U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-01-2018, 12:46 PM
 
535 posts, read 107,514 times
Reputation: 132

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
If you ever actually read the Heller decision, in particular Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, you would find that is plainly states that 2A is not absolute. You do not have the right to own or carry whatever weapon you choose anywhere you want. That's the RW darling who wrote that, not a Liberal judge.
The problem with this is that the next case that goes to the Supreme Court on which weapons can be limited or banned will be up against "in common use". The AR platform is the most widely used weapon in the United States with over ten million in circulation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-01-2018, 12:58 PM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,837,192 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
No, I actually do not disagree with you. The poster I was responding to proposed that the guns would be removed for 30 days without cause simply because someone called a "hotline". And then the police would have 30 days to investigate to then determine if there was a threat. That's not due process. An EPO is actually due process. Why? Because the person could actually fight against said EPO and/or get an injunction is that EPO was taken out in bad faith. I think we're talking about two different things here. I was arguing against what I thought was a terrible idea by another poster and you brought up the law in CA.

Here's my position on the 2nd and frankly any of our rights. The gov't does have the ability to restrict one's rights BUT (and this is a BIG but), there needs to be due process which means the defendant, the one getting his or hers rights restricted has the ability to fight against said restriction. In addition, the burden of proof needs to merit removing said right. Such as an immediate danger, as you noted in the EPO example above. In a perfect world, no one would ever have any rights restricted ever. But we're not in a perfect world. So, unless the gov't can show just cause, be specific and targeted, allow due process, and maintain the least restriction possible to ensure the aforementioned, they need to ensure we as citizens are afforded our full rights, including that of the 2nd amendment.

Of note, the 2nd amendment doesn't ask us to show why we need to have guns or even what types. Just like I don't need to defend why I'm voting. It's my right. The gov't has the duty to show just cause why they are restricting my rights. Because a bad person once used it is not enough. Because children died in Florida is still not enough. Because it is semi-automatic is still not enough. None of those are specific and targeted or just cause.
southbel, I threw that out there to start a conversation about what reasonable legislation might look like. I pulled 30 days out of thin air. You raised good points and I acknowledged that and responded. I was trying to describe a law like they have in California but didn't know it existed.

You said earlier you wouldn't be opposed to taking someone's guns while they're on bond for some offenses. A person can be on bond for months and even years. Why would that be okay with you and not a period of confiscation during which a hearing is held so the person can make a case for keeping his guns?

You and I are a lot closer in our positions than you think. What I mostly am interested in is talking about ways to reduce gun violence. Good ideas, bad ideas, what's constitutional and what isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 01:07 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,665 posts, read 9,045,858 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
southbel, I threw that out there to start a conversation about what reasonable legislation might look like. I pulled 30 days out of thin air. You raised good points and I acknowledged that and responded. I was trying to describe a law like they have in California but didn't know it existed.

You said earlier you wouldn't be opposed to taking someone's guns while they're on bond for some offenses. A person can be on bond for months and even years. Why would that be okay with you and not a period of confiscation during which a hearing is held so the person can make a case for keeping his guns?

You and I are a lot closer in our positions than you think. What I mostly am interested in is talking about ways to reduce gun violence. Good ideas, bad ideas, what's constitutional and what isn't.
Actually, the gov't would need to petition the court to remove the guns while out on bond. In other words, just cause (e.g. accused of violent crime), much like a passport is surrendered while on bond if someone is deemed a flight risk. Just like all those accused do not have to surrender passports, neither would all those accused have to surrender weapons. The defendant actually does have a hearing and does have due process, at the bond hearing, where the gov't would make the petition and the defendant has the right to defend against said petition. Either way, even my idea requires due process and just cause on the gov't's part. I cannot forsee any circumstances where I would be in support of someone losing their rights based on a hotline call and then eventually getting a hearing 30 days later. No. Never.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 01:41 PM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,837,192 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Actually, the gov't would need to petition the court to remove the guns while out on bond. In other words, just cause (e.g. accused of violent crime), much like a passport is surrendered while on bond if someone is deemed a flight risk. Just like all those accused do not have to surrender passports, neither would all those accused have to surrender weapons. The defendant actually does have a hearing and does have due process, at the bond hearing, where the gov't would make the petition and the defendant has the right to defend against said petition. Either way, even my idea requires due process and just cause on the gov't's part. I cannot forsee any circumstances where I would be in support of someone losing their rights based on a hotline call and then eventually getting a hearing 30 days later. No. Never.
That's fine, but now we're arguing details. What I was talking about was close to the California law and again, I was writing as I was thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
10,665 posts, read 9,045,858 times
Reputation: 5948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
That's fine, but now we're arguing details. What I was talking about was close to the California law and again, I was writing as I was thinking.
I guess the problem is that I keep having to explain to people why I don't want my rights taken away. This is not a reflection on you personally but more on the whole let's ban something/anything crowd who is quite loud right now. There are a number of them who feel they wouldn't be personally impacted because they personally choose not to own a gun and thus have no issue making proposals which would limit my rights. So yes, I'm a bit circumspect when I hear yet another idea.

Frankly, I'm not sure how interested I am about any of these so-called new ideas until they enforce what's already on the books. Otherwise, it sure seems less like they care about actual improvement and enforcement and more about further restricting the rights of law abiding Americans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 01:57 PM
 
1,708 posts, read 502,915 times
Reputation: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip91 View Post
Leftists and anti-White politicians will soon be calling for the confiscation of White people's firearms. Mark my words. They've already linked the Florida shooter to White Supremacy and Neo Nazis. This is all orchestrated.
Please don't pass that pipe to any sober-minded individual!

There's some fairly strong S**t in there....

Are you gonna be alright?.....You sure?

BTW

Klansmen, Neo-Nazis, and like are all terrorists anyways and most likely should have their GD firearms confiscated by any means necessary!

Last edited by zeliner; 03-01-2018 at 02:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,065 posts, read 951,998 times
Reputation: 1451
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuebald View Post
If you ever actually read the Heller decision, in particular Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, you would find that is plainly states that 2A is not absolute. You do not have the right to own or carry whatever weapon you choose anywhere you want. That's the RW darling who wrote that, not a Liberal judge.
If? You really are smarmy.

I'm aware, did you have a point? I didnt say anything about "liberal"s or "right wing" .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 02:03 PM
 
Location: Micronesia
3,065 posts, read 951,998 times
Reputation: 1451
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlow View Post
I understand that you don't agree with it. But post-deprivation hearings are done in lots of situations and have been found to be provide constitutional due process.
Correct. The world is full of ills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 03:16 PM
 
15,254 posts, read 16,837,192 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
I guess the problem is that I keep having to explain to people why I don't want my rights taken away. This is not a reflection on you personally but more on the whole let's ban something/anything crowd who is quite loud right now. There are a number of them who feel they wouldn't be personally impacted because they personally choose not to own a gun and thus have no issue making proposals which would limit my rights. So yes, I'm a bit circumspect when I hear yet another idea.

Frankly, I'm not sure how interested I am about any of these so-called new ideas until they enforce what's already on the books. Otherwise, it sure seems less like they care about actual improvement and enforcement and more about further restricting the rights of law abiding Americans.
I totally understand what you're saying. I'm not a gun owner and so don't feel like anyone is about to take anything from me. But every time there's a thread about a police shooting and someone says, "Just do everything the police say and you'll be fine," it makes me angry. If a person not engaged in criminal activity is approached by the police, why do they suddenly have to kowtow to this armed representative of the government? And it especially pisses me off when someone is shot because they were "resisting" when there was no reason to stop them in the first place.

Anyway, I will continue to seek common ground where it exists.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-01-2018, 04:08 PM
 
Location: NY
12,266 posts, read 9,447,164 times
Reputation: 8029
Default Why Senate Democrats are considering holding up a gun-control bill from one of their own

The big lie is Democrats in Congress give a damn about gun control.

From the WaPo -

"Here's how politically tricky the gun-control debate has become: A Republican-controlled Congress might soon vote on a bill to strengthen gun-control laws in the wake of the Florida shooting, and it's the Democrats who aren't happy about it.

Even though one of their own is co-sponsoring the Fix NICS Act, which would punish federal agencies that don't submit criminal records to the national criminal background check system for firearms, Senate Democrats have spent their first few days back in Congress this week dissing the bill."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.405f2cde9c09

Hey libs...this kind of behavior is indefensible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:36 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top