Trump- pro-abortion - 1 reason I never voted for him

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25547
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Thu. May. 25, 2023 9:43 pm

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Thu. May. 25, 2023 8:24 pm
One can buy a M16 today. Seems as if one is happy with semi-auto rifles but only ones that have a limited firing rate. lol

And the NRA is the biggest gun control organization out there- they have supported much anti-gun legislation with all that they proposed and pushed for being found unconstitutional. Only FUDDs give $ to NRA.
You want something real to crusade about the technicality of AR's why not the use of the false term "assault weapon" ? There is nothing military, or "weapon of war", or "assault weapon" about an AR-15. In fact, no military uses an AR-15. It has always been just a civilian sporting rifle since the early 1960's.

Maybe you can refresh our memory of all the anti-gun legislation that the NRA proposed and pushed for that were found unconstitutional ? I can only seem to remember them pushing to stop a lot of unconstitutional legislation.

Paul


 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Thu. May. 25, 2023 10:23 pm

Sunny Boy wrote:
Thu. May. 25, 2023 9:43 pm
You want something real to crusade about the technicality of AR's why not the use of the false term "assault weapon" ? There is nothing military, or "weapon of war", or "assault weapon" about an AR-15. In fact, no military uses an AR-15. It has always been just a civilian sporting rifle since the early 1960's.

Maybe you can refresh our memory of all the anti-gun legislation that the NRA proposed and pushed for that were found unconstitutional ? I can only seem to remember them pushing to stop a lot of unconstitutional legislation.

Paul
NRA pushed for gun locks .. Heller 2 SCOTUS said no good.

Military arms are covered by 2nd amendment. Read US v. Miller 1939 opinion of SCOTUS

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25547
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Thu. May. 25, 2023 11:50 pm

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Thu. May. 25, 2023 10:23 pm
NRA pushed for gun locks .. Heller 2 SCOTUS said no good.

Military arms are covered by 2nd amendment. Read US v. Miller 1939 opinion of SCOTUS
Got any links, because I can't find any. However, a web search for "NRA pushing for gun locks" brings up a lot of listings of the NRA blocking anti-gun legislation. Can't find your one example, but you made it sound like the NRA does a lot of anti-gun.

I would think that the anti-gun anti-NRA media would have made a lot about anything the NRA did that could remotely be anti-gun that would produce lots of links.

And what's military arms got to do with it ? Did someone say anything about military arms and the 2nd amendment ? Seems I missed that along with NRA gun locks. :baby:

Paul

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. May. 26, 2023 2:57 am

Sunny Boy wrote:
Thu. May. 25, 2023 11:50 pm
Got any links, because I can't find any.

Paul
Have you looked ?

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25547
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Fri. May. 26, 2023 9:59 am

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Fri. May. 26, 2023 2:57 am
Have you looked ?

Can you read ? :lol:

Paul

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:07 pm

Sunny Boy wrote:
Fri. May. 26, 2023 9:59 am
Can you read ? :lol:

Paul
Yes. In the Miller case SCOTUS held that military weapons are covered under the 2nd amendment.

So all this whining by liberals talking about people having M16s or other machine guns is a losing argument. We can buy machine guns or make them ourselves. The National Gun Act (NGA) is 100% unconstitutional. I'm sure this will be found by SCOTUS in the future.

Prior to 2000 there was only the Miller case before Heller I.

Of course Trump was not involved with the NGA's creation but also did not seek its repeal either. He could have. Right?

Tell me what gun law he sought to get repealed ? None that I recall.

 
k-2
Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu. Sep. 28, 2017 10:57 am
Location: Coal Township Pa
Stoker Coal Boiler: K2- Keystoker
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska Stoker Stove
Coal Size/Type: Rice

Post by k-2 » Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:09 pm

warminmn wrote:
Wed. May. 24, 2023 6:22 pm
Trump gave us the Supreme Court that made it a state issue. Thats a win in my book. Probably the biggest win he got.
Thats right ,he didnt appoint any Pro death justices. Infuriating for the pro death liberals to this day.


 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25547
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:26 pm

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:07 pm
Yes. In the Miller case SCOTUS held that military weapons are covered under the 2nd amendment.

So all this whining by liberals talking about people having M16s or other machine guns is a losing argument. We can buy machine guns or make them ourselves. The National Gun Act (NGA) is 100% unconstitutional. I'm sure this will be found by SCOTUS in the future.

Prior to 2000 there was only the Miller case before Heller I.

Of course Trump was not involved with the NGA's creation but also did not seek its repeal either. He could have. Right?

Tell me what gun law he sought to get repealed ? None that I recall.


I doubt SCOTUS will ever make fully automatic military weapons legal without the present special Fed licensing because they do not meet the "common use" criteria like AR-15 does.

Paul

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25547
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:27 pm

k-2 wrote:
Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:09 pm
Thats right ,he didnt appoint any Pro death justices. Infuriating for the pro death liberals to this day.
:yes:

Paul

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:54 pm

Sunny Boy wrote:
Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:26 pm
I doubt SCOTUS will ever make fully automatic military weapons legal without the present special Fed licensing because they do not meet the "common use" criteria like AR-15 does.

Paul
According to a quick google search there are > 600,000 machine guns in citizens hands. Does that equal "common use"; I think so. With the recent Taser related case in 2021 (if I recall) SCOTUS found 200K in use as being "in common use". So 200K number is likely the upper limit; perhaps 10,000 would be the lower limit but automatic rifles are the bulk of the automatic guns so they clearly meet "in common use". The common use test is for outright bans; you can buy automatic guns today ~ but the question may bring up if people and make their own and if manufactures can make them again for our use (the manufacture of machine guns for us was stopped recently, between1960s or 1990s - so just recently).

The licensing scheme needs a historical analysis to see if that passes muster; again there were no registration requirements for guns until the NGA in the 1930s-well beyond the time set by SCOTUS to consider ~ so that's clearly unconstitutional.

The test now to see if a gun law violates the 2nd amendment is very simple now.
1st) the assumption is that any gun law is unconstitutional and the gov't has the burden to show it is not constitutional (like a 4th amendment search without a warrant or PC - all other searches are deemed unconstitutional until proven to be within an exception)
2nd) Does the law touch on a 2nd amendment right (now governments claim that many laws do not ~ a losing argument 99% of time)
3rd) For a ban, if the gun is in common use, then the law is unconstitutional; no further analysis is needed
4th) For other laws not a ban but regulates the right, then historical laws must have been common and addressing the current law where such regulation from the time of 1791 had a similar law.

Folks should read the arguments governments are using-its comical. The only "wins" in cases has been when a judge employs a "balancing of state interests" which is not allowed anymore.. a recent case by a Biden appointed judge decided a law had no historical basis and found the law unconstitutional & another Obummer appointed judge did the same in a Colorado town's salty gun case due to the "common use" reason.

If Sunny Boy has different information I'd be happy to look at it.

 
k-2
Member
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu. Sep. 28, 2017 10:57 am
Location: Coal Township Pa
Stoker Coal Boiler: K2- Keystoker
Hot Air Coal Stoker Stove: Alaska Stoker Stove
Coal Size/Type: Rice

Post by k-2 » Fri. May. 26, 2023 1:10 pm

I can think of a few dozen reasons why one would NOT vote for trump but because he is perceived as "pro abortion" would not be on that list. I heard him give an interview on the subject where he stated he had more liberal views on it as a young man but as he got older he became pro life partly after many friends telling him they once considered it as an option and were so glad they did NOT chose it after reflecting on their families in later years.

 
User avatar
Sunny Boy
Member
Posts: 25547
Joined: Mon. Nov. 11, 2013 1:40 pm
Location: Central NY
Hand Fed Coal Boiler: Anthracite Industrial, domestic hot water heater
Baseburners & Antiques: Glenwood range 208, # 6 base heater, 2 Modern Oak 118.
Coal Size/Type: Nuts !
Other Heating: Oil &electric plenum furnace

Post by Sunny Boy » Fri. May. 26, 2023 2:24 pm

davidmcbeth3 wrote:
Fri. May. 26, 2023 12:54 pm
According to a quick google search there are > 600,000 machine guns in citizens hands. Does that equal "common use"; I think so. With the recent Taser related case in 2021 (if I recall) SCOTUS found 200K in use as being "in common use". So 200K number is likely the upper limit; perhaps 10,000 would be the lower limit but automatic rifles are the bulk of the automatic guns so they clearly meet "in common use". The common use test is for outright bans; you can buy automatic guns today ~ but the question may bring up if people and make their own and if manufactures can make them again for our use (the manufacture of machine guns for us was stopped recently, between1960s or 1990s - so just recently).

The licensing scheme needs a historical analysis to see if that passes muster; again there were no registration requirements for guns until the NGA in the 1930s-well beyond the time set by SCOTUS to consider ~ so that's clearly unconstitutional.

The test now to see if a gun law violates the 2nd amendment is very simple now.
1st) the assumption is that any gun law is unconstitutional and the gov't has the burden to show it is not constitutional (like a 4th amendment search without a warrant or PC - all other searches are deemed unconstitutional until proven to be within an exception)
2nd) Does the law touch on a 2nd amendment right (now governments claim that many laws do not ~ a losing argument 99% of time)
3rd) For a ban, if the gun is in common use, then the law is unconstitutional; no further analysis is needed
4th) For other laws not a ban but regulates the right, then historical laws must have been common and addressing the current law where such regulation from the time of 1791 had a similar law.

Folks should read the arguments governments are using-its comical. The only "wins" in cases has been when a judge employs a "balancing of state interests" which is not allowed anymore.. a recent case by a Biden appointed judge decided a law had no historical basis and found the law unconstitutional & another Obummer appointed judge did the same in a Colorado town's salty gun case due to the "common use" reason.

If Sunny Boy has different information I'd be happy to look at it.
So far, the common use criteria against bans have only been applied to firearms that do not require a special Fed license to own. Full-auto weapons do require that license but are not banned like they are trying to do with so-called assault weapons.

I'd be interested to know if there is any reasoning why the common use criteria has not included full-auto weapons by SCOTUS and other judges.

Paul

 
User avatar
davidmcbeth3
Member
Posts: 8505
Joined: Sun. Jun. 14, 2009 2:31 pm
Coal Size/Type: nut/pea/anthra

Post by davidmcbeth3 » Fri. May. 26, 2023 3:07 pm

Sunny Boy wrote:
Fri. May. 26, 2023 2:24 pm
So far, the common use criteria against bans have only been applied to firearms that do not require a special Fed license to own. Full-auto weapons do require that license but are not banned like they are trying to do with so-called assault weapons.

I'd be interested to know if there is any reasoning why the common use criteria has not included full-auto weapons by SCOTUS and other judges.

Paul
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.

 
nut
Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed. Aug. 28, 2019 1:54 pm
Location: NEPA
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Glacier Bay
Coal Size/Type: nut
Other Heating: electric

Post by nut » 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.

 
nut
Member
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed. Aug. 28, 2019 1:54 pm
Location: NEPA
Hand Fed Coal Stove: Glacier Bay
Coal Size/Type: nut
Other Heating: electric

Post by nut » Fri. May. 26, 2023 3:58 pm

National carry is another thing that dropped off the radar after the Los Vegas mass shooting in 2017.


Post Reply

Return to “The Coffee House”