MAGAThread XVIII: The Authority Is Total

[Cisairse]

Ah, I understand now.

Face-to-face private purchases of firearms are illegal in my state.

Well that's dumb, seems unconstitutional.

Obligatory What Mama Don't Know...

In my state you have to be a licensed retailer to be able to legally sell firearms (that rule went into effect a couple of years ago). Licenses for retailers are on a "may-issue" basis and they generally just don't issue them, so you can't really buy them.
Some retailers are grandfathered in, but I only know of maybe a dozen places in the state that are. Even then, you yourself need a license to buy a firearm, and those licenses are also may-issue and basically never issued, so you still can't buy one.

[Proctopeo]

Well that's dumb, seems unconstitutional.

Obligatory What Mama Don't Know...

In my state you have to be a licensed retailer to be able to legally sell firearms (that rule went into effect a couple of years ago). Licenses for retailers are on a "may-issue" basis and they generally just don't issue them, so you can't really buy them.
Some retailers are grandfathered in, but I only know of maybe a dozen places in the state that are. Even then, you yourself need a license to buy a firearm, and those licenses are also may-issue and basically never issued, so you still can't buy one.

That sounds like it's flagrantly in violation of the Second Amendment. Somebody oughta fucking sue.

[Gormwood]

The Recession Bread Lines Are Forming in Mar-a-Lago’s Shadow

How fitting. Maybe there's going to be Trumpvilles popping up in the country soon.

[Cisairse]

In my state you have to be a licensed retailer to be able to legally sell firearms (that rule went into effect a couple of years ago). Licenses for retailers are on a "may-issue" basis and they generally just don't issue them, so you can't really buy them.
Some retailers are grandfathered in, but I only know of maybe a dozen places in the state that are. Even then, you yourself need a license to buy a firearm, and those licenses are also may-issue and basically never issued, so you still can't buy one.

That sounds like it's flagrantly in violation of the Second Amendment. Somebody oughta fucking sue.

The U.S. Supreme Court back in Q1 2019 said that parts of our laws were almost certainly unconstitutional and our AG responded by disagreeing and saying they will continue to enforce the standing law unless the SCOTUS actually strikes it, which so far they haven't done. They basically argued that because it is theoretically possible to buy a gun, it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

[Grinning Dragon]

In my state you have to be a licensed retailer to be able to legally sell firearms (that rule went into effect a couple of years ago). Licenses for retailers are on a "may-issue" basis and they generally just don't issue them, so you can't really buy them.
Some retailers are grandfathered in, but I only know of maybe a dozen places in the state that are. Even then, you yourself need a license to buy a firearm, and those licenses are also may-issue and basically never issued, so you still can't buy one.

That sounds like it's flagrantly in violation of the Second Amendment. Somebody oughta fucking sue.

Nothing like govt bureaucracy harming citizens in times like this when the citizenry really should have access to self defense tools, since the police forces are most likely spread thin.

[Grinning Dragon]

That sounds like it's flagrantly in violation of the Second Amendment. Somebody oughta fucking sue.

The U.S. Supreme Court back in Q1 2019 said that parts of our laws were almost certainly unconstitutional and our AG responded by disagreeing and saying they will continue to enforce the standing law unless the SCOTUS actually strikes it, which so far they haven't done. They basically argued that because it is theoretically possible to buy a gun, it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

Interesting.. What was the case?

Heller approvingly cited the 1871 Tennessee case Andrews v. State, which explained that “the right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms"

In the Heller decision the USSC seems to agree that commercial sales of arms is constitutionally protected.

[Proctopeo]

That sounds like it's flagrantly in violation of the Second Amendment. Somebody oughta fucking sue.

The U.S. Supreme Court back in Q1 2019 said that parts of our laws were almost certainly unconstitutional and our AG responded by disagreeing and saying they will continue to enforce the standing law unless the SCOTUS actually strikes it, which so far they haven't done. They basically argued that because it is theoretically possible to buy a gun, it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

Hmm. Yeah, your AG is definitely an asshat, and the US Supreme Court really should get around to smiting the law(s) that violate the constitution.

[Cisairse]

The U.S. Supreme Court back in Q1 2019 said that parts of our laws were almost certainly unconstitutional and our AG responded by disagreeing and saying they will continue to enforce the standing law unless the SCOTUS actually strikes it, which so far they haven't done. They basically argued that because it is theoretically possible to buy a gun, it doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.

Interesting.. What was the case?

Heller approvingly cited the 1871 Tennessee case Andrews v. State, which explained that “the right to keep arms, necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms"

In the Heller decision the USSC seems to agree that commercial sales of arms is constitutionally protected.

The case I'm referencing is Rogers v. Grewal, which hasn't technically made its way to the SCOTUS yet but an initial memo was handed to my state's government as part of the court's deliberations in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York. As far as I can tell that case hasn't been resolved yet, and the SCOTUS said that they will only consider taking up Rogers v. Grewal after that case has completed, so it will likely be awihle before any further action is taken.

Until then we're just chilling, watching New York fight its fights.

[Cannot think of a name]

Well that's dumb, seems unconstitutional.

Obligatory What Mama Don't Know...

In my state you have to be a licensed retailer to be able to legally sell firearms (that rule went into effect a couple of years ago). Licenses for retailers are on a "may-issue" basis and they generally just don't issue them, so you can't really buy them.
Some retailers are grandfathered in, but I only know of maybe a dozen places in the state that are. Even then, you yourself need a license to buy a firearm, and those licenses are also may-issue and basically never issued, so you still can't buy one.

I have to give a Yossarian impressed whistle to using the same type of policy to defacto make abortions illegal being used to make guns illegal. There'll be more than a few people who have to thread a needle on this one. I wonder if getting it struck down at SCOTUS would be the precedent to get similar regulations that make abortions unavailable struck down.

[Galloism]

In my state you have to be a licensed retailer to be able to legally sell firearms (that rule went into effect a couple of years ago). Licenses for retailers are on a "may-issue" basis and they generally just don't issue them, so you can't really buy them.
Some retailers are grandfathered in, but I only know of maybe a dozen places in the state that are. Even then, you yourself need a license to buy a firearm, and those licenses are also may-issue and basically never issued, so you still can't buy one.

I have to give a Yossarian impressed whistle to using the same type of policy to defacto make abortions illegal being used to make guns illegal. There'll be more than a few people who have to thread a needle on this one. I wonder if getting it struck down at SCOTUS would be the precedent to get similar regulations that make abortions unavailable struck down.

It's one of those cases where principles matter - you have two ideologically opposed camps using the same tactics to destroy <thing they don't like>.

Either the tactic is a constitutionally valid one or it isn't, and both sides need to realize it.

(And, both should continue to be allowed, incidentally. Constitutional rights and all that.)

[New haven america]

Hey, remember the time Trump said Obama should resign because 2 cases of Ebola popped into the US?

[Telconi]

Hey, remember the time Trump said Obama should resign because 2 cases of Ebola popped into the US?

I'm pretty sure we all saw it last time it was posted.

[Cannot think of a name]

I have to give a Yossarian impressed whistle to using the same type of policy to defacto make abortions illegal being used to make guns illegal. There'll be more than a few people who have to thread a needle on this one. I wonder if getting it struck down at SCOTUS would be the precedent to get similar regulations that make abortions unavailable struck down.

It's one of those cases where principles matter - you have two ideologically opposed camps using the same tactics to destroy <thing they don't like>.

Either the tactic is a constitutionally valid one or it isn't, and both sides need to realize it.

(And, both should continue to be allowed, incidentally. Constitutional rights and all that.)

It's a bit of a game of chicken, really. Anti-abortionists aren't exactly going to abandon this tactic, the only way to stop them is if the practice is deemed an unconstitutional violation of rights. So the gun nerds have to decide if unfettered access to their shooty shooty bang bangs is more important then their control over women's reproductive rights. And this is my surprise face when the 'libertarian' types who sat on their hands while the rights of women were curtailed go gather their pitchforks and torches when access to the pop pop pew pew is restricted in the exact same way.

Ultimately, no this isn't the way to do it. But now that it's in their backyard maybe they can get off their ass and bring the practice to a close.

Spoiler alert, they won't. They'll find a way to carve this so that shooty pa-tooty is protected but not women. Again, surprise face.

[Telconi]

It's one of those cases where principles matter - you have two ideologically opposed camps using the same tactics to destroy <thing they don't like>.

Either the tactic is a constitutionally valid one or it isn't, and both sides need to realize it.

(And, both should continue to be allowed, incidentally. Constitutional rights and all that.)

It's a bit of a game of chicken, really. Anti-abortionists aren't exactly going to abandon this tactic, the only way to stop them is if the practice is deemed an unconstitutional violation of rights. So the gun nerds have to decide if unfettered access to their shooty shooty bang bangs is more important then their control over women's reproductive rights. And this is my surprise face when the 'libertarian' types who sat on their hands while the rights of women were curtailed go gather their pitchforks and torches when access to the pop pop pew pew is restricted in the exact same way.

Ultimately, no this isn't the way to do it. But now that it's in their backyard maybe they can get off their ass and bring the practice to a close.

Spoiler alert, they won't. They'll find a way to carve this so that shooty pa-tooty is protected but not women. Again, surprise face.

I mean, why wouldn't they?

[Proctopeo]

It's one of those cases where principles matter - you have two ideologically opposed camps using the same tactics to destroy <thing they don't like>.

Either the tactic is a constitutionally valid one or it isn't, and both sides need to realize it.

(And, both should continue to be allowed, incidentally. Constitutional rights and all that.)

It's a bit of a game of chicken, really. Anti-abortionists aren't exactly going to abandon this tactic, the only way to stop them is if the practice is deemed an unconstitutional violation of rights. So the gun nerds have to decide if unfettered access to their shooty shooty bang bangs is more important then their control over women's reproductive rights. And this is my surprise face when the 'libertarian' types who sat on their hands while the rights of women were curtailed go gather their pitchforks and torches when access to the pop pop pew pew is restricted in the exact same way.

Ultimately, no this isn't the way to do it. But now that it's in their backyard maybe they can get off their ass and bring the practice to a close.

Spoiler alert, they won't. They'll find a way to carve this so that shooty pa-tooty is protected but not women. Again, surprise face.

this post comes off as particularly patronizing

[Telconi]

It's a bit of a game of chicken, really. Anti-abortionists aren't exactly going to abandon this tactic, the only way to stop them is if the practice is deemed an unconstitutional violation of rights. So the gun nerds have to decide if unfettered access to their shooty shooty bang bangs is more important then their control over women's reproductive rights. And this is my surprise face when the 'libertarian' types who sat on their hands while the rights of women were curtailed go gather their pitchforks and torches when access to the pop pop pew pew is restricted in the exact same way.

Ultimately, no this isn't the way to do it. But now that it's in their backyard maybe they can get off their ass and bring the practice to a close.

Spoiler alert, they won't. They'll find a way to carve this so that shooty pa-tooty is protected but not women. Again, surprise face.

this post comes off as particularly patronizing

Patronizing for CTOAN is... impressive.

[Bear Stearns]

Welfare recipients should be required to get abortions if pregnant :^)

[Diahon]

Welfare recipients should be required to get abortions if pregnant :^)

eugenics for thee and not for me

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Welfare recipients should be required to get abortions if pregnant :^)

A disgusting view that should disqualify you from ever being taken seriously ever again.

[Nakena]

Welfare recipients should be required to get abortions if pregnant :^)

eugenics for thee and not for me

That ain't eugenics.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

eugenics for thee and not for me

That ain't eugenics.

The difference is only in the intent, not the action. The action is very easily one of eugenics.

Do you agree with Bear Stearns?

[Nakena]

The difference is only in the intent, not the action. The action is very easily one of eugenics.

Eugenics would ideally be aimed at improving the quality of the human stock and genetic material. It's not related to social factors but biological ones. Like preventing hereditary diseases is also eugenics.

Do you agree with Bear Stearns?

No.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Welfare recipients should be required to get abortions if pregnant :^)

That's actually related to current politics, and to discussion in this thread. So why couldn't you find something to reply to instead of just dropping it cold like that?

Nonetheless I will take the bait. Good parenting is work of vital importance to society, we should judge parents by the quality of their work and scruple not one cent in providing for them and their children, as long as they parent well.

The dark side of that is that bad parents should lose the right to parent at all. And that's regardless of their earned income.

[Gormwood]

Welfare recipients should be required to get abortions if pregnant :^)

A disgusting view that should disqualify you from ever being taken seriously ever again.

He was taken serious outside of the RWDT group?

[The New California Republic]

It's a bit of a game of chicken, really. Anti-abortionists aren't exactly going to abandon this tactic, the only way to stop them is if the practice is deemed an unconstitutional violation of rights. So the gun nerds have to decide if unfettered access to their shooty shooty bang bangs is more important then their control over women's reproductive rights. And this is my surprise face when the 'libertarian' types who sat on their hands while the rights of women were curtailed go gather their pitchforks and torches when access to the pop pop pew pew is restricted in the exact same way.

Ultimately, no this isn't the way to do it. But now that it's in their backyard maybe they can get off their ass and bring the practice to a close.

Spoiler alert, they won't. They'll find a way to carve this so that shooty pa-tooty is protected but not women. Again, surprise face.

this post comes off as particularly patronizing

Doesn't affect its accuracy in any way tho.