Firearms Talk banner

21 - 40 of 77 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,762 Posts
You are believing all the weird conspiracy crap, that will drive you crazy, and in the mean time, our great nation will keep plugging along:)
LOLX1000! 'Conspiracy carp' you reference is simply history repeating it's self. If you can't see that I guess your are part of the problem. :(
 

·
Lifetime Supporting Member
Joined
·
2,477 Posts
There should be no " form " . Hopefully with gun regs getting trashed on state levels and the bumpstock ban struck down by the 6th circuit.
And a conservative SCOTUS obviuosly just waiting for the right case to come along that it can deal a death blow to most of the traitorous stupidity, Shotgun Joes 4 stolen years will go down in history as the administration in power when most gun regulation was struck down.
Yeah, hopefully. In the meantime, before anything gets to SCOTUS there's tons of mischief the Leftists can get up to. Our best bet is getting gun rights voters to the polls for the midterm elections. If we can upset the cart during the midterms we limit the mischief-makers until the next presidential election.

But it won't be easy. The country is getting more and more Leftist every day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
Yeah, hopefully. In the meantime, before anything gets to SCOTUS there's tons of mischief the Leftists can get up to. Our best bet is getting gun rights voters to the polls for the midterm elections. If we can upset the cart during the midterms we limit the mischief-makers until the next presidential election.

But it won't be easy. The country is getting more and more Leftist every day.
That would be wondeful, if it could be done.
To accomplish that though our election process will have to be overhauled so a repeat of a stolen election, like the last election cant happen again .

The country isnt moving left at all. The people are moving hard right.
But as long as the last election process is not examined and dismantled as the fraud it was, its highly unlikely the midterms will change anything since how the voters actually vote will again have nothing at all to do with the results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
None of this is surprising and I'm only surprised it's taken this long. The gun control coming at us is going to be terrible, awful, rotten, and totally UnConstitutional.

The left is destroying the nation and sadly the people on the right we put in power in the legislature and courts very uncourageously and traitorously did not stop it when they had the chance and authority. Cowards and traitors. And we are watching the most corrupt and inept administration in modern times gut and destroy the nation and our rights, values, culture, manufacturing and energy sectors, and compromise our safety in all regards domestically and globally. We are probably closer to nuclear war than anytime since the 1980s.

Dark days are ahead.
I couldn't have articulated it better. The words that stand out so appropriately are: INEPT, CORRUPT, COWARDS, and TRAITORS. No more dialogue or expounding on these descriptions are necessary except, perhaps, DISGUSTING.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
The democrats are in charge because of the ignorance of the people.
The people are ignorant because of the democrat run media and the democrat run school system.
Until someone can break that connection there is no hope for the USA staying a federal republic and will become the progressive socialist country as the democrats have longed for.
If there are any doubts the direction the democrats want to take the country, just look at Sal Alinskys rules for creating a socialist state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,161 Posts
The country isnt moving left at all. The people are moving hard right.
You are absolutely correct. Biden won (stole) the presidency with only 16% of the counties voting for him
Trump carried the other 84%.
Anyone who believes that was done fairly is a product of the public school system and a victim of the liberal media daily brainwashing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
I believe it doesn't. But then, I'm not a constitutional lawyer nor (in the strictest sense) a constitutional scholar.

The whole point and purpose of the BOR is to take things off the table from fiddling, disallowing abuse of rights to the point they're effectively treated as privileges doled out to the "connected" based on the whim of the temporary staff.

No matter what the 4A says, the 2A should remove it from the table. Certainly, with respect to the cast-a-wide-net aspect in regards the average person who's not the specific target of an investigation for cause duly supported by warrants.

With the obvious exception of investigations targeting a given person for cause, as part of the warrants/arrest process, or temporarily as part of a traffic/investigative stop.
I'm unaware of any claim by the anti-gunners that the authority for background checks comes from the 4th Amendment. It would be a ludicrous claim as a back ground check on me is not a search of my person, houses, papers, or effects; it's a search of public records. The 4th Amendment doesn't even come close to covering background checks.

If you have links where that argument was made in any court, please share.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
530 Posts
I'm unaware of any claim by the anti-gunners that the authority for background checks comes from the 4th Amendment. It would be a ludicrous claim as a back ground check on me is not a search of my person, houses, papers, or effects; it's a search of public records. The 4th Amendment doesn't even come close to covering background checks.

If you have links where that argument was made in any court, please share.
Government is making ludicrous claims everyday by a dementia ridden puppet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Background checks violate the express terms of the 2A, "...shall not be infringed."

Advancing the argument, I think that background checks run afoul a combination of the spirit and intent of the 4A, subjecting one to having unreasonable searches of his person, and the 5A of double jeopardy and of proving ones' innocence to exercise a right.

Some are expressly squarely on point, and other clauses very very close. And our forefathers couldn't have conceived of the mega-data collection, storing, and spying that has evolved either, nor having to prove innocence to use a right. The massive data bases and the litany of crimes that have been created against the people are simply wrong and big violations of our rights.

In the 4A, the operate term is not papers/effects so much as it is the UNREASONABLE searches. It's unreasonable for the government to snoop, create phonebooks worth of laws, warehouses of data on people, and demand they submit to a UNREASONABLE search of said data so they could simply EXERCISE a RIGHT. It's not reasonable, even if the government controls the information to be searched.

The second half of the 5A is violated with the 4473. "Have you ever... ?" is a question that some might answer in a way that will prohibit possession. It's a direct violation of the 5A. To submit to the 4473 check, one must be a witness against himself and complete paperwork in which he might either have to lie or bear witness against himself. One is also subjected to more punishments for the same offense each time one is denied the right for a past crime for which the sentence is completed (I would argue that being denied a firearm does put one is jeopardy of life since it's a prime self defense arm). And there's really no due process considerations, especially when non-violent crimes or distant crimes or petty issues are a denial factor.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Background checks violate the express terms of the 2A, "...shall not be infringed."

Advancing the argument, I think that background checks run afoul a combination of the spirit and intent of the 4A, subjecting one to having unreasonable searches of his person, and the 5A of double jeopardy and of proving ones' innocence to exercise a right.

Some are expressly squarely on point, and other clauses very very close. And our forefathers couldn't have conceived of the mega-data collection, storing, and spying that has evolved either, nor having to prove innocence to use a right. The massive data bases and the litany of crimes that have been created against the people are simply wrong and big violations of our rights.

In the 4A, the operate term is not papers/effects so much as it is the UNREASONABLE searches. It's unreasonable for the government to snoop, create phonebooks worth of laws, warehouses of data on people, and demand they submit to a UNREASONABLE search of said data so they could simply EXERCISE a RIGHT. It's not reasonable, even if the government controls the information to be searched.

The second half of the 5A is violated with the 4473. "Have you ever... ?" is a question that some might answer in a way that will prohibit possession. It's a direct violation of the 5A. To submit to the 4473 check, one must be a witness against himself and complete paperwork in which he might either have to lie or bear witness against himself. One is also subjected to more punishments for the same offense each time one is denied the right for a past crime for which the sentence is completed (I would argue that being denied a firearm does put one is jeopardy of life since it's a prime self defense arm). And there's really no due process considerations, especially when non-violent crimes or distant crimes or petty issues are a denial factor.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Definitely good call on the 5th; thanks. Having the choice of perjury or self-incrimination in order to request permission to exercise a right sure seems to violate the 5th, to me.

On the 4th, though, one might argue that the data collection violates the fourth but the form does not. Checking public records is not a search. Asking a bar owner if a suspect was in the bar is not a search. Asking the Sheriff if someone has been in jail is not a search. Checking the court record to see if someone's been convicted of a crime is not a search.

So, same question: can you provide any links where the left has used the 4th Amendment to justify control or any court cases where the right claimed in court that background checks violated the 4th Amendment - and especially where the court upheld such a claim?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
450 Posts
Definitely good call on the 5th; thanks. Having the choice of perjury or self-incrimination in order to request permission to exercise a right sure seems to violate the 5th, to me.

On the 4th, though, one might argue that the data collection violates the fourth but the form does not. Checking public records is not a search. Asking a bar owner if a suspect was in the bar is not a search. Asking the Sheriff if someone has been in jail is not a search. Checking the court record to see if someone's been convicted of a crime is not a search.

So, same question: can you provide any links where the left has used the 4th Amendment to justify control or any court cases where the right claimed in court that background checks violated the 4th Amendment - and especially where the court upheld such a claim?
Nah, the point is the megastate laws and data collection akin to constant monitoring and storage of databases which can be searched is the unreasonable portion.

They aren't asking the private bar owner. They are asking 10,000 government spies whose job is to follow you 24/7/365 if you violated a law among 100 million mostly arbitrary nonsensical laws.

Also, the FFL is in fact a defacto government agent via his licensing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
531 Posts
How do you work that out, what do you mean by control.



I would be OK with that.
Well its happening here as we speak and unless u like being a subject to a socialist regime in a nation full of people who dont know one day to the next if they are male or female , you better have a problem with that.

Of course what happens here doesnt affect you . Unless of course your country is attacked by a major power and needs bailing out.
We wont be capable of doing that much longer either if Plugs and pals arent thwarted.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,793 Posts
Jen Psaki Tomorrow is E.O.G.C. Day.

BREAKING: Biden's Gun Control Executive Orders Are Imminent by Katie Pavlich (townhall.com)

During the daily briefing at the White House Wednesday, Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed President Joe Biden will sign a series of gun control executive orders on Thursday.


"I don't have anything to preview, but I can convey the President will have more to say tomorrow," Psaki said.

Psaki's confirmation comes after POLITICO first reported the news and what Biden is expected to include in the orders.

"Biden will direct the administration to begin the process of requiring buyers of so-called ghost guns — homemade or makeshift firearms that lack serial numbers — to undergo background checks, according to three people who have spoken to the White House about the plans. He is expected to be joined at the event by Attorney General Merrick Garland," POLITICO reported Wednesday. "Other executive actions remain unclear. But stakeholders have speculated that the president could announce regulations on concealed assault-style firearms; prohibitions on firearm purchases for those convicted of domestic violence against their partners; and federal guidance on home storage safety measures."

The executive orders come at a time when first time gun ownership is at an all time high, driven by minority and female purchasers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,793 Posts
But, but but, I thought folks that folks guilty of domestic violence were already prohibited?

Or does this now make it illegal for an LGBTQ that beats the LGBTQ "partner" to buy a gun?

Has it been legal for for an LGBTQ to domestically abuse their partner up to now?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,542 Posts
This is a story about mights, which sounds similar to mites, which are the little bugs that live on birds butts and are relatively insignificant to most of the world.

So far, I have seen no Biden's mights that I find overly oppressive anyway. The big "gun grab" of right-wine lore, and NRA fable, is not yet under way. But, keep sending those checks, just in case.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,542 Posts
re
But, but but, I thought folks that folks guilty of domestic violence were already prohibited?

Or does this now make it illegal for an LGBTQ that beats the LGBTQ "partner" to buy a gun?

Has it been legal for for an LGBTQ to domestically abuse their partner up to now?
Where in the hell did that come from?
 
21 - 40 of 77 Posts
Top