In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
It's already happening...
n/a
Member Posts: 168,427 ✭
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch...[xx(][:(!][V][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Comments
Perhaps single shot black powder will be legal ? Oh..by the way..you will be barred from storing morethen 3 oUnces of BP...too dangerous, you know...??
Before you tell me, let me say that I know that the S.C. is supposed to be above politics, but anybody who believes that, is either a nut or a sap.
These clowns are probably sharing a chug. off the old thunderbird, snapple or whatever cheap wine they drink, sharing a toot on the bong, and snikering at the can of worms they opened.
I think they set the rights of private/ legal gun ownership back.
afaik semiauto's were already verboten.
Right now the court says a total ban is out. How much of a ban is permitted will have to be fought case by case.
I disagree that the Heller ruling is awful. It's flawed, and not nearly what we wanted, but it has some good in it.
Too old to live...too young to die...
Now we need to go for the knock out.
If not, fine, we need a revolution to clear this socialist garbage out. Maybe even get rid of the district of columbia. Ban our weapons and see how far your fat liberal * get.
Mike
as for anything else, take it to the supreme court and get them to rule on it before any more anti gun justices are appointed or it will be too late.
if they think we wont fight for our rights
they just might not be up for a full fight.
I knkow what would happen if the ever came
here, for my guns. You here this all the
time, but you never know who will really
act if they came.
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch
Dang Eric...ya'll are the most "doom and gloom" folks I have ever been around! Do the folks in DC have it better the day after Heller than they did the day before it was overruled? Heck yes! At least NOW they can OWN a gun, registered or not. It is a step in the right direction. At least the DC officials have to regulate guns. Before they just said NO, period, end of story, you can't have any!
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch...[xx(][:(!][V][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Before the SCOUS made this ruling the states already had control over their own Restrictions(I.E. ILL, DC, NY, CAL). I don't see how this ruling changed anything as far as the restrictions go. If I am wrong please tell me otherwise. It's not like there were no restrictions before this ruling and now there are. Bottom line The SCOUS stated that every american has the right, not privelage to own a fire arm. I agree that there should be no restritions on Firearms as well, other than murderer's rapist and people who have a domestic violence problem. So I don't see how anyone could see this as negative. The restrictions were going to be there no matter what the ruling was. I belive if it had went the other way it would have been far worse
They raped our Constitution...
They raped our constitution?? Sorry I don't see a ruling that up holds the second ammendment as raping our contitution. As far as the restriction and laws go, they have always been regulated by each state, my 2c
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch...[xx(][:(!][V][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Before the SCOUS made this ruling the states already had control over their own Restrictions(I.E. ILL, DC, NY, CAL). I don't see how this ruling changed anything as far as the restrictions go. If I am wrong please tell me otherwise. It's not like there were no restrictions before this ruling and now there are. Bottom line The SCOUS stated that every american has the right, not privelage to own a fire arm. I agree that there should be no restritions on Firearms as well, other than murderer's rapist and people who have a domestic violence problem. So I don't see how anyone could see this as negative. The restrictions were going to be there no matter what the ruling was. I belive if it had went the other way it would have been far worse
Be careful with this. Do you know how easy it is to be hit with a "domestic violence" charge? Restriction are restrictions. You are either a criminal or you're not. Do you think that because my drunken BiL starts a fight at my house that I should lose MY gun rights for beating his * down. That IS how it works, y'know. Just that easy and quick!
quote:Originally posted by Remington1981
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch...[xx(][:(!][V][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Before the SCOUS made this ruling the states already had control over their own Restrictions(I.E. ILL, DC, NY, CAL). I don't see how this ruling changed anything as far as the restrictions go. If I am wrong please tell me otherwise. It's not like there were no restrictions before this ruling and now there are. Bottom line The SCOUS stated that every american has the right, not privelage to own a fire arm. I agree that there should be no restritions on Firearms as well, other than murderer's rapist and people who have a domestic violence problem. So I don't see how anyone could see this as negative. The restrictions were going to be there no matter what the ruling was. I belive if it had went the other way it would have been far worse
Be careful with this. Do you know how easy it is to be hit with a "domestic violence" charge? Restriction are restrictions. You are either a criminal or you're not. Do you think that because my drunken BiL starts a fight at my house that I should lose MY gun rights for beating his * down. That IS how it works, y'know. Just that easy and quick!
Sorry, I should have made that more clear, What I was talking about is someone that has harmed or beaten a Child or a Woman.
[/quote]
+10000
it's only a matter of time
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch...[xx(][:(!][V][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Before the SCOUS made this ruling the states already had control over their own Restrictions(I.E. ILL, DC, NY, CAL). I don't see how this ruling changed anything as far as the restrictions go. If I am wrong please tell me otherwise. It's not like there were no restrictions before this ruling and now there are. Bottom line The SCOUS stated that every american has the right, not privelage to own a fire arm. I agree that there should be no restritions on Firearms as well, other than murderer's rapist and people who have a domestic violence problem. So I don't see how anyone could see this as negative. The restrictions were going to be there no matter what the ruling was. I belive if it had went the other way it would have been far worse
Did you read their decision...did you read how they believed reasonable restrictions were Constitutional...did you read how they believed a registry would be OK...did you read how their decision only applied to some handguns??? I suggest you go back and read their decision word for word. They opened us up to new restrictions that would have been considered Un-Constitutional in the past....but now that the Supreme Court has weighed in on the issue, you can rest assured that many, many, many states and localities will be coming up wiht new legislation and regulations.
I honestly believe that half of you guys must have not read the decision.[?]
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch...[xx(][:(!][V][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Before the SCOUS made this ruling the states already had control over their own Restrictions(I.E. ILL, DC, NY, CAL). I don't see how this ruling changed anything as far as the restrictions go. If I am wrong please tell me otherwise. It's not like there were no restrictions before this ruling and now there are. Bottom line The SCOUS stated that every american has the right, not privelage to own a fire arm. I agree that there should be no restritions on Firearms as well, other than murderer's rapist and people who have a domestic violence problem. So I don't see how anyone could see this as negative. The restrictions were going to be there no matter what the ruling was. I belive if it had went the other way it would have been far worse
Rem some are eternally negative...[:(]
We already have it!
Every firearm purchase you make goes into a national directory and then onto INTERPOL. Say it aint so. Our laws say so but this is what happens.
Don't beleive it? The next time you cross the border just ask the customs agent to tell you what firearm you purchased last.
National gun registration?
We already have it!
Every firearm purchase you make goes into a national directory and then onto INTERPOL. Say it aint so. Our laws say so but this is what happens.
Don't beleive it? The next time you cross the border just ask the customs agent to tell you what firearm you purchased last.
This is BS. When a dealer calls in a background check, we do not even tell the FBI what the gun is...and by Federal Law, any record of that phone call is supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours. The only real record of firearm ownership is in the hands of the dealers...with their log books and 4473's...which can be destroyed after 20 years.
quote:Originally posted by Remington1981
quote:Originally posted by ECC
Where are all the naysayers from yesterday. DC is already using this atrocious decision by the S.C. to regulate firearm ownership...and I can guarantee you that MANY places will follow suit. Here comes your registry and regulation like we've never seen before. Just watch...[xx(][:(!][V][:(!][:(!][:(!]
Before the SCOUS made this ruling the states already had control over their own Restrictions(I.E. ILL, DC, NY, CAL). I don't see how this ruling changed anything as far as the restrictions go. If I am wrong please tell me otherwise. It's not like there were no restrictions before this ruling and now there are. Bottom line The SCOUS stated that every american has the right, not privelage to own a fire arm. I agree that there should be no restritions on Firearms as well, other than murderer's rapist and people who have a domestic violence problem. So I don't see how anyone could see this as negative. The restrictions were going to be there no matter what the ruling was. I belive if it had went the other way it would have been far worse
Rem some are eternally negative...[:(]
Huntermag, Did you read the assenting opinion paper or just the headlines in the news and paper. I know it's 157 pages but, PLEASE read the whole thing. You may have different thoughts about it then.
Yes, I am negative. I have a right to be. I do not trust the government. Do you?
quote:by Federal Law, any record of that phone call is supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Yes , this is BS exactly what I told the customs agent during a search of my vehicle at the border. They were very concerned that I might be bringing two handguns that I had purchased earlier that week.
I gave them the whole run down of our laws and procedures that just brought about a few laughs. There on the screen were the firearm purchases that I had made. They were all very professional about the search and said that recent handgun purchases get flagged first.
I guess I was experiencing total BS the three times my vehicle was searched during the last four years and told exactly what they were looking for.
quote:This is BS. When a dealer calls in a background check, we do not even tell the FBI what the gun is...and by Federal Law, any record of that phone call is supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours. The only real record of firearm ownership is in the hands of the dealers...with their log books and 4473's...which can be destroyed after 20 years.
quote:by Federal Law, any record of that phone call is supposed to be destroyed within 24 hours.
Yes , this is BS exactly what I told the customs agent during a search of my vehicle at the border. They were very concerned that I might be bringing two handguns that I had purchased earlier that week.
I gave them the whole run down of our laws and procedures that just brought about a few laughs. There on the screen were the firearm purchases that I had made. They were all very professional about the search and said that recent handgun purchases get flagged first.
I guess I was experiencing total BS the three times my vehicle was searched during the last four years and told exactly what they were looking for.
Well...that would be plausible...IF the Gov't is violating Federal Law. We are asked if it's a long gun or a handgun when we call the NICS check in. We need someone like yourself to sue the Gov't over this matter...someone who has been directly affected.
As I said yesterday morning just after the ruling, if you read page 63 it appears that SCOTUS is asking for more challenges to come before them. In their assenting opinion, I believe, they are paving the way for more of these atrocious bans to be struck down. It is almost as if a blueprint has been laid out for these challenges. Read the first 63 pages. Many instances are given that support ownership and carry outside the home of modern firearms.
BINGO!!!!
Scalia does give clues and assistance to issues he supports!
If D.C. wants to be pricks and go before this court again, how recpetive do you think they are going to be????
BRING IT ON!!!
What is all these NRA wimpy attitudes around here? "OOH we might lose."
The losers in this case are acting like the liberal panty wastes that they are. They have nothing to defend themselves and the more abosrd they try to oppress the residence, the bigger they are going to lose in court.
This is a gray area and the courts have allowed for some "reasonable" use, but if the likes of Daley are arrogant enough to abuse registrations, the court can still declare local governments are not responsible enough to constitutionally granted rights and only the federal government can restrict Second Amendment rights.
How long will registrations last if D.C and Chicago choose to abuse it?
This is a gray area and the courts have allowed for some "reasonable" use, but if the likes of Daley are arrogant enough to abuse registrations, the court can still declare local governments are not responsible enough to constitutionally granted rights and only the federal government can restrict Second Amendment rights.
Says who?
How long will registrations last if D.C and Chicago choose to abuse it?
This is a gray area and the courts have allowed for some "reasonable" use, but if the likes of Daley are arrogant enough to abuse registrations, the court can still declare local governments are not responsible enough to constitutionally granted rights and only the federal government can restrict Second Amendment rights.
What r u talking about? That doesnt make any sense.
quote:Originally posted by Captplaid
How long will registrations last if D.C and Chicago choose to abuse it?
This is a gray area and the courts have allowed for some "reasonable" use, but if the likes of Daley are arrogant enough to abuse registrations, the court can still declare local governments are not responsible enough to constitutionally granted rights and only the federal government can restrict Second Amendment rights.
Says who?
+1000
This case affirms that we, the people, do have a right to protect ourselves with firearms.
And that is about all this case provides for us.
As the far left continues to abuse Second Amendment rights, it will further provide proof that we, the people, need to guard ourselves from an abusive heavy handed government. It will make future cases easier to win.
Read a little about Scalia. Listen to him when he does talk in public. He is a fascinate person. This is how he operates, and this is how the Scalia Court will continue to operate in the near future.
Scalia Court? Isn't Roberts Chief Justice? Scalia is running the show for now. [:D]
This case affirms that we, the people, do have a right to protect ourselves with firearms.
This is true....with some restrictions. This is NOT staying true to the 2nd Amendment. They are allowing DC to infringe on an uninfringable right.
[?][?][?]
I will have to agree with Saxon here. We didn't get to this level of restrictions with one law, and we will not get rid of them with one case. Incrementalism is how we lost our freedoms and it will be through incrementalism that we can get them back.
Mike
I would like to think you are right, but from everything I've read so far, it appears to me that the government's power and authority to restrict gun ownership has now been set in stone.