Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down
Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down Chicago's 28 Year-Old Gun Ban
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
0
-
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote: quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you even bother to read the second sentence of my post?
The constitution does not prohibit a private seller from doing a background check.
I did not say a private seller should be *required* to do one.
I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
I did not say background checks should be required, I basically said they are a good CYA (cover your...) for a seller.
The law I actually proposed, was making it illegal to supply a weapon you know or suspect will be used in a crime - just the same as it would be illegal to aid a criminal in his/her endeavors in any other way.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Certainly 'I caught your sarcasm'. It pretty much sums up MY thoughts, many days when I tire of the endless attacks of the Beast-Lovers. I have found no reason to argue with you..and I read most posts of most people concerning these subjects....or try to. However..there is yet other reasons to continue the ongoing dialogue here publicly. A quick review of the numbers of readers versus the number of posters seems to indicate that there is a silent presence out there..reading and learning. Not ALL of them sit in office chairs in shirtsleeves making notes.... slavishly doing the bidding of their Masters.... enemies of the Constitution, all....
I hear ya and never thought otherwise, just wanted to make sure to establish and make known my intentions and beliefs is all and threw a little humor as well since I am told that I am much too serious most the time, must be an officers trait in life. Personally I think its mostly the progressive collectivist liberal clowns worried if they are going to get the last word in on a thread hiding behind their computer screens slinging their little insults. Although you are probably correct in your assessment with gladys kravitz always watching and yes we need to constantly be vigilant never letting our guard down; however bring them on, I would prefer a straight fight to all this sneaking around.0 -
quote:I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
Just whose data base are you going to access, to do this 'background check' ?
Ohh...ya. The only one that would stand up in a court of law..a GOVERNMENT data base.
How about we simply hold the PERPATRATOR responsible for his/her actions ?
Yeah...I agree about ONE thing...were I selling weapons, if somebody starting talking about offing their neighbor/local cop/...ANYBODY..then I exercise my 'rights' and refuse to sell to that person.
Fact IS...I have done so.0 -
quote:Originally posted by thesupermonkey
Daily's already making moves to get around it. [V]
He'll try. He'll fail, but if you live in Chicago it'll be years before you can actually benefit from this ruling.0 -
Reasonable to house and feed and provide healthcare FOREVER for the incarcerated?? At taxpayer expense?? I find THAT very unreasonable.
Workfare works at Angola State Prison. Them boys work. Definitely a deterrent in my opinion. If they are locked up and not put to death, make them work to pay for every service they need.
Commit an offense punishable by death. Then death it is. Locked up? No gun. Not locked up? Have a gun.0 -
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
quote: quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Did you even bother to read the second sentence of my post?
The constitution does not prohibit a private seller from doing a background check.
I did not say a private seller should be *required* to do one.
I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges. I then said if the seller ran a background check, that would be a good defense against those charges.
I did not say background checks should be required, I basically said they are a good CYA (cover your...) for a seller.
The law I actually proposed, was making it illegal to supply a weapon you know or suspect will be used in a crime - just the same as it would be illegal to aid a criminal in his/her endeavors in any other way.
I was merely pointing out the constitutional prohibition that you were having difficulty locating.
An infringement is an infringement, private sale or not. Any serious background check would include entry into local, state, and federal databases (as has been mentioned).0 -
quote:I said someone who knows/thinks a gun will be used in a crime, and sells it anyway and then the gun is used in a crime, should face charges.
Not sure how you can prove what someone "thinks" at a specific point in time. Not that proof is a requirement anymore.0 -
quote:Originally posted by COBmmcmss
What's at issue here IMHO is that FOUR of those "justices" voted against our 2nd Amendment.
Kagan coming onto the court is the a fallout consequence of voting in someone with a history of activism in opposition to the republican form of government.
COB
But, but, but, everyone said it didn't matter who won the election. That McCain was just as bad as Obama.0 -
Still beating the republican drum. ehh, gruntled ?
You will find that most INTELLIGENT folks hereabouts have disembarked from THAT particular train headed towards destruction....0 -
If you study history you will note the Founders took for granted that their successors would be 'righteous God fearing men' which the progressives are not. They have literally '180ed' all of the RIGHTS and liberties listed in the Bill of Rights![:(!]
This is why we are having this discussion. There always have been and always will be some 'reasonable' restrictions on ALL of our rights and liberties. But because we have people who are in power now with no personal integrity we HAVE A BIG PROBLEM!!!![V]0 -
If the law was a deterrent to criminals, they wouldn't be criminals in the first place.
Believing that a criminal will follow the law is akin to the story of the scorpion and the turtle. After convincing the turtle to give it a ride across the river, promising NOT to sting him, the scorpion does just that. His reply to the turtle before they both drown was, "It's what I am and what I do."
Laws stop law abiding citizens only. (duh) Remember that Columbine, Virginia Tech and Ft. Hood all three were designated gun-free zones and because of that, the criminal was the only one who ignored that law.
COB0 -
quote:Originally posted by RocklobsterI was merely pointing out the constitutional prohibition that you were having difficulty locating.
An infringement is an infringement, private sale or not. Any serious background check would include entry into local, state, and federal databases (as has been mentioned).
And I never said it should be government mandated.
The 2nd is a prohibition on the government infringing.
What I said was that the individual, private seller, may want to run a background check before he sells someone a gun, and it would be at the sellers discretion.
Just as it would be at the sellers discretion to sell you the gun in the first place.
Just as the 2nd doesn't mean anyone anywhere has to sell you a gun, it also doesn't mean that one cannot run background checks.
I can see it being a prohibition against government mandated background checks as a condition for owning a firearm.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Jim Rau Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:21:17 PM
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks for the insight Jim, I appreciate it. Forgive me if I don't take it as qauntitative or qaualitative analysis. My own personal experience is that large majority do not care about the restrictions until after they get caught/arrested and it too is neither quantitative nor qualitative(only insight gained as a side note while counseling/coaching felons trying to get jobs after release). I think that most of those who claim they stayed away from guns to avoid extra trouble were probably not those prone to violence. If not then they we had better restrict whatever thier weapon of choice is. Don't want to make it too easy for them to get and reoffend.
As a side note to this discussion. Would you really care if Joe Banker who swindled millions in a ponzi scheme, got caught, served his time, paid lots of restitution, met all the requirements of his punishment, wanted to take up trap shooting? Think he's gonna use a ratty ol 20ga(all he can afford, no bank will ever hire him again) to commit some violent crime? Are you afraid of what he might do, or how he might harm someone?
Not poking at you or trying to start arguement. Just trying to understand the logic of reasonable restriction supporters.
You are correct. There are a small portion of the 'bad guys' who do think ahead and so some planning and most of them are less prone to be violent and they actually make a choice not to be armed. BUT the point is they do so after considering the consequences!!
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
Mr. Wolf,
I am still waiting for your 'proof'!!![?]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
A bit of the raspberries, Jim.
You implied that you believed the ex-felon when he told you he wouldn't carry. I merely suggested that had you believed him when he said he didn't do anything in the first place, he would not be an ex-felon.
[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Don,
Your post makes no sense, please clarify.[?]
A bit of the raspberries, Jim.
You implied that you believed the ex-felon when he told you he wouldn't carry. I merely suggested that had you believed him when he said he didn't do anything in the first place, he would not be an ex-felon.
[:)]
Don,
In case you haven't noticed I have, as my Grandma would say, 'The gift of gab' and I was able to have 'off the record' discussions with many of the people I came in contact with as a cop, both good and bad guys!!![;)]
One of the things I tell people is most (95+%) of the people who called me for my services would say "I never thought this would happen to me!". That is why I tell people if you are going to carry a PPD you should do it ALL THE TIME. Bad things can and do happen to anyone, anywhere, at anytime.[V]
You can take it for what it is, my observation based on my MANY years on the street. If you have better info so be it.0 -
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
You be done got qway the hell away from anything I said. Personally I favor public executions.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
106 comments