Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before he does that, how about you come up with a legal ruling for how the "well-regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment can deny U.S. citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Considering that the argument has been refuted multiple times, by several courts - including SCOTUS - we'll wait patiently for your citation.
The founding fathers made the SCOTUS the final arbiter of what is, or is not, constitutional when interpreting what the constitution means. Also, whether the laws passed by the the legislature meet the constitutional smell test. Our founding documents already have mechanisms in place for overturning the SCOTUS and amending the constitution. As a law abiding citizen, one cannot just ignore the SCOTUS rulings because one political faction or another doesn't like the ruling.
The SCOTUS has ruled with the DC vs. Heller decision that the 2nd amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. Prohibiting felons, mentally disfunctional individuals and those involved in domestic violence from possessing firearms are reasonable restrictions that have been in place for decades. NRA lawyers with unlimited funds have not challenged those restrictions in all that time.
That, sir, should tell you something and put the whole argument to rest.
So I am in a domestic situation where my ex whateve poses a violent threat and the cops come and disarm me. What if my ex goes out and gets an illegal gun and comes a knocking? Am I supposed to stand there and die looking stupid?
It seems to me in these cases the courts should mandate that BOTH parties in the dispute be armed.
No 'effin wonder I want to eliminate ALL existing gun laws.
The problem(s) you have with your whatever have NOTHING to do with gun laws.
So I am in a domestic situation where my ex whateve poses a violent threat and the cops come and disarm me. What if my ex goes out and gets an illegal gun and comes a knocking? Am I supposed to stand there and die looking stupid?
It seems to me in these cases the courts should mandate that BOTH parties in the dispute be armed.
No 'effin wonder I want to eliminate ALL existing gun laws.
I don't get it? If you are threatened with violence by your spouse, what law say's that you are to be disarmed? I would imagine that you would get a TRO, go to court and get a PRO and the violent spouse would be forbidden to possess. You on the other hand are free to arm yourself with a 50cal. Barrett if you so choose. What's the problem?
I do agree with some posters here that the TRO is probably the most abused item in the legal system. Not that it's a bad idea legally, but because so many individuals abuse the process and use it as leverage in their hate for their spouse and in child custody battles. The principle of society temporarily disarming one spouse or another because of an act of domestic violence is sound although many abuse the law.
Why should I do that before he proves anything? Because you say so?
Because you are the one who implied that you wish to change the status quo and prohibit U.S. citizens from owning firearms. You are the one who is using a fallacious argument in order to attempt to make your point. Considering that your argument has already been proven invalid, the burden of proof lies upon you to show us why anyone should pay attention to such spurious reasoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
The founding fathers made the SCOTUS the final arbiter of what is, or is not, constitutional when interpreting what the constitution means. Also, whether the laws passed by the the legislature meet the constitutional smell test. Our founding documents already have mechanisms in place for overturning the SCOTUS and amending the constitution. As a law abiding citizen, one cannot just ignore the SCOTUS rulings because one political faction or another doesn't like the ruling.
The SCOTUS has ruled with the DC vs. Heller decision that the 2nd amendment is subject to reasonable restrictions. Prohibiting felons, mentally disfunctional individuals and those involved in domestic violence from possessing firearms are reasonable restrictions that have been in place for decades. NRA lawyers with unlimited funds have not challenged those restrictions in all that time.
That, sir, should tell you something and put the whole argument to rest.
Reasonable restrictions are no problem whatsoever, in my opinion. Violent felons should not be allowed to own a firearm. People who have been diagnosed with mental conditions which make them incapable of functioning in a responsible manner should not have access to firearms. I don't believe anyone is arguing against that point, and if they are then I don't agree with them. On the other hand, having your name on a domestic violence order - when in some places merely filing for divorce can cause this to happen and in other places a domestic violence order can be taken out against you without any chance to defend yourself - should not be cause for anyone to lose their right to own a firearm. Nor should non-violent felonies be considered a valid cause to prohibit the ownership of firearms.
As for the claim made previously in this thread that the FOID law is not unconstitutional, there are several cases that have been filed challenging the law. Some have been tossed out on technicalities, some are still pending. Whether the NRA has gotten involved in the battle is something that I don't know, but either way there are challenges to the constitutionality of a state requiring a license on a federal right.
Drop a few cops enforcing these moronic violations of civil rights, and see how long it keeps up. Hate to see that happen, but the abuse of power by politicians and cops has to stop.
Many sacrifices of life, happen for us all to have freedom in the first place.
and it was not by a firing squad.
This is exactly what it means to make a sacrifice for liberty. Give me Liberty, or give me Death, rings a loud bell!
So I am in a domestic situation where my ex whateve poses a violent threat and the cops come and disarm me. What if my ex goes out and gets an illegal gun and comes a knocking? Am I supposed to stand there and die looking stupid?
It seems to me in these cases the courts should mandate that BOTH parties in the dispute be armed.
No 'effin wonder I want to eliminate ALL existing gun laws.
Okay, but the roundup taking place in Illinois is a roundup because the FOID holders have done something unlawful, it's not the roundup of law abiding FOID holders and legal firearms owners.
If a Illinois FOID has been revoked, it was probably for a good reason. And, this only affects approximately 3,000 Illinois residents, not all legal gun owners in the state.
I gotta admit, the thread title is a grabber, making people think that state police or other agencies are going door to door rounding up FOID holders-firearms owners-lawfully possessed firearms by owners, you gotta dig a bit deeper for facts when people post these types of threads.
Quote:
CHICAGO (CBS) – A new team from the Cook County Sheriff’s Office has launched an effort to seize guns from thousands of people whose state gun permits have been revoked.
How many people have been convicted? Do let me know.
Until they're convicted, NO ONE has been made a felon under that law.
You gun nuts really have to stretch in order to explain away your insistence on letting criminals and crazies have guns.
Anyone can find crazy old laws in any state. Apparently the NRA has done extensive research on it for talking points against laws that would keep nuts and criminals from getting guns. Of course, this whacky "we're felons for downloading songs" meme is a complete lie, but that never stops the NRA.
I'm probably breaking some law right now by typing, but until I'm arrested and convicted, I'm not a felon.
Sure, and until Idi Amin kills a particular Ugandan, said Ugandan is not dead. Does this mean Idi Amin is not a problem? Apparently according to you, it does.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,079,627 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn
In Illinois, the state issues you a Firearm Owner ID Card (FOID card) if they think you are somebody they want to own a gun. You can't legally own a gun without this card.
But they will revoke your card for reasons such as, you have a restraining order issued against you. (In many areas, such restraining orders are routinely handed out to both parties in a divorce, including those where there have been no violence or threats.)
Recently the Sheriff in Cook County (which includes Chicago) put together a special team of police, whose job is to go door-to-door, confiscating guns from people whose card was revoked.
There has been no comment from the people who insist that registration does NOT lead to confiscation, and insist that the cops are NOT out to take away our guns.
I do need to ask: How many people have been murdered in Chicago since this special team of cops was put together in February? How many of the murderers (mostly thugs and gangbangers) obediently stopped to apply for Illinois FOID cards before murdering their victims, so that their guns could be confiscated when they broke the law?
OTOH, how many people who have never killed, injured, raped, robbed, assaulted, or even threatened anybody, have had their guns confiscated by this special team of cops?
Cook County sheriff’s team taking guns if FOID card is revoked
BY FRANK MAIN Staff Reporter fmain@suntimes.com
July 25, 2013 9:54PM
Updated: July 26, 2013 1:20PM
A new Cook County Sheriff’s team is crisscrossing the suburbs to seize guns from thousands of people whose Firearm Owner’s Identification Cards have been revoked.
More than 3,000 people in Cook County have failed to surrender their revoked FOID cards to the state. Sheriff Tom Dart said he thinks many of them continue to possess firearms.
The Chicago Police Department conducts regular missions to recover revoked FOID cards and seize guns from the holders, but there wasn’t a concerted effort to do that in Cook County’s suburbs, Dart said.
“The system is broken,” the sheriff said. “The system revokes cards, but the guns are of no consequence. . . . Our strong hope is that we will eliminate tragedies.”
FOID cards are supposed to protect the public from dangerous people. Mental illness, felonies and protection orders are grounds for the state to revoke the cards from their holders. It’s illegal to buy guns or ammunition without one.
In February, Dart assigned a sergeant and four investigators to a gun team that has recovered about 160 FOID cards and taken more than 160 guns from the cardholders.
Living inside the state of Ilinois is bad enough,but it is beyond me how anyone could live in that cesspool known as Cook county...if it fell off in the lake and nobody was injured it would be a happy day for the rest of the state.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
