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.
Ahhh, but there is a reason........one is a right under the Constitution, the other (the traffic stop) is not.
Same thing as acting in an adult flick which one can do anywhere and being a prostitute which is not necessarily the same. They are both doing sex for money BUT......
one is covered as a right, freedom of speech, under the Constitution......and the other is not.
I support all gun sales to go though federal firearms license holders. I also support increasing the number of FFL's. ATF spent lot of years getting rid of FFLS who operated out of their homes not sure if that is still the case now.
The reason I support transfers though an FFL because it's the only way to prove you had nothing to do with that firearm after it left your control.
So what? What would be the reason we would be giving up our rights ... so that we can make it easier for investigators to do their job? That's not really my problem... that's what taxes pay for.
If you legally sell a gun at a gun show, what does it matter? It doesn't make you guilty simply because at one time you possessed it. The police should reach out to you to ask questions and find out who you sold it to, and that's OK.
I bought my first gun (actually, for my 13 year old daughter), at a gun show... didn't have to do anything. I didn't sign anything, didn't show anything, just handed $250 bucks for a bright pink Ruger 20/22 semi-automatic rifle, and walked out the door. This is how it should be... this is how the second amendment law intended it.
So what? What would be the reason we would be giving up our rights ... so that we can make it easier for investigators to do their job? That's not really my problem... that's what taxes pay for.
If you legally sell a gun at a gun show, what does it matter? It doesn't make you guilty simply because at one time you possessed it. The police should reach out to you to ask questions and find out who you sold it to, and that's OK.
I bought my first gun (actually, for my 13 year old daughter), at a gun show... didn't have to do anything. I didn't sign anything, didn't show anything, just handed $250 bucks for a bright pink Ruger 20/22 semi-automatic rifle, and walked out the door. This is how it should be... this is how the second amendment law intended it.
My brother bought my first gun for me at Sears when I was 8. (1956) He bought it as a present. I could have legally bought it for myself.
My brother bought my first gun for me at Sears when I was 8. (1956) He bought it as a present. I could have legally bought it for myself.
The Thompson submachinegun used to be a simple mail order product. Al Capone and Prohibition era violence gave the government the excuse to kaibash all that.
Hell, you used to be able to buy dynamite in general (grocery) stores.
The Thompson submachinegun used to be a simple mail order product. Al Capone and Prohibition era violence gave the government the excuse to kaibash all that.
Hell, you used to be able to buy dynamite in general (grocery) stores.
That is until the National Firearms Act of 1934 which opened the door for the further erosion of our 2nd Amendment rights by the federal government. Indeed it was directed toward's the gang violence that took place during prohibition. Even though prohibition had already ended in 1933.
Actually New York's Sullivan Act of 1911 which required a license to carry or possess a handgun set the stage. Soon after other state's followed suit. The law was introduced by a N.Y. state senator, a corrupt politician named Tim "Big Tim" Sullivan.
In direct spite of the Supreme Court's Heller/McDonald decision that confirmed that the 2nd Amendment is indeed an individual right unrelated to service in a militia and applies to weapons that are hand held and in "common use". Gun control advocates are still at it trying to ban hand held weapons and magazines that are indeed in "common use".
Quote:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." -- United States Supreme Court, majority opinion, Heller v DC, 2008
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms"*-- United States Supreme Court, majority opinion, Heller v DC, 2008
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.†307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.â€" -* -- United States Supreme Court, majority opinion, Heller v DC, 2008
â€Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be hand carried--It's to keep and 'bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."-- "The 2nd Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."--- Antonin Scalia (Heller vs DC) www.law.cornell.edu/suplt
I support all gun sales to go though federal firearms license holders. I also support increasing the number of FFL's. ATF spent lot of years getting rid of FFLS who operated out of their homes not sure if that is still the case now.
The reason I support transfers though an FFL because it's the only way to prove you had nothing to do with that firearm after it left your control.
The ATF has and can visit you after recovering that gun lets say you sold that gun to someone at a gun show because you bought the gun new from a FFL the serial number will always lead to you. Now the ATF has arrested that person that you did a private sale to who is claiming you knew the gun was going to a criminal try and work out a plea deal? If you go though an FFL the responsibility is on them to follow the law you have proof because the serial number was recorded in his book. If the ATF visits you simply point them to the FFL you transferred the gun though.
I'm confused. Are you talking about the civil liability of the previous firearm owner, or about the criminal?
When it comes to criminal liability, the government must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was directly or indirectly involved in the crime. The burden of proof is not on a former gun owner to prove innocence.
I do not. If it's to be done, it must be done at the state level. The feds don't have the authority to regulate a private transaction between two residents of the same state, period, end of story on that.
This is why I replied.
I don't have to prove I had nothing to do with anything at all, ever. If I'm going to be accused of a crime, the state must prove THEIR case.
THE
STATE
MUST
PROVE
IT.
Frankly, your hypothetical is ridiculous on its face, but you still need to understand why. Also, you watch too many movies or whatever.
I appreciate that you put some thought into this. Most don't do even as much as you did. But you need to do more. MUCH more. And talk to lawyers or something as you're working it out, because your ideas about what the government is, how our freedoms are protected and why they're protected need a lot more development.
Just doesn't work that way in real life your good as guilty as soon as your charged in the minds of most people who sit on juries. Most juries are retired folks some over 80 years old have nothing to do all day except go to jury duty. Attorney's will tell you don't go to trial because only 5% of federal jury trials end acquittal.
Is it more DUMB, that someone supporting violating citizens Constitutional rights? (by requiring background checks in order to legally purchase a firearm)...That is PURE BALONEY!
Besides that, how does that actually work, once a felon has paid off his debt to society, they are NO LONGER criminals, so even a background check would not be applicable then?! What is the goal, to prevent someone from legally buying a gun, for a brief period of time? LOL Whats the point in that?
Oh let me guess, you probably believe 'Once a criminal...ALWAYS a criminal'?!
I cannot believe how popular the anti-American sentiment is today in this country, we have people that support the govt violating our Constitutional rights?! (because they happen to PERSONALLY agree with the govt). GEEZ, how disappointed our founders must be.
Anyone trying to violate my Constitutional rights...and they are not going home to their families ever again. lol Lets see how bad they still want to violate our rights then?
Ahhh, but there is a reason........one is a right under the Constitution, the other (the traffic stop) is not.
Same thing as acting in an adult flick which one can do anywhere and being a prostitute which is not necessarily the same. They are both doing sex for money BUT......
one is covered as a right, freedom of speech, under the Constitution......and the other is not.
"one is a right under the Constitution,"
So I repeat. When you commit a crime and are found guilty in a court of law, you LOSE your Constitutional right to FREEDOM.
When you a felon you LOSE your right to own a gun.
Now I do NOT agree that ALL felons should lose that right.
It should depend on what law you broke and was found guilty of.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 04-26-2022 at 05:10 AM..
"All women have the RIGHT to do with their body as they choose", as many on the left say when it comes to abortion but, not for prostitution..
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.
