Jump to content

BHMCruiser

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1747
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BHMCruiser

  1. Yes but that happens all the time (like when you are arrested). There's a balance between the exigency of the circumstance and the interest in predeprivation process. The real devil is in the details here. Everything that happens AFTER the petition is heard ex parte is what the concern should be. I'm not trying to be condescending, but "ex parte" is just lawyer talk for "only one side is heard."
  2. Like I said, some do, and some don't. It varies by jurisdiction.
  3. No need to apologize. I started it with the "you ever say anything" line. It's cool. This is a touchy topic and we need to remember that we're all here for the same reason: unyielding loyalty to Alabama football.
  4. You may as well have just said "no." What exact problem are you trying to solve? Murder? Mass shootings? Domestic shootings? Illicit arms exports? Straw purchases? Each of these would require a different approach and you have yet to articulate the problem you see, and how what you are proposing would solve or even improve it.
  5. the dynasty is over (tm)
  6. The lack of process is all in the details, and it varies by jurisdiction. If you have a red flag law that requires a sworn statement with a penalty for lying, is actually temporary, is actually of a short duration, AND automatically returns the firearms when it expires or is terminated, then you are pretty close to something that deals with a serious problem with sufficient respect for the due process rights of the respondent. As long as gun rights are not terminated, or the guns permanently withheld, or the respondent has to actively litigate their return ($$$$$$$), then it may be alright. Most ERPO states do not work that way. The liberty and property rights are divested without an opportunity to be heard, and then the litigation that ensues is a circus. Very tough. And there are places where it is extremely easy to get a temporary observation in place. In PA, for example, all you have to do is have a doctor sign a form and you can be held for up to five days. Your Second Amendment rights also happen to be terminated permanently at that point. You can have your firearms and ability to use them restored by legislative grace, but the actual right ceases to exist.
  7. You ever actually say anything?
  8. I am sorry for your loss. You are remarkably reasonable in discussing these issues given your personal background and that's very impressive.
  9. Okay I will bite. Why is any of this a problem? If they just required a background check for every sale of a firearm, would that satisfy you?
  10. Hey I think I've CR'ed this thread up too much. Anybody want to talk can DM me and I'm happy to discuss further.
  11. lol @ "completely erroneous" I have no idea why you are even TALKING ABOUT the world arms market. I didn't say anything about the world arms market. You did. You asked me if I knew how many were legally exported and I said "no," so that has hardly anything to do with my "gut feelings" on things. If that whole sentence was separate thoughts, like you were insinuating that I do not know about statistics of production or offending rates domestically, NOR do I know anything about the world arms market, then you are wrong on both counts. If you have statistics that show me that gun owners are as a whole less law-abiding than non gun owners, I'd love to see those. It would strike me as pretty amazing, since violent crime has generally fallen over the past 30 years while firearm ownership has generally increased. What situations you just mentioned? Did I miss one of your posts where you listed situations that are not sustainable? What are the issues you want to be aware of and not hide from? Maybe it would be better to start over so you can stop relying on dogma and half-articulated concepts. What are your rights you do not want stepped on? How do you define them?
  12. Got it. Actually they thought no normal person would pay that much and they didn't think they had the power to ban the firearms outright. The original legislative history is interesting. They picked the firearms that were being used during the crime spree at the time by organized crime and tried to get them regulated and registered. Handguns were included in the original proposal but recognition that so many normal people used them for lawful purposes that they were pulled from the legislation. The test has always been whether people who have them tend to use them for lawful purposes. That's why you can ban, say, brass knuckles, but you cannot ban handguns. It has nothing to do with lethality.
  13. No, how many? Anyway, I don't think it matters WHY it's the most popular rifle sold today. All that matters is that it IS the most popular rifle sold today. Which means there is a demand for it. Which means it is commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens. Which means it is protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.
  14. The playbook is to make more and more laws that make it more and more expensive and less and less convenient to acquire firearms and ammunition. The barriers are incrementally increased to survive lax Second Amendment judicial scrutiny with the goal of having people just say "fuck it I'm out"
  15. The NFA is basically meaningless compared to routine gun control laws like "may issue" concealed carry permits and AW and LCM bans. Pre-purchase licenses like the FOID in Illinois or Maryland's HQL definitely hit minorities harder, but the NFA does not really impact firearms that are commonly kept for lawful purposes. I'm not arguing for the NFA, but it's not the minority-impacting law that the others are.
  16. Not true. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in gun control states like California, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, etc. who feel like the laws are completely unjust. They follow them anyway. Because gunowners tend to be the most law-abiding people in America. Concealed carry permittees are at the very top of the list.
  17. That's not totally true. All you have to do is require all transfers to occur at a FFL with a Form 4473 and a NICS check. No registration is necessary. If you're saying you cannot enforce it because there are so many people who will just ignore the law, that's not really true either. Firearms owners tend to be the most law-abiding group of citizens in America. If you're saying that criminals will simply ignore the law, well that's true now as well. Most gun control laws really restrict and regulate the behavior of the law-abiding and do little to stop criminals from getting firearms.
  18. Of course it did. Manufacturers stopped making them. That changed the market place considerably. Anyway, the federal government isn't really where the problem lies (although the ATF and arbitrary regulation can cause a real headache). The real problem is the state and local governments and some of their restrictions. The courts are pretty uniform in applying a watered-down "intermediate scrutiny" to gun laws of every kind, and Everytown (backed by Bloomberg) is providing them with all sorts of support, including pro bono legal services from the best firms in the country to defend the laws. Without Supreme Court intervention, we're all just arguing in circles anyway.
  19. It’s a very fun round to shoot.
  20. It banned the most common rifle sold today for ten years
  21. This is the absolute truth
  22. Do they work or do they exist? They work as well as new laws that don't change anything but take away due process will work. What does the Second Amendment mean? And what gun control laws have been struck down by the courts? We already had a federal "assault weapon" and "large capacity magazine" ban. We won't have that again? As for ammunition, California and Seattle and Illinois all tax it heavily. No court has overturned those laws on Second Amendment grounds. San Francisco makes you lock your gun in your safe or physically carry it on your body (meaning you can't have it ready to use unless it's in a holster on your jammies), and does not allow you to possess common hollow-point defensive ammunition. No court has overturned these laws. Many states ban so-called assault weapons and LCMs. Only the Fourth Circuit overturned such a Maryland law, and was quickly reversed en banc. Many states essentially ban carry outside the home, and only the DC Circuit has overturned such a law (so if you live in DC, maybe you can get a permit, but if you live in Prince George's County, tough shit forget it). The Supreme Court has not taken any of these meaningful cases. People are not crazy to think that they should buy guns and ammo now if they want them when they are told that the government is coming and will outlaw the ammo, guns, and magazines everybody wants, or will tax them heavily, and the protection from the courts is scant, at best.
  23. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-orourke-guns/partly-false-claimvideo-shows-joe-bidensayingif-he-wins-hes-coming-forourguns-idUSKBN20S2ST
Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...