America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 7 weeks ago by Brewha. 64 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Supreme Court Strikes Down New York Concealed-Gun Law in Sweeping Decision
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Decision goes beyond rules for concealed-weapons permits, rejecting legal method overwhelmingly used by lower courts to evaluate gun restrictions


WSJ

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court struck down New York state’s system for issuing concealed-weapons permits, ruling that the century-old law requiring that applicants demonstrate “proper cause” and “good moral character” violates the Second Amendment.

Read the Decision: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

The 6-3 decision in the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, marks the widest expansion of gun rights since 2010, when the court applied nationwide a 2008 ruling establishing an individual right of armed self-defense within the home. It puts in question similar laws in at least eight other states and the District of Columbia, where authorities hold substantial discretion over issuing concealed-weapons permits.

“The Second and 14th Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court. New York law requiring that applicants justify their need for a concealed-weapons permit thus was unconstitutional.

The ruling came on the same day Senate Democrats and more than a dozen Republicans advanced bipartisan gun legislation past its last procedural hurdle, setting up a final passage for as soon as later Thursday on the biggest firearms legislation in decades. The effort to pass that law was spurred by two recent mass shootings in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas.

The Supreme Court’s decision extended beyond the rules for concealed-weapons permits. The court rejected the widespread practice in lower courts of considering government interests such as crime prevention in evaluating gun regulations. Under that assessment of balancing interests, most weapons laws have been upheld since the Supreme Court first recognized an individual right under the Second Amendment in its 2008 decision on District of Columbia v. Heller and a subsequent ruling in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010.

Instead, Justice Thomas wrote Thursday, a weapons law is constitutional only if the government demonstrates “that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett joined the opinion.

Under that standard—previously asserted in dissenting opinions by Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett when they sat on lower courts—gun advocates believe more regulations will fall, allowing greater access to weapons and ammunition nationwide.

Tom King, whose group brought the case, says of the decision: ‘The people in New York state and hopefully the nation are going to be allowed the benefit of the Second Amendment rather than having their rights limited by left leaning politicians.’

A 52-page dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer began bluntly. “In 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms,” he wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. History alone shouldn’t govern the Second Amendment’s application, he wrote, for “it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary… to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, stressed that permitting laws in more than 40 states remain valid because they evaluate applicants based on objective criteria, rather than granting discretion to officials regarding an individual’s justification for carrying a concealed weapon.

“Those shall-issue regimes may require a license applicant to undergo fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. New York and other states could adopt licensing laws with similar requirements, he suggested.

In a separate concurrence, Justice Alito took the dissenters to task for citing the nation’s epidemic of gun violence—including recent mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde—in support of lawmakers’ discretion to enact regulations such as the permitting law.

“The dissent appears not to understand that it is these very facts that cause law-abiding citizens to feel the need to carry a gun for self-defense,” Justice Alito wrote.

While Republican-leaning states have been loosening gun regulations over the past decade, some more urban states have maintained their traditional limits on concealed weapons. In his opinion, Justice Thomas specifically mentioned that permit laws in California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey shared New York’s constitutional flaw.

“We are currently reviewing the decision from the Supreme Court on New York’s ability to regulate who can carry firearms in public,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a tweet. “But we will continue to do everything in our power to protect New Yorkers from gun violence and preserve our state’s common sense gun laws.”

Tom King, executive director of the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, which brought Thursday’s case, said the decision “means that the people in New York state and hopefully the nation are going to be allowed the benefit of the Second Amendment rather than having their rights limited by left leaning politicians.”

Mr. King’s group, an affiliate of the National Rifle Association, has been litigating against New York’s gun laws for years, making Thursday’s ruling a milestone achievement for the group. While the court’s dissenters raised the specter of gun violence, Mr. King said, “They are creating victims by keeping firearms out of the hands of the lawful gun owners.”

President Biden told reporters Thursday that he was disappointed by the court’s opinion but pointed to “one little bit of solace”—that the ruling wouldn’t affect gun laws in about 40 states. “I think it’s a bad decision. I think it’s not reasoned accurately. I’m disappointed,” he said during a meeting on offshore energy, which was attended virtually by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul. Mr. Biden told reporters he had discussed the ruling with Ms. Hochul, a Democrat, earlier.

As a matter of legal interpretation, the Bruen opinion reflects the triumph of originalism—the method championed by conservatives that applies the Constitution according to the court’s determination of the text’s “original public meaning” at the time it was adopted. Both majority conservatives and liberal dissenters argued that history supported their positions.

The Supreme Court made its first significant opinion regarding the Second Amendment in decades with its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That opinion, striking down Washington’s municipal handgun ban, recognized an individual right to armed self-defense within the home. Two years later, invalidating a similar ordinance in Chicago, the court extended that right nationwide. Both 5-4 decisions, adopted over liberal dissent, discarded earlier views that the Second Amendment referenced a collective right to militia service that states retained upon establishing the Union.

The move toward broader gun rights then paused, with the court passing up opportunities to elaborate on the extent to which the Constitution protects weapons possession.

Liberal justices never accepted the new construction that elevated individual decisions about self-defense over public-safety regulations adopted by state and local lawmakers. Conservatives at the court’s center, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, remained silent as their colleagues further to the right, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito among them, argued that the new Second Amendment right was left to atrophy.

Lower courts, over the intervening decade, upheld most state and local weapons laws against Second Amendment challenges, often noting the Heller decision’s allowance for reasonable regulation of firearms.

The landscape changed when President Donald Trump—who pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices from a list cleared by leaders of conservative organizations such as the Federalist Society—had the rare opportunity of a one-term president to fill three vacancies. Two of his nominees, Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, stood significantly to the right of their predecessors, Anthony Kennedy and the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Among conservative activists pressing for change on constitutional issues, expanding gun rights has long stood second only to rescinding abortion rights as an objective.

Democrats who control New York’s state government enacted a series of laws this month to strengthen the state’s gun controls. The new laws increase the minimum age to purchase a semiautomatic rifle to 21 from 18 and ban the sale of bullet-resistant vests.
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,503
I’m kinda liking that Clarence Thomas fella.
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
Whatever we do, let’s not talk about the Rule of Lenity vs Chevron Deference……we don’t want to talk about how agencies and activist leftist judges are abusing right not GRANTED BY LAW BUT BIRTH.

Heaven forbid.
Mr. Jones Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 16,884
ALL FIREARMS OWNERS , HUNTERS AND SHOOTING ENTHUSIASTS NEED to mark this day as a ....

N.E.W. HOLIDAY!!!!

CELEBRATE JUNE 23 AS......

"CONCEALED CARRY FREEDOM DAY"

SOMEBODY CALL HALLMARK CARD COMPANY...

WE NEED NEW HOLIDAY CARDS !!!!
MACS Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
Requiring a "permit" (government permission) to exercise your 2nd amendment right is unconstitutional. Period.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And our gov't has been infringing for decades. It's about time this went to the Scotus.
tailgater Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 25,960
HockeyDad wrote:
I’m kinda liking that Clarence Thomas fella.


I still can't drink coke from a can.

tailgater Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 25,960
MACS wrote:
Requiring a "permit" (government permission) to exercise your 2nd amendment right is unconstitutional. Period.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And our gov't has been infringing for decades. It's about time this went to the Scotus.


What's wrong with requiring a permit?
We know that we have a mental health issue. the only way to keep guns away from those not fit is to require a permit process, no?

I know it's a slippery slope. But that's politics. EVERYTHING is a slippery slope, with one side claiming the sky is falling.
Meanwhile, we ignore common sense because it won't generate votes.

If I'm missing something here, let me know.
ZRX1200 Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
^ how did the get the ******* gun?

If you can pass a background check you have no business needing a gawdamn permit. A concealed carry permit doesn’t keep anyone from a gun it just gives the road pirates an excuse to ticket and take a way rights from citizens.
RayR Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
The Dicktatoress of New York is upset with the SCOTUS opinion.
Bless her little black heart, she discovered that thing called the 10th Amendment and said she has the right to regulate guns no matter what the black-robed ones think.
MACS Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
tailgater wrote:
What's wrong with requiring a permit?
We know that we have a mental health issue. the only way to keep guns away from those not fit is to require a permit process, no?

I know it's a slippery slope. But that's politics. EVERYTHING is a slippery slope, with one side claiming the sky is falling.
Meanwhile, we ignore common sense because it won't generate votes.

If I'm missing something here, let me know.


No permit required to BUY a gun. The permit is required to CARRY the gun. Mental people are getting guns right now, and carrying them, so clearly... it isn't working.

Requiring sane, law abiding citizens to jump through hoops is not the answer.

Currently, states with permitless carry laws are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

We free folk refer to that as "constitutional carry".

Free folk... haha... I'm practicing for my move out of CA.

Brewha Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,780
MACS wrote:
No permit required to BUY a gun. The permit is required to CARRY the gun. Mental people are getting guns right now, and carrying them, so clearly... it isn't working.

Requiring sane, law abiding citizens to jump through hoops is not the answer.

Currently, states with permitless carry laws are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

We free folk refer to that as "constitutional carry".

Free folk... haha... I'm practicing for my move out of CA.


Atta boy macs.

Tell us how laws don’t work - so we don’t need them.

And maybe a vid about how no one should ever get vaxxed - for anything.
Speyside2 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,049
Hey! MACS watched a video on YouTube made by a Chiropractor how much more information do you need? OK, OK, one by an acupuncturist would be very useful also.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
And Indiana is CC come July unless something changes.

I'm not technically opposed to the permit idea for one reason only. There have been enough instances where such and such local didn't report to the Feds or the army didn't report to the Feds or whatnot. In that regard a second screen through the local sheriff isn't a bad thing.

However it is technically an infringement, and a permit process should absolutely not be an obstacle course one has to navigate, nor a tool designed to delay a permit. Unfortunately, that's exactly how it's often utilized. Also it shouldn't be a first step to tighter restrictions, which is always a concern

Pre const carry, IN was $50 and a form. It took about a week and a half to run the check and deliver the license. I feel that's not unmanageable
Whistlebritches Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 21,713
tailgater wrote:
What's wrong with requiring a permit?
We know that we have a mental health issue. the only way to keep guns away from those not fit is to require a permit process, no?

I know it's a slippery slope. But that's politics. EVERYTHING is a slippery slope, with one side claiming the sky is falling.
Meanwhile, we ignore common sense because it won't generate votes.

If I'm missing something here, let me know.



You tell me........why should I have to ask to exercise my constitutional right???

Criminals and nuts will find guns regardless of any laws or restrictions on possession or carry.

Brewha's prediction of Texas turning into the OK Corral since CC passed has been anything but.

I'm not sure about you but I feel safer at an NRA dinner knowing 90% of the people in the room are armed that in any establishment restricting carry of any kind.As a matter of fact I do not patronize any establishments that restrict carry if at all possible.In my opinion many of these active shooter tragedies could have been avoided had those being targeted been armed.


You either trust law abiding citizens or you don't............... I think you know where I stand.
Stogie1020 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 12-19-2019
Posts: 3,314
It's a rare day when an armed robbery takes place at a gun store...

frankj1 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 41,993
Stogie1020 wrote:
It's a rare day when an armed robbery takes place at a gun store...


don't know if they are after hours break ins but gun store thefts are up at least the last few years...I think
MACS Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
Speyside2 wrote:
Hey! MACS watched a video on YouTube made by a Chiropractor how much more information do you need? OK, OK, one by an acupuncturist would be very useful also.


WTF are you talking about?
ZRX1200 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
Also concealed carry people have a lower rate of crime THAN COPS.
MACS Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
Brewha wrote:
Atta boy macs.

Tell us how laws don’t work - so we don’t need them.

And maybe a vid about how no one should ever get vaxxed - for anything.


You're such a fucking moron. But you're too much of an idiot to know it.

You have no argument so you create straw men. I'm not against laws, nor vaccines...

I'm against unconstitutional laws and untested vaccines that when tested, proved to be wholly ineffective.

Maybe you should watch more videos. Most of them are made by people a hell of a lot smarter than your dumb ass.

Now... pull your head out of your ass so you can fornicate yourself.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
MACS wrote:
WTF are you talking about?

^ I didn't follow that too well either

Brewha, the man isn't saying we don't need laws. We have laws. Criminals and psychos don't follow them. So, proposed laws then aim to separate law abiding people from a tool they have a right to own because of actions criminals and psychos are taking. How does that even make sense?

Edit: 'cause you all type too dam fast
HockeyDad Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,503
California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced legislation Thursday that he said would withstand the legal challenges likely to result from U.S. Supreme Court ruling that imperils California’s strict gun control laws.

Bonta, joined by state lawmakers at an early afternoon press conference, said Senate Bill 918 would clarify where concealed firearms are forbidden and enumerate the qualifications required for obtaining a concealed carry permit.

State Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, introduced the measure in February as a spot bill, or placeholder, in anticipation of the Supreme Court decision, he said. New amendments will reflect the details of the court’s ruling.
HockeyDad Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,503
California has the exact law that is ruled unconstitutional in New York. In the Bay Area you cannot get a concealed carry permit. There is an exhaustive process including psychological evaluation and then all applications are denied. You can pass everything just fine and you will be denied. Santa Clara sheriff was approving some if you made campaign donations.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
Would that forbidden clarification be the CA state line per chance?
MACS Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
States can't make laws that are unconstitutional. SCOTUS just ruled the law is unconstitutional.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
Pack faster, Macs. Prolly making a law to forbid exiting the state soon
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,503
MACS wrote:
States can't make laws that are unconstitutional. SCOTUS just ruled the law is unconstitutional.


Stated can make laws that are unconstitutional and fully enforce them for years while the lawsuits make it though the courts. California is already launching the next round.
ZRX1200 Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
Yup. Expect a 5 year wait IF they decide to take up the case, and THAT has been the biggest issue with SCOTUS and the 2nd Amendment they don’t want to come across as over active.

All it’s takes is good men to do nothing, or something Mellow

Believe there is one remaining 2A case that is vs Bonta actually…..
BuckyB93 Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,420
Verbatim from the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The people. This is a key point. You can massage it all you want with BS like "they were talking about just muskets and and BS."

No they didn't. They wanted citizens to have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government and personal harm. Throughout history governments have used soldiers to oppress people. This is what the 2nd Amendment tries to prevent.

The fact is, the 2nd Amendment is in place empower the people and to keep the government in check if it comes to an armed conflict. It also makes a foreign country that might want to invade the US, think twice.

In WI during deer hunting season there's like 600,000 hunters with deer licenses. That's ranks as 8 largest "army" in the world. That’s more men under arms than in Iran .. More than France and Germany combined.
http://www.onwisconsinoutdoors.com/Firearms/AMERICAS-HUNTERS--Pretty-Amazing

That's just one of the 50 states.

I don't own a firearm but I support the inalienable right for citizens to do so as a means to protect your family and your country.
MACS Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
Bravo, sir... bravo. Applause
8trackdisco Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 56,820
Mr. Jones wrote:
ALL FIREARMS OWNERS , HUNTERS AND SHOOTING ENTHUSIASTS NEED to mark this day as a ....

N.E.W. HOLIDAY!!!!

CELEBRATE JUNE 23 AS......

"CONCEALED CARRY FREEDOM DAY


Or Aim-Click-Boom-teenth.

NewsNation posted a graphic on their broadcast this morning, as an Ill Dem was blaming the NRA for gun deaths.
The stat NewsNation put up was on Wisconsin.

There were 6 illegal shootings from 2011-2018 in Wisconsin committed by people with Conceal & Carry permits.
The number of Wisconsinites with a C&C?.............. 328,000.

The Ill Dem then started blaming Indiana for exporting guns to Illinois.

What a bunch of dim dems.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 52,214
Where's Alec Baldwin???whip
Sunoverbeach Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
Dang Hoosiers and their gun running ways.
rfenst Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Pre const carry, IN was $50 and a form. It took about a week and a half to run the check and deliver the license. I feel that's not unmanageable

I agree.
Who doesn't think a cop who pulls a car over to the the side of the road should know the person is cc before approaching the car?
rfenst Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
Whistlebritches wrote:
In my opinion many of these active shooter tragedies could have been avoided had those being targeted been armed.

I now beleive that every school should, at least, have two cops full-time who have rapid access to AR or other appropriate shooter defense weapons.
rfenst Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 36,825
HockeyDad wrote:
Stated can make laws that are unconstitutional and fully enforce them for years while the lawsuits make it though the courts. California is already launching the next round.

I seriously doubt SCOUTS' ruling will be put on hold by lower courts while the issue is relitigated dozens of times.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 52,214
rfenst wrote:
I now beleive that every school should, at least, have two cops full-time who have rapid access to AR or other appropriate shooter defense weapons.



Great 1st step...why stop there?

If a teacher wants to carry and completes all necessary training to obtain and prove that they can carry...LET THEM.

Schools have long been soft targets. It's time to harden them like the Capitol Building...and hire cops that will defend it not the douchbags that opened doors, windows, moved away barricades and gave instructions to mobs before they entered (ALL ON FILM that the sham "trial" isn't bothering to show!)
RayR Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
President Numbnuts said he was “deeply disappointed” in the ruling, which he argued, “contradicts both common sense and the Constitution, and should deeply trouble us all.”

No one knows where he might have acquired common sense all of a sudden or what Constitution he is talking about. Confused

I don't think he comprehends the one thing that is deeply troubling to most of us, his mental condition which makes stupid chit come out of his mouth.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 52,214
Biden should take up target shooting.
RayR Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 5,929
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Biden should take up target shooting.


Only with a Nerf Gun. The mentally ill should not be trusted with anything else.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 52,214
RayR wrote:
Only with a Nerf Gun. The mentally ill should not be trusted with anything else.



I say we give him a whirl. I mean he's mastered talking, walking into the Oval Office, boarding Air Force One, riding a bike, owning a dog...maybe if we put the Easter Bunny next to him as a range officer he'd do great.
HockeyDad Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 43,503
DrMaddVibe wrote:
Biden should take up target shooting.


Corn Pop would be shaking in his boots!
Brewha Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,780
MACS wrote:
You're such a fucking moron. But you're too much of an idiot to know it.

You have no argument so you create straw men. I'm not against laws, nor vaccines...

I'm against unconstitutional laws and untested vaccines that when tested, proved to be wholly ineffective.

Maybe you should watch more videos. Most of them are made by people a hell of a lot smarter than your dumb ass.

Now... pull your head out of your ass so you can fornicate yourself.


Rhodes Scholar stuff here macs.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 52,214
HockeyDad wrote:
Corn Pop would be shaking in his boots!



He was a bad dude.

Kids would all come from far and wide to rub their hands up and down his legs.
Brewha Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,780
MACS wrote:
WTF are you talking about?

Your bestist question evaah!
Brewha Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 10,780
Sunoverbeach wrote:
^ I didn't follow that too well either

Brewha, the man isn't saying we don't need laws. We have laws. Criminals and psychos don't follow them. So, proposed laws then aim to separate law abiding people from a tool they have a right to own because of actions criminals and psychos are taking. How does that even make sense?

Edit: 'cause you all type too dam fast

I disagree with your observations and conclusions.

Allowing everyone who want a gun of any type to have one in the name of public safety is a fools fix.

This is even less simple than it looks.
BuckyB93 Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,420
I don't think Biden would pass a mental health evaluation for owning a firearm. Dementia patients should not be allowed to access to firearms.

Maybe a give him a rubber band gun or let him make a finger gun so he can go "pew, pew, pew" during his cabinet meetings before his nappy time.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 52,214
BuckyB93 wrote:
I don't think Biden would pass a mental health evaluation for owning a firearm. Dementia patients should not be allowed to access to firearms.

Maybe a give him a rubber band gun or let him make a finger gun so he can go "pew, pew, pew" during his cabinet meetings before his nappy time.



Yet...Hunter Biden was.

Passed the background check by lying on the form to obtain one. I don't suggest anyone do that, but he did. What happened to said gun? His brother's widow, whom he was sleeping with at the same time as a stripper threw the gun away because she feared for her safety as his usage of crack intensified. We're talking about the smartest man Pedo Joe knows here. so, no...let him use both hands and let 'em fly downrange.

If he can.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 11,826
Brewha wrote:
I disagree with your observations and conclusions.

Allowing everyone who want a gun of any type to have one in the name of public safety is a fools fix.

This is even less simple than it looks.

Counterpoint: Not everyone can, nor can anyone own ANY type. Your statement is patently false. Millions of firearms are owned and used legally without incident. Yet you'd look to punish those who use them responsibly because of the illegal actions of a smaller percentage who refuse to. Simpler than you care to admit.
MACS Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 75,480
Brewha wrote:
Rhodes Scholar stuff here macs.


Scotus just ruled the law unconstitutional. That's a fact.

You get the shot, the second, and a booster and still get covid. That's wholly ineffective. Another fact.

These are simply logical conclusions. No need to be a Rhodes scholar, but as I stated... you seem to lack the intelligence to come to the logical conclusions, soooooo... in comparison to you, I guess I would seem like a Rhodes scholar.
ZRX1200 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 57,451
“During my twelve-and-a-half years as a member of this body, I have never believed that additional gun control or federal registration of guns would reduce crime,”
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>