Page 4 of 5
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 4:08 pm
by Sunny Boy
davidmcbeth3 wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 3:07 pm
You can buy auto today. So if the common use applies to manufacturing of new ones is a question not yet brought up. I'm sure it will be. I know of no law from the 1791 era that required a license to own..I think that the licensing and $200 tax (back when first applied in 1930s equates to like $2000-$10000 in today's $$$ - the $200 tax has not changed) is not constitutional either.
I think you agree that "assault weapons" like AR15 bans are unconstitutional. I think that you may agree that special licensing or regulatory schemes are unconstitutional as well as these schemes did not exist in 1791.
There is a split on serialization being unconstitutional; one court said one could obliterate a ser # from a gun w/o it being a crime (as serialzation requirements are unconstitutional as such a regulation was not found in the 1791 era) and a second court (using that balancing test no longer allowed by SCOTUS under Heller I and Bruen) said ser # are fine.
SCOTUS is taking baby steps in the process of reviewing gun laws. One has to seek out the court to ask them to take up the case. Many state's supreme court do the same.
I had a case I sought for my state court to take up but they declined (the finding of the appellate court was favorable to me but on one point I wished the state supreme court to decide but they opted not to take the case up so the appellate court decision, mostly favorable, is now the law of the state). The case concerned government officials' "misconduct" and if my basis for seeking the relief under a statute that allows a person to seek compensation under a misconduct statute was indeed "misconduct"; and if there was an administrative remedy available to address the misconduct that would preclude courts from having jurisdiction to hear the case (if one does have an admin. remedy then one must pursue it v. filing a case in court) the trial court said I had not exhausted an administrative remedy and dismissed the case but the appellate court reversed this finding, stating that under the misconduct statute a separate and distinction was made between relief available under an admin proceeding would not have nor could provided the relief under the misconduct statute; in cases where filing a claim at an admin level where the admin agency cannot provide the relief sought it is the old "fruitless act" exception to the requirement to file a case with the admin agency that could provide some relief but not the relief the law has and noted in the misconduct statute.
I have another similar misconduct case to file so me previously going the the appellate court and winning the victory that I did clears the way for for the filing and I don't have to worry about a lower trial court judge saying the same "you did not exhaust your admin remedies" point any more.
Not really.
Apples to oranges. You can ONLY buy a full-auto after a lengthy and expensive process,... and only then if the Feds allow you the special license. There is no license required for the so-called assault weapons that I am aware of.
And I have never heard of anyone taking the Fed's full-auto restrictions to court as unconstitutional. That is not the case with the assault weapons bans. Which by-the-way are bans that I don't agree with because of the lie that they are only "weapons of war" and stupid notions like a thumb-hole stock, or a flash suppressor make anything a military rifle. Bolt action rifles were actually weapons of war for nearly 100 years, but the gun haters don't care because they are not scary enough. Proof the anti-gun mob's arguments don't make "common sense" they claim to have.
Paul
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 4:22 pm
by Sunny Boy
nut wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 3:45 pm
Ok, I play devil's advocate. Couldn't it be argued that only guns that were present in 1791 can't be regulated? Since ARs weren't invented yet, they are not protected.
If that were the case, you'd only have freedom of search by writing with quill pens on parchment.
BTW, there were repeating arms before the bill of Rights was written, but they were in civilian hands and not much discussed in history of wars. And the assault weapon of its day was the rifled barreled
musket, owned by many civilian volunteers. It had twice the range and accuracy of the smooth bores that all armies used. So, the argument that we should only be allowed smooth bore muskets is based on the claimant's lack of knowledge of history. One such rifled-barrel weapon was a turning point at the battle of Saratoga when at long range it killed Gen. Frasher at a critical point and turned the tide of the battle.
Paul
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 6:05 pm
by nut
Sunny Boy wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 4:22 pm
If that were the case, you'd only have freedom of seach by writing with quill pens on parchment.
Paul
That's a good point.
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 6:19 pm
by Sunny Boy
I meant freedom of speech, not freedom of search...... darned auto correct.
Paul
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 6:32 pm
by Sunny Boy
nut wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 6:05 pm
That's a good point.
The founding fathers were not living in a vacuum. They were all well-educated and well aware that things change. They had seen a lot of change within their own lifetimes. They spent months discussing and writing the Constitution and Bill of Rights with that in mind.
Paul
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 8:16 pm
by grumpy
Sunny Boy wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 4:08 pm
Not really.
Apples to oranges. You can ONLY buy a full-auto after a lengthy and expensive process,... and only then if the Feds allow you the special license. There is no license required for the so-called assault weapons that I am aware of.
And I have never heard of anyone taking the Fed's full-auto restrictions to court as unconstitutional. That is not the case with the assault weapons bans. Which by-the-way are bans that I don't agree with because of the lie that they are only "weapons of war" and stupid notions like a thumb-hole stock, or a flash suppressor make anything a military rifle. Bolt action rifles were actually weapons of war for nearly 100 years, but the gun haters don't care because they are not scary enough. Proof the anti-gun mob's arguments don't make "common sense" they claim to have.
Paul
$200 is not expensive, or did something change?
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 9:21 pm
by Sunny Boy
It is for me.
Paul
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 10:24 pm
by Sunny Boy
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Fri. May. 26, 2023 11:58 pm
by davidmcbeth3
grumpy wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 8:16 pm
$200 is not expensive, or did something change?
The 200 dollar was in the 1930's. They never increased the tax stamp fee. Back then it was a huge amount.
Of course even that cannot be required, they made it up in the 30's (after gangster movies LOL). They also wanted to, but could not get enough support for, pistols in the 1930s law.
One should not need a license to own a gun protected under the 2nd. That's unconstitutional.
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Sat. May. 27, 2023 12:00 am
by davidmcbeth3
Sunny Boy wrote: ↑Fri. May. 26, 2023 4:08 pm
Not really.
Apples to oranges. You can ONLY buy a full-auto after a lengthy and expensive process,... and only then if the Feds allow you the special license. There is no license required for the so-called assault Which by-the-way are bans that I don't agree with because of the lie that they are only "weapons of war" and stupid notions like a thumb-hole stock, or a flash suppressor make anything a military rifle.
Paul
You really need to read the US v Miller case (it was cited in the Heller I case so you can go to goggle scholar and find it through there too). Weapons of war are protected under the 2nd amendment. Even autos.
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Sat. May. 27, 2023 8:38 am
by Sunny Boy
davidmcbeth3 wrote: ↑Sat. May. 27, 2023 12:00 am
You really need to read the US v Miller case (it was cited in the Heller I case so you can go to goggle scholar and find it through there too). Weapons of war are protected under the 2nd amendment. Even autos.
I have read them. DC v Heller did not give unlimited access to military weapons.
" (2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not 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. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
It's been 15 years since Heller. Show me where the Fed & State restrictions on owning full auto weapons ever went away. I loved my M-16A1, maybe I can get one at Walmart ?
Paul
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Sat. May. 27, 2023 9:05 am
by Hoytman
Post deleted by Hoytman for being of topic about firearms
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Sat. May. 27, 2023 10:15 am
by Sunny Boy
Don't hold back, Bill.
The original post included firearms.
Paul
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Sat. May. 27, 2023 11:35 am
by Hoytman
Sunny Boy wrote: ↑Sat. May. 27, 2023 10:15 am
Don't hold back, Bill.
The original post included firearms.
Paul
I guess it did, Paul, but it’s turned mostly about firearms now and the thread title is misleading a bit in that regard. Unless of course the conversation reverts back mostly to the thread title.
Sometimes my opinion doesn’t even matter to me. In other words, the debate isn’t worth it to me. People gonna think whatever they want to anyway. I guess I need to quit clicking on certain topics.
Did you get to read what I posted?
Re: Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him
Posted: Sat. May. 27, 2023 12:19 pm
by k-2
Conservatives who sit out elections are inadvertently electing radical democrats. The GOP is far from perfect but any 1 of them is so much better than what we got now. If we get 4 more yrs of it were doomed.