The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: JC5123 on October 27, 2010, 10:04:45 AM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/23/nyc-proposal-renders-bad-drivers-debtors-unfit-guns/
OK this is just pathetic. They are just getting desperate and stupid now.
-
What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so confusing?
-
As my Grand Pa used to say..." They're just a bunch of booger eatin MORONS down there"
-
This seems deliberate on Bloomberg's part. Its like all the states that tried to tighten abortion restrictions after the SC got a conservative majority in the '80s. They wanted to see which ones would stand. This was the game until Casey spelled it out in '92. Some states are still trying, with things like requirig an ultrasound.
Bloomberg hates guns and has plenty of money. He wants to see wht the Court will uphold as a "reasonble restriction". The laundry list reported to Fox is a great example. Most will probably get knocked down, but some might stick. Being in default of child support for instance, or in default of student lones. Even in Tx. these could stop you from getting a CCW, at least if I remember correctly. Its trickier here, as its about owning, not carrying a gun. Still Bloomberg is happy to see this go to court. >:(
What needs to happen is for the NY legislature to impose a uniform standard and end local preemption. That would end this.
FQ13
-
Just put a bullet in Bloomerbutt's head, that'll end his reign! :-X ;D
-
Just put a bullet in Bloomerbutt's head, that'll end his reign! :-X ;D
It would more than likely bounce off or miss his little pea brain, either way it would just be used as a reason for more restrictions in ny
-
This seems deliberate on Bloomberg's part. Its like all the states that tried to tighten abortion restrictions after the SC got a conservative majority in the '80s. They wanted to see which ones would stand. This was the game until Casey spelled it out in '92. Some states are still trying, with things like requirig an ultrasound.
Bloomberg hates guns and has plenty of money. He wants to see wht the Court will uphold as a "reasonble restriction". The laundry list reported to Fox is a great example. Most will probably get knocked down, but some might stick. Being in default of child support for instance, or in default of student lones. Even in Tx. these could stop you from getting a CCW, at least if I remember correctly. Its trickier here, as its about owning, not carrying a gun. Still Bloomberg is happy to see this go to court. >:(
What needs to happen is for the NY legislature to impose a uniform standard and end local preemption. That would end this.
FQ13
I don't agree with your argument. Here's why: The only "reasonable" restriction on owning a firearm is being a convicted felon. I agree with this. Beyond that, there is nothing that gives government the authority to infringe on my RIGHT to own a firearm. Period!
-
I don't agree with your argument. Here's why: The only "reasonable" restriction on owning a firearm is being a convicted felon. I agree with this. Beyond that, there is nothing that gives government the authority to infringe on my RIGHT to own a firearm. Period!
I'm not making an argument. The Court in Heller and McDonald allowed for "reasonable restrictions". They just overturned out right bans and said SD was an adequate reason to own a gun. The question of the hour is "what sorts of restrictions are reasonable"? This is where the battle will be fought.
FQ13
-
I'm no makig an argument. The Court in Heller and McDonald allowed for "reasonable restrictions". They just overturned out right bans and said SD was an adequate reason to own a gun. The question of the hour is "what sorts of restrictions are reasonable"? This is where the battle will be fought.
FQ13
I just told you. Being a convicted felon is the ONLY reasonable reason to be restricted.
-
I just told you. Being a convicted felon is the ONLY reasonable reason to be restricted.
You and I agree. Sadly, we are not federal judges. Trust me, a lot of anti-states and localities are going to offer all sorts of things. NY style DQs, licensing, residency requirements, tests, a limit on the number of guns owned, bans on semis, restrictions on storage, inspections etc. Brady types will argue that the crap phil lives with is "reasonable", with the only exception being the right to own a gun for SD. Beyond that, they will try to limit the right to as close to nothing as they can. Just like pro-lifers didn't go away after Casey, neither will the antis. They will legislate and litigate until the Court lays out a minimum standard of what it considers to be "unreasonable" restrictions. :-\
FQ13
-
I just told you. Being a convicted felon is the ONLY reasonable reason to be restricted.
That isn't reasonable. If they have done the time, ALL rights of citizenship should be restored. If you don't trust them with a gun, don't let them out of jail--cause they can get one if they want one anyway.
-
I just told you. Being a convicted felon is the ONLY reasonable reason to be restricted.
Why is that in itself a "reasonable reason"? I understand it is the current law, but why? I feel if you've served your debt to society, then your rights should be restored. This seems hypocritical to me. Who gets to draw the line on "reasonable"? You, or Bloomberg? If what you did was so atrocious that you aren't capable of maturely possessing a firearm, why are you released from prison? If you're a danger to society with a firearm, why aren't you a danger to society with a (insert "weapon" here)?
Brian
P.S. Oops, I should of refreshed before I posted. B.
-
Mayor Bloombutt isn't fit to judge a fart from a gnats ass! It depends on the crime committed as to what the restrictions should be.
ANY violent crime or sex crime should be restricted IE: ownership/use of a deadly weapon.
D/Violence can be a slippery slope, as one can be convicted with such little, sometimes circumstancial, evidence.
Just because you are a felon shouldn't mean your gun rights should be restricted. There ARE exceptions, but to say ALL felons should be resrticted is just not right!
JMHO, YMMV
-
FQ is right, if you don't think so, just look at DC, Heller has been back to court 3 or 4 times.
As for the Felony DQ it is BS. until they passed the NFA ( under a Dem ) when you were released they would give your guns back to you.
As for Lautenburg denying you your civil rights for a misdemeanor ? I hope his wife beats him to death.
-
Good points guys, I must admit to getting caught up in the stigma of someone being a convicted felon. You are right of course that once you have paid your debt, ALL rights should be restored. Of course in a perfect world our penal system would also punish offenders instead of sending them to a health club. ::)
-
Here in NH we are currently fighting over a new parole law.
Child molester, Served his entire sentence , no time off for good behavior, no reductions, nothing, Now the State is refusing to release him. They claim he poses a "continuing danger to the community"
True enough, Child molesters have nearly a 100% rate of re offending . However they should have thought of that when they sentenced him.
This is the first step toward "indefinite detention".
But " it's for the children".
BS, it's just another erosion of the rule of law.
-
Here in NH we are currently fighting over a new parole law.
Child molester, Served his entire sentence , no time off for good behavior, no reductions, nothing, Now the State is refusing to release him. They claim he poses a "continuing danger to the community"
True enough, Child molesters have nearly a 100% rate of re offending . However they should have thought of that when they sentenced him.
This is the first step toward "indefinite detention".
But " it's for the children".
BS, it's just another erosion of the rule of law.
This pisses me off as well. Courts shouldn't be able to do this. If you've served your full sentence, you should be free to go. In the case of child molestors there is an easy and Constitutional fix here. Sentence them to conditional life terms (ie. 5yrs to life, 15 years to life etc.). Send them to these "treatment facilities" after the minimum time. Then let them and the shrinks convince the parole board (or other legislatively established commission) that they are not a danger. Lock them up forever, or let them go when they'v done the minimum time and aren't viewed as a threat. Either way, the sentence needs to come from the legislature and be spelled out in the law.
FQ13
-
This pisses me off as well. Courts shouldn't be able to do this. If you've served your full sentence, you should be free to go. In the case of child molestors there is an easy and Constitutional fix here. Sentence them to conditional life terms (ie. 5yrs to life, 15 years to life etc.). Send them to these "treatment facilities" after the minimum time. Then let them and the shrinks convince the parole board (or other legislatively established commission) that they are not a danger. Lock them up forever, or let them go when they'v done the minimum time and aren't viewed as a threat. Either way, the sentence needs to come from the legislature and be spelled out in the law.
FQ13
Sadly, the problem with sex offenders is they are always a danger. The sex drive is extremely powerful, and when the circuitry goes haywire the only sure way to fix it (currently) is by some form of castration (removing the hormones).
Dirty little psychology secret: they can't CURE any of the afflictions or behaviors. Only CONTROL at best, and even that control isn't 100%. Only depression seems to go away eventually if you can work the depressed person through the bout and it's most likely whatever set it off in the body eventually remedied itself.