Gun Show Loophole exposed <<MOD WARNING ISSUED>>

It is therefore presumed constitutional since it currently exists

 

Please try to keep up Vegas, were talking about what was ruled on in Heller so the cop here can understand. Licensing wasnt.

 

Wrong, it is. The ruling held that Heller must register his firearm with the local and be permitted himself and be qualified for their ruling to be enforced. Otherwise, the ruling had no validity for Heller and was necessary for relief. . Without abiding by the regs, Heller could not have his firearm. The act of licensing was instrumental in the argument as well. They felt the regulation was permissible. Why can’t you read that first phrase in the statement .

The first phrase is called the main clause of most statements. Is it your habit to just dismiss it and assign a subordinate clause as the meaning ? . Do you need more English lessons ?

You’re just making crappola up. Reading comp. is not on your side. You need to ask your secretary for advice. You’re not doing a good job convincing anyone who can read what the Heller decsion was about. It acknowledged gun regulations and that no rights were absolute and found the regs in question were permissible. That’s all stated in the majority opinion which is as important as the decsion itself being its basis. It was written on behalf of the entire majority.

 

Wrong, it is. Do you understand that the holding is in the majority opinion and is the law(s) the decsion was based upon. The final decision was in part based upon the regulations of the locality. They found them permissible. That makes them constitutional as far as this ruling is concerned.

 

By miss quoting everything ?

 

Quote it.....

 

Well it is clear licensing and registration are presumed constitutional....do you disagree?

 

Then ultimately why did the united state supreme court decide not to clarify the matter of abortion while ruling upon the Heller decision?

 

The united state supreme court told the district of columbia that it had no choice but to recognize the second amendment, and allow for members of the public to legally own handguns, which the city had been prohibiting for over thirty years. The united state supreme court said nothing about which regulations were constitutionally acceptable, and which were not.

The intent was to draw parallels to show the united state supreme court does not rule on matters that are not brought before it in a particular case. Just as the justices did not speak of the matter of abortion in Heller since it was not brought up, it did not address the matter of registration and licensing requirements, because they were not at issue. The plaintiff had no reason to challenge the constitutionality of such requirements, when handgun ownership itself was prohibited in all cases.

Pray tell. Why exactly is such a simple concept proving to be so difficult to actually comprehend?

 

You are correct, and everyone knows it.
Everyone.
If you get my drift.

 

What part of its not part of Heller's ruling is unclear to you?

 

The decision had nothing to do with licensing of firearms as that was not at issue in Heller. What was at issue was very narrow and was in fact the storage requirement.
As they EXPLICITLY STATE.

 

Listen closely. I dont care. This thread is about the gun show loophole. Universal registration and licensing would fix that.


And it is presumed constitutional

 

The only thing that was required from the district of columbia was to stop infringing upon the second amendment rights of those that reside within its boundaries.

Only because the plaintiff did not challenge them at the time of the case. Had such been done, the united state supreme court would have been given no choice but to address the constitutionality or lack thereof pertaining to such requirements. It is known as picking your battles carefully.

 

1) its not "the gun show loophole" you can do a private sale ANYWHERE. Booga booga booga
2) you think it would fix people obtaining firearms when a prohibited person? We have people getting their name run through the NICS registry with priors and passing, you want to massively increase the volume of transactions, and you think its going to get better? Brazil bans all guns and they've got issues with firearms in criminal hands. How could that happen?

Keep telling yourself things that make you feel better dear.

post script: Now that you mention it though, there is a gun show this weekend and I'll be purchasing at least one handgun in a private sale on Sunday in your honor.

 

Everything is presumed to be constitutional, up until it is proven not to be. Presumptions are not facts, and therefore mean nothing.

 

Yes I think it will get better. I can point to a dozen countries where it is better because they dont have the gun show loophole.


Lol

 

With the number of arms already in circulation that the US has, with similar demographic and cultural qualities?

Do tell.

 

Hahahaha. All those countries are different culturally.

That is hilarious

 

I didn't ask that, I asked if you could cite a country that had the same sort of culture the US has and the same sort of demographics, with 42% of the world's known firearms in civilian hands owned by about 1/3rd of our population (100 million people give or take a few million), which has emplaced these laws you want and shown success.
I'm asking if you can make an apples to apples comparison. You and I both know that you cannot.

 

Not required. In fact that has never been required for any law ever. You dont even to need to believe it will work.

We will have gun control if the people want it.

And it is presumed constitutional. Lol

 

If you want to convince someone of your position it would be.

Ah except the people dont want it or youd have no barrier. Whomp whomp.

Since there is case law already on licensing back rights? Not really but hey you feel free to beat it to whatever makes you happy.

 

If the people wanted it, there should be no problem with securing a repeal of or a mod to the 2nd Amendment.
And, if that were the case why are many states adopting Constitutional carry over the last handful of years and others moving to become ‘shall issue’ CCL states?
And, why do many democratic candidates find it expedient to deceive potential voters of their anti gun sentiments?

While I am a gun rights advocate as part of being staunch advocate for preserving all Constituional civil rights protections, I am all for the Democrats seeking to use Constitutionally prescribed means to amend the Constitution rather than continual attempts at undermining it. At least Hawaii is honest enough to propose that path.

 

You cant make the blind see.

Gun control saves lives

 

No need to amend the constitution.

Gun control is constitutional