is about seizing our guns by force.
Call me a nut job but I'll be strumming a guitar and loading an AR if that day ever comes.
WLO Public News: Outdated Factbooks and other documents in process of major redesign! ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE: <error:not found>
by The Chuck » Fri Sep 25, 2020 3:18 pm
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by The Two Jerseys » Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:08 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.
Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns
by Dresderstan » Fri Sep 25, 2020 4:12 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.
Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns
by Gig em Aggies » Fri Sep 25, 2020 6:49 pm
Dresderstan wrote:Grinning Dragon wrote:Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.
Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns
How about instead of forcing people to take away citizens guns he tries to do it himself and see what happens?
by Pax Nerdvana » Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:59 pm
Grinning Dragon wrote:Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.
Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns
by Grinning Dragon » Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:20 am
Do you wear seatbelts in the car? __No __Yes
Do you have smoke detectors at home? __No __Yes
Do you have carbon monoxide detectors? __No __Yes
Do you have firearms at home? __No __Yes If yes, is it locked up? __No __Yes
by The Chuck » Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:22 am
Grinning Dragon wrote:It appears that ny state the largest healthcare provider is sticking their nose further under the tent where it doesn't belong.
A New York Hospital System is Building a Gun Owner Registry One Patient At a Time
In the image below is an example. I myself have only encountered this once and that was in iowa. I left the section blank as those questions have ZERO bearing on why I was seeking medical care. Lying is also acceptable or checking both yes and no boxes.
(Image)
In-Character Advertisement Space:
The Chuck wholly endorses Wolf Armaments, Lauzanexport CDT, and
Silverport Dockyards Ltd.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:35 am
Grinning Dragon wrote:It appears that ny state the largest healthcare provider is sticking their nose further under the tent where it doesn't belong.
A New York Hospital System is Building a Gun Owner Registry One Patient At a Time
In the image below is an example. I myself have only encountered this once and that was in iowa. I left the section blank as those questions have ZERO bearing on why I was seeking medical care. Lying is also acceptable or checking both yes and no boxes.
(Image)
by Telconi » Sat Sep 26, 2020 11:55 am
The Two Jerseys wrote:Grinning Dragon wrote:It appears that ny state the largest healthcare provider is sticking their nose further under the tent where it doesn't belong.
A New York Hospital System is Building a Gun Owner Registry One Patient At a Time
In the image below is an example. I myself have only encountered this once and that was in iowa. I left the section blank as those questions have ZERO bearing on why I was seeking medical care. Lying is also acceptable or checking both yes and no boxes.
(Image)
Shit like this is why I always lie on medical questionnaires.
by The Two Jerseys » Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:02 pm
by Telconi » Sat Sep 26, 2020 12:05 pm
The Two Jerseys wrote:Telconi wrote:
Image ain't working, but yes. Always and forever deny gun ownership on any sort of nonsense form. They asked if I had guns at the dambed Medicaid office when I lost my job.
Back when I actually went for annual physicals they'd ask shit like "do you hang out with your friends regularly". Of course I'd always say yes, I can spot a trap when I see one.
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Sep 28, 2020 5:58 am
by Grinning Dragon » Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:44 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Rupp v Becerra (dealing with the CA assault weapons ban) is moving forward and getting viewed by three judges, two of whom are Trump appointees. With Barrett getting on the bench next month this is looking better and better.
by Washington Resistance Army » Mon Sep 28, 2020 7:50 am
Grinning Dragon wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:Rupp v Becerra (dealing with the CA assault weapons ban) is moving forward and getting viewed by three judges, two of whom are Trump appointees. With Barrett getting on the bench next month this is looking better and better.
It is my fervent wish that all awb are struck down, then on to striking down hughes and the nfa.
by Novus America » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:13 am
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Grinning Dragon wrote:It is my fervent wish that all awb are struck down, then on to striking down hughes and the nfa.
NFA will never be struck down in court. It's before all else a matter of taxation and everyone sans Thomas would uphold it on that because that new precedent would go against everything SCOTUS has done since the 30's.
Hughes, however, is very plausible. Miller says the 2A explicitly protects the right to own military weaponry, Heller says the 2A protects individual ownership of weapons, McDonald says this right also applies to the state, Caetano says the 2A applies to all bearable arms no matter how modern they are. A simple reading and upholding of this leads Hughes to be unconstitutional on all counts.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Big Eyed Animation, Eahland, Fractalnavel, Herador, La Paz de Los Ricos, Shrillland, Soul Reapers
Advertisement