Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Adamede]

Looks like he was referring to you.

I don't see how.
Ah, right, I'm in the gun thread, common sense (like gun control does not mean anti gun) does not apply. My b.

That’s about as much “common sense” as an AWB, or any firearm ban is. As in not at all.

[Sordhau]

Says the one who thinks about guns before the environment, bodily sovereignty, voting rights, and on and on... You would know about ignorance in service of hate.
Eh, like I said, I forgot this was the thread where one is meant to leave common sense at the door. Apologies for my concealed carry.

Environment: Firearms contribute to spreading aerosolized potassium into the environment to promote excellent plant growth. In addition, they contribute to reduced global carbon emissions from humans.
Bodily sovereignty: Firearms provide a permanent method of protecting bodily sovereignty from an aggressor.
Voting rights: Please refer to the 1946 Battle of Athens Tennessee.

There is a reason firearms are high on many peoples lists and sometimes takes first.

God, what happened to the based Americans that resisted unjust authorities during the Battles of Athens and Blair Mountain? Seems the only people in this country who want to take up arms anymore are the cringe cultists and conspiracy theorists ranting about doomsday or satanic pedophile cabals.

[Kernen]

It's not worth the effort, Necro would deny the sun existed if it advanced their own hate.

Says the one who thinks about guns before the environment, bodily sovereignty, voting rights, and on and on... You would know about ignorance in service of hate.

Quid pro quo. If you don't get our support on your issues until you stop attacking ours.

[Attawapiskatt]

All gun laws are an infringement

[The Chuck]

Environment: Firearms contribute to spreading aerosolized potassium into the environment to promote excellent plant growth. In addition, they contribute to reduced global carbon emissions from humans.
Bodily sovereignty: Firearms provide a permanent method of protecting bodily sovereignty from an aggressor.
Voting rights: Please refer to the 1946 Battle of Athens Tennessee.

There is a reason firearms are high on many peoples lists and sometimes takes first.

God, what happened to the based Americans that resisted unjust authorities during the Battles of Athens and Blair Mountain? Seems the only people in this country who want to take up arms anymore are the cringe cultists and conspiracy theorists ranting about doomsday or satanic pedophile cabals.

They sired us as offspring. We've become too divided. While one side harks on about the superiority of the Russian military, the other side takes sadistic monetary pleasure in watching their Lockmart portfolio increase with each HIMARS strike.

[Hurtful Thoughts]

Make a law forcing the wealthy to sell their guns to the poor at an affordable rate?

Or Tax payer subsidized gun purchases

Well, rather than chant "eat the rich!" like a filthy cannibal, why not simply disarm the rich and let society sort itself out?

[El Lazaro]

Environment: Firearms contribute to spreading aerosolized potassium into the environment to promote excellent plant growth. In addition, they contribute to reduced global carbon emissions from humans.
Bodily sovereignty: Firearms provide a permanent method of protecting bodily sovereignty from an aggressor.
Voting rights: Please refer to the 1946 Battle of Athens Tennessee.

There is a reason firearms are high on many peoples lists and sometimes takes first.

God, what happened to the based Americans that resisted unjust authorities during the Battles of Athens and Blair Mountain? Seems the only people in this country who want to take up arms anymore are the cringe cultists and conspiracy theorists ranting about doomsday or satanic pedophile cabals.

The only solution is forcing anyone isn’t an immediate danger to society or themselves to receive free guns in the mail. Sure, it might be a budgetary and logistical nightmare, but it’s a price I am willing to let billionaires pay in order to disenfranchise politically psychotic wannabe brownshirts.

[Haganham]

Environment: Firearms contribute to spreading aerosolized potassium into the environment to promote excellent plant growth. In addition, they contribute to reduced global carbon emissions from humans.
Bodily sovereignty: Firearms provide a permanent method of protecting bodily sovereignty from an aggressor.
Voting rights: Please refer to the 1946 Battle of Athens Tennessee.

There is a reason firearms are high on many peoples lists and sometimes takes first.

God, what happened to the based Americans that resisted unjust authorities during the Battles of Athens and Blair Mountain? Seems the only people in this country who want to take up arms anymore are the cringe cultists and conspiracy theorists ranting about doomsday or satanic pedophile cabals.

Basically all armed uprisings are created by by the FBI these days.

[Sordhau]

God, what happened to the based Americans that resisted unjust authorities during the Battles of Athens and Blair Mountain? Seems the only people in this country who want to take up arms anymore are the cringe cultists and conspiracy theorists ranting about doomsday or satanic pedophile cabals.

The only solution is forcing anyone isn’t an immediate danger to society or themselves to receive free guns in the mail. Sure, it might be a budgetary and logistical nightmare, but it’s a price I am willing to let billionaires pay in order to disenfranchise politically psychotic wannabe brownshirts.

Rare based El Lazaro take.

God, what happened to the based Americans that resisted unjust authorities during the Battles of Athens and Blair Mountain? Seems the only people in this country who want to take up arms anymore are the cringe cultists and conspiracy theorists ranting about doomsday or satanic pedophile cabals.

Basically all armed uprisings are created by by the FBI these days.

I piss on Hoover's grave.

[The Chuck]

The only solution is forcing anyone isn’t an immediate danger to society or themselves to receive free guns in the mail. Sure, it might be a budgetary and logistical nightmare, but it’s a price I am willing to let billionaires pay in order to disenfranchise politically psychotic wannabe brownshirts.

Rare based El Lazaro take.

Basically all armed uprisings are created by by the FBI these days.

I piss on Hoover's grave.

I got declared a Militia Violent Extremist by the FBI and the next day, a blank cheque from the CIA was in my mailbox.

On a gun control related note, I find it humorous the number of people who are fringe militants who support the right to bear arms up to the point where they go full authoritarian and confiscate from those they disagree with.

[Tarsonis]

The only solution is forcing anyone isn’t an immediate danger to society or themselves to receive free guns in the mail. Sure, it might be a budgetary and logistical nightmare, but it’s a price I am willing to let billionaires pay in order to disenfranchise politically psychotic wannabe brownshirts.

Rare based El Lazaro take.

Basically all armed uprisings are created by by the FBI these days.

I piss on Hoover's grave.

There have got to be closer bathroom facilities than Iowa

[Diopolis]

Environment: Firearms contribute to spreading aerosolized potassium into the environment to promote excellent plant growth. In addition, they contribute to reduced global carbon emissions from humans.
Bodily sovereignty: Firearms provide a permanent method of protecting bodily sovereignty from an aggressor.
Voting rights: Please refer to the 1946 Battle of Athens Tennessee.

There is a reason firearms are high on many peoples lists and sometimes takes first.

God, what happened to the based Americans that resisted unjust authorities during the Battles of Athens and Blair Mountain? Seems the only people in this country who want to take up arms anymore are the cringe cultists and conspiracy theorists ranting about doomsday or satanic pedophile cabals.

They're the same people. Normal types don't pass out weapons, they just take it.

[Grinning Dragon]

Federal judge says those accused of felonies still have Second Amendment rights

In the same ruling, Counts both tossed a charge of obtaining a firearm while under indictment and noted it was unknown “whether a statute preventing a person under indictment from receiving a firearm aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Also unknown, he said, is “the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a post-Bruen world.”

“​​This Court does not know the answers; it must only try to faithfully follow Bruen’s framework,” he said.

In an earlier filing, the U.S. attorney’s office said the law to prohibit those under felony indictment from obtaining guns does not interfere with the Second Amendment “because it does not disarm felony indictees who already had guns and does not prohibit possession or public carry.”

“The Second Amendment has always allowed laws restricting the gun rights of groups viewed by legislatures as posing a public-safety risk, including those accused but not convicted of wrongdoing,” the prosecution wrote.



The Texas case arose out of the conviction of a man who had purchased a gun while under indictment and lied about it during his background check, according to Counts’ ruling. Last year, while indicted on charges of burglary and missing court dates, Jose Gomez Quiroz tried to buy a semi-automatic pistol at an Alpine store. He denied he was under indictment on his background check form, and, after a seven-day wait for approval, picked up his new gun.

Days later, the federal system alerted that the purchase was illegal. He was convicted on the same day of the Supreme Court ruling. Almost immediately, he appealed, claiming the New York ruling invalidates the law he broke. Counts agreed.

“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,’” he ruled. “No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right.”

I have to agree here, being accused isn't the same as being adjudicated, judge made the correct ruling.

[American Legionaries]

Federal judge says those accused of felonies still have Second Amendment rights

In the same ruling, Counts both tossed a charge of obtaining a firearm while under indictment and noted it was unknown “whether a statute preventing a person under indictment from receiving a firearm aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Also unknown, he said, is “the constitutionality of firearm regulations in a post-Bruen world.”

“​​This Court does not know the answers; it must only try to faithfully follow Bruen’s framework,” he said.

In an earlier filing, the U.S. attorney’s office said the law to prohibit those under felony indictment from obtaining guns does not interfere with the Second Amendment “because it does not disarm felony indictees who already had guns and does not prohibit possession or public carry.”

“The Second Amendment has always allowed laws restricting the gun rights of groups viewed by legislatures as posing a public-safety risk, including those accused but not convicted of wrongdoing,” the prosecution wrote.



The Texas case arose out of the conviction of a man who had purchased a gun while under indictment and lied about it during his background check, according to Counts’ ruling. Last year, while indicted on charges of burglary and missing court dates, Jose Gomez Quiroz tried to buy a semi-automatic pistol at an Alpine store. He denied he was under indictment on his background check form, and, after a seven-day wait for approval, picked up his new gun.

Days later, the federal system alerted that the purchase was illegal. He was convicted on the same day of the Supreme Court ruling. Almost immediately, he appealed, claiming the New York ruling invalidates the law he broke. Counts agreed.

“The Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right,’” he ruled. “No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right.”

I have to agree here, being accused isn't the same as being adjudicated, judge made the correct ruling.

It's almost like the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty is a thing'

[Arengin Union]

Federal judge says those accused of felonies still have Second Amendment rights


I have to agree here, being accused isn't the same as being adjudicated, judge made the correct ruling.

It's almost like the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty is a thing'

This then answers the dilemma about red flag laws.

[Grinning Dragon]

Well y'all knew it was just a matter of time....
GOA Files New Case Against New York’s CCIA

This new lawsuit is the second time GOA has challenged the CCIA. Last month GOA lost its challenge to the CCIA in Antonyuk v Bruen. Although the judge found the law unconstitutional, he stated that GOA’s plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, had no intention of breaking the law and therefore did not have standing. Mr. Antonyuk was basically too law-abiding...

GOA is asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctive relief against the new law. If the TRO were to be issued, the law would not be enforceable. The judge has already stated that he believes the law to be unconstitutional, and all GOA was missing was plaintiffs willing to say they plan on violating the law. Now GOA has those plaintiffs.

TBH, I cannot stand the idiotic "did not have standing" if the law is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional and needs to be thrown into the trash like a piece of shit law that it is.

[American Legionaries]

Well y'all knew it was just a matter of time....
GOA Files New Case Against New York’s CCIA

This new lawsuit is the second time GOA has challenged the CCIA. Last month GOA lost its challenge to the CCIA in Antonyuk v Bruen. Although the judge found the law unconstitutional, he stated that GOA’s plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, had no intention of breaking the law and therefore did not have standing. Mr. Antonyuk was basically too law-abiding...

GOA is asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctive relief against the new law. If the TRO were to be issued, the law would not be enforceable. The judge has already stated that he believes the law to be unconstitutional, and all GOA was missing was plaintiffs willing to say they plan on violating the law. Now GOA has those plaintiffs.

TBH, I cannot stand the idiotic "did not have standing" if the law is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional and needs to be thrown into the trash like a piece of shit law that it is.

More importantly, when do we get to actually punish lawmakers who pass knowingly unconstitutional trash for the sole intention of hurting innocent people.

[Sordhau]

Well y'all knew it was just a matter of time....
GOA Files New Case Against New York’s CCIA


TBH, I cannot stand the idiotic "did not have standing" if the law is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional and needs to be thrown into the trash like a piece of shit law that it is.

More importantly, when do we get to actually punish lawmakers who pass knowingly unconstitutional trash for the sole intention of hurting innocent people.

Lol. Lmao, even.

[Ithalian Empire]

More importantly, when do we get to actually punish lawmakers who pass knowingly unconstitutional trash for the sole intention of hurting innocent people.

Politicians being punished for wrong doing? In this economy?

[Grinning Dragon]

It's almost like the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty is a thing'

This then answers the dilemma about red flag laws.

With this ruling along with the Caniglia v. Strom’s 9-0 decision in 2021 which basically affirmed privacy and 2nd Amendment rights, then the Bruen decision which basically leaves the door wide open to striking down red flag laws, it would seem those types of laws are perhaps on life support.

[Kernen]

Well y'all knew it was just a matter of time....
GOA Files New Case Against New York’s CCIA

This new lawsuit is the second time GOA has challenged the CCIA. Last month GOA lost its challenge to the CCIA in Antonyuk v Bruen. Although the judge found the law unconstitutional, he stated that GOA’s plaintiff, Ivan Antonyuk, had no intention of breaking the law and therefore did not have standing. Mr. Antonyuk was basically too law-abiding...

GOA is asking for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctive relief against the new law. If the TRO were to be issued, the law would not be enforceable. The judge has already stated that he believes the law to be unconstitutional, and all GOA was missing was plaintiffs willing to say they plan on violating the law. Now GOA has those plaintiffs.

TBH, I cannot stand the idiotic "did not have standing" if the law is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional and needs to be thrown into the trash like a piece of shit law that it is.

Not really. If you aren't a proper party to the case, you can't bring suit, no matter how bad the law is.

[Grinning Dragon]

Well y'all knew it was just a matter of time....
GOA Files New Case Against New York’s CCIA


TBH, I cannot stand the idiotic "did not have standing" if the law is unconstitutional then it's unconstitutional and needs to be thrown into the trash like a piece of shit law that it is.

Not really. If you aren't a proper party to the case, you can't bring suit, no matter how bad the law is.

I understand the pants on head retarded thinking of "standing" when it comes to constitutional challenges, which is why I stated "I cannot stand". IMO, a person shouldn't have to put themselves into legal jeopardy just to challenge a clearly unconstitutional; city/state law. I have perhaps seen it only a couple times in my life where standing wasn't an issue when challenging an unconstitutional law and IMO this is how it should proceed. Person-A wants to do X, state law Y prevents, Constitutional right Z says otherwise, judge throws out Y, person-A is happy again as they give the state the finger.

[Reverend Norv]

Not really. If you aren't a proper party to the case, you can't bring suit, no matter how bad the law is.

I understand the pants on head retarded thinking of "standing" when it comes to constitutional challenges, which is why I stated "I cannot stand". IMO, a person shouldn't have to put themselves into legal jeopardy just to challenge a clearly unconstitutional; city/state law. I have perhaps seen it only a couple times in my life where standing wasn't an issue when challenging an unconstitutional law and IMO this is how it should proceed. Person-A wants to do X, state law Y prevents, Constitutional right Z says otherwise, judge throws out Y, person-A is happy again as they give the state the finger.

Whatever you may think, the Case or Controversy Clause is just as much a part of the Constitution as the Second Amendment, and our courts have no constitutional power to issue advisory opinions. Our Framers did not create a judicial branch that could override the political branches whenever it wanted, however it wanted. The case or controversy requirement is one way they made sure of that: it limits the power of the courts to actual legal cases, and prevents them from acting as generalized policymakers. So standing is not an arbitrary rule. It's a requirement of limited government, because an all-powerful judiciary is no better than an all-powerful president. And even if you disagree with all of that, it's still what the Constitution requires - and the Constitution is as much the law of the land when you don't like it as when you do.

[Fourth Jellian Republic]

Why do people want to be able to have large weapons of war like 50cal machine guns, grenade launchers and the like.
You loose no ability to self defense by not being able to be better equipped than the millitary.

[The Two Jerseys]

Why do people want to be able to have large weapons of war like 50cal machine guns, grenade launchers and the like.
You loose no ability to self defense by not being able to be better equipped than the millitary.

Why do people want to be able to have race cars like Toyota Corollas, Ford F-150s, and the like?
You lose no ability to travel by not being able to be faster than a horse.