Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
2013-01-16 10:07 AM
in reply to: #4580864

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
TriRSquared - 2013-01-16 8:27 AM
Jackemy1 - 2013-01-16 9:53 AM
drewb8 - 2013-01-15 5:23 PM
crusevegas - 2013-01-15 3:40 PM

Drew my opinion the 2A was/is about is small arms. Small arms meaning pistols and rifles, hand held weapons that one person can operate proficiently and safely by themselves. I think if there is any argument that has constitutional merit it would be that the M16 or similar weapons should be allowed to be owned by law abiding citizens. Be that as it may, I'm not going to make the argument, I do think what is happening in NYC and what the Frankenstein Bill has in it equates to urinating on the document they have taken an oath to uphold.

If the intent of the amendment is to enable the resistance of oppression, why should it be limited to just small arms?

Justice Scalia spoke to this on Fox News Sunday. Whether or not you are a Scalia fan it is certainly an insightful listen on how judges approach statutes and the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3oxckyicBY

Fascinating interview. Thanks!  I doubt most people would devote the time to watch it however.

It was interesting... and to bring up another point that it spurred... 2A proponents are criticized for adhering to a strict interpretation of the amendment... no compromise as has been mentioned... yet, Pro abortion folks are no different. That there can be NO LIMITATIONS placed on abortion... nada, zero, zip. And it's the same "slippery slope" argument dismissed when applied to 2A... and it isn't even a "right".. it's just a SCOTUS ruling. If you want to argue it's a right, then you are talking 4th amendment and privacy...

So we can murder (not my belief) 100,000s of children in the name of privacy, but we can restrict the 2A  as much as we want... for the children. I only say that, because politically... many of those that would defend abortion absolutely, are the same that want to restrict gun rights dramatically.



2013-01-16 10:17 AM
in reply to: #4563361

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
Actually 1.3 million abortions in the US annually.
2013-01-16 11:28 AM
in reply to: #4580945

User image

Pro
5755
50005001001002525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
powerman - 2013-01-16 11:07 AM
TriRSquared - 2013-01-16 8:27 AM
Jackemy1 - 2013-01-16 9:53 AM
drewb8 - 2013-01-15 5:23 PM
crusevegas - 2013-01-15 3:40 PM

Drew my opinion the 2A was/is about is small arms. Small arms meaning pistols and rifles, hand held weapons that one person can operate proficiently and safely by themselves. I think if there is any argument that has constitutional merit it would be that the M16 or similar weapons should be allowed to be owned by law abiding citizens. Be that as it may, I'm not going to make the argument, I do think what is happening in NYC and what the Frankenstein Bill has in it equates to urinating on the document they have taken an oath to uphold.

If the intent of the amendment is to enable the resistance of oppression, why should it be limited to just small arms?

Justice Scalia spoke to this on Fox News Sunday. Whether or not you are a Scalia fan it is certainly an insightful listen on how judges approach statutes and the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3oxckyicBY

Fascinating interview. Thanks!  I doubt most people would devote the time to watch it however.

It was interesting... and to bring up another point that it spurred... 2A proponents are criticized for adhering to a strict interpretation of the amendment... no compromise as has been mentioned... yet, Pro abortion folks are no different. That there can be NO LIMITATIONS placed on abortion... nada, zero, zip. And it's the same "slippery slope" argument dismissed when applied to 2A... and it isn't even a "right".. it's just a SCOTUS ruling. If you want to argue it's a right, then you are talking 4th amendment and privacy...

So we can murder (not my belief) 100,000s of children in the name of privacy, but we can restrict the 2A  as much as we want... for the children. I only say that, because politically... many of those that would defend abortion absolutely, are the same that want to restrict gun rights dramatically.

Baloney. If you look at the polls that have been done, only 10% of the public feel abortion should be legal in the third trimester, except for medical reasons (~85% support life-saving measures to the mother). So yes, even those that support abortion support limits.

2013-01-16 11:35 AM
in reply to: #4580787

User image

Champion
17756
50005000500020005001001002525
SoCal
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
Jackemy1 - 2013-01-16 6:53 AM
drewb8 - 2013-01-15 5:23 PM
crusevegas - 2013-01-15 3:40 PM

Drew my opinion the 2A was/is about is small arms. Small arms meaning pistols and rifles, hand held weapons that one person can operate proficiently and safely by themselves. I think if there is any argument that has constitutional merit it would be that the M16 or similar weapons should be allowed to be owned by law abiding citizens. Be that as it may, I'm not going to make the argument, I do think what is happening in NYC and what the Frankenstein Bill has in it equates to urinating on the document they have taken an oath to uphold.

If the intent of the amendment is to enable the resistance of oppression, why should it be limited to just small arms?

Justice Scalia spoke to this on Fox News Sunday. Whether or not you are a Scalia fan it is certainly an insightful listen on how judges approach statutes and the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3oxckyicBY

Very good video.

2013-01-16 12:34 PM
in reply to: #4581125

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
BrianRunsPhilly - 2013-01-16 10:28 AM
powerman - 2013-01-16 11:07 AM
TriRSquared - 2013-01-16 8:27 AM
Jackemy1 - 2013-01-16 9:53 AM
drewb8 - 2013-01-15 5:23 PM
crusevegas - 2013-01-15 3:40 PM

Drew my opinion the 2A was/is about is small arms. Small arms meaning pistols and rifles, hand held weapons that one person can operate proficiently and safely by themselves. I think if there is any argument that has constitutional merit it would be that the M16 or similar weapons should be allowed to be owned by law abiding citizens. Be that as it may, I'm not going to make the argument, I do think what is happening in NYC and what the Frankenstein Bill has in it equates to urinating on the document they have taken an oath to uphold.

If the intent of the amendment is to enable the resistance of oppression, why should it be limited to just small arms?

Justice Scalia spoke to this on Fox News Sunday. Whether or not you are a Scalia fan it is certainly an insightful listen on how judges approach statutes and the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3oxckyicBY

Fascinating interview. Thanks!  I doubt most people would devote the time to watch it however.

It was interesting... and to bring up another point that it spurred... 2A proponents are criticized for adhering to a strict interpretation of the amendment... no compromise as has been mentioned... yet, Pro abortion folks are no different. That there can be NO LIMITATIONS placed on abortion... nada, zero, zip. And it's the same "slippery slope" argument dismissed when applied to 2A... and it isn't even a "right".. it's just a SCOTUS ruling. If you want to argue it's a right, then you are talking 4th amendment and privacy...

So we can murder (not my belief) 100,000s of children in the name of privacy, but we can restrict the 2A  as much as we want... for the children. I only say that, because politically... many of those that would defend abortion absolutely, are the same that want to restrict gun rights dramatically.

Baloney. If you look at the polls that have been done, only 10% of the public feel abortion should be legal in the third trimester, except for medical reasons (~85% support life-saving measures to the mother). So yes, even those that support abortion support limits.

Then tell me why abortions are allowed in the third trimester and partial birth abortions are vigorously defended?

I did not say Americans... I was talking about those that defend abortion, just like the NRA defends gun rights. The NRA is widely criticized for not compromising, yet what happens any time a restriction to abortion is proposed... same thing.



Edited by powerman 2013-01-16 12:35 PM
2013-01-16 1:21 PM
in reply to: #4563361

User image

Champion
17756
50005000500020005001001002525
SoCal
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
So who thinks Feinstein's bill will pass congress?


2013-01-16 1:32 PM
in reply to: #4563361

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions

I sort of felt at least reinstating the old was was a sure thing. But this one... there are some significant hurdles. Registering all guns that fall under it under the NFA and making them Class 3??? That includes pistols with one "military characteristic"... I assume that means a rail... and that includes ever single polymer pistol made in the last 10-20 years. No transfer or sales and you have to hand it over to the government at death? Under the NFA, you also have to request permission to take them across state lines... really for 100 million guns.

That bill is a serious serious bill. I can't possible see it having a snow balls chance in heck as it is currently written.

 

And I want to say this too... the law makers and the POTUS keep saying they want to abide by the 2aA an  allow responsible gun owners to do what they want... B.S. Not according to this. How about just a permit? They are clear in what they want... hunting rifles and revolvers that never see the light of day other than when you go hunting.

2013-01-16 1:42 PM
in reply to: #4581343

User image

Deep in the Heart of Texas
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions

Big Appa - 2013-01-16 1:21 PM So who thinks Feinstein's bill will pass congress?

Feinstein's bill won't even pass the Senate.  The Senators are not going to pass a bill which they know will not pass the House.  Gun control legislation is too politically risky for both Republicans and Democrats.  They might ultimately pass something, but its not going to be Feinstein's bill.

2013-01-16 1:53 PM
in reply to: #4581362

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
powerman - 2013-01-16 2:32 PM

I sort of felt at least reinstating the old was was a sure thing. But this one... there are some significant hurdles. Registering all guns that fall under it under the NFA and making them Class 3??? That includes pistols with one "military characteristic"... I assume that means a rail... and that includes ever single polymer pistol made in the last 10-20 years. No transfer or sales and you have to hand it over to the government at death? Under the NFA, you also have to request permission to take them across state lines... really for 100 million guns.

That bill is a serious serious bill. I can't possible see it having a snow balls chance in heck as it is currently written.

 

And I want to say this too... the law makers and the POTUS keep saying they want to abide by the 2aA an  allow responsible gun owners to do what they want... B.S. Not according to this. How about just a permit? They are clear in what they want... hunting rifles and revolvers that never see the light of day other than when you go hunting.

Wow was not aware of the polymer pistol portion of the proposed bill....So my Glock and FN handguns are gone....

But hey "no one wants to take your guns away."

2013-01-16 2:10 PM
in reply to: #4581398

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
Brock Samson - 2013-01-16 12:53 PM
powerman - 2013-01-16 2:32 PM

I sort of felt at least reinstating the old was was a sure thing. But this one... there are some significant hurdles. Registering all guns that fall under it under the NFA and making them Class 3??? That includes pistols with one "military characteristic"... I assume that means a rail... and that includes ever single polymer pistol made in the last 10-20 years. No transfer or sales and you have to hand it over to the government at death? Under the NFA, you also have to request permission to take them across state lines... really for 100 million guns.

That bill is a serious serious bill. I can't possible see it having a snow balls chance in heck as it is currently written.

 

And I want to say this too... the law makers and the POTUS keep saying they want to abide by the 2aA an  allow responsible gun owners to do what they want... B.S. Not according to this. How about just a permit? They are clear in what they want... hunting rifles and revolvers that never see the light of day other than when you go hunting.

Wow was not aware of the polymer pistol portion of the proposed bill....So my Glock and FN handguns are gone....

But hey "no one wants to take your guns away."

The way it is written, it says semi-auto piston capable of accepting a detachable magazine of more than 10 rounds with one military characteristic. If a "military characteristic" is a accessory rail... then yes, that is pretty much any polymer semi-auto pistol. That is huge... I was unaware a pistol was a "weapon of war" or a "assault weapon"

2013-01-25 12:04 PM
in reply to: #4581425

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions

We now know that the proposed Feinstein "assualt weapons ban" in its list of 150 specifically banned weapons also includes certain named pistols and shot guns.

Additionally, we now know what some of the "military characteristics" are, they include: "pistol grip", "flash suppressor", "folding or collapsible stock", "thumb hole stock"

It also bans the manufacture, sale, importation, and transfer of semi-automatic handgun or pistols with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

There is a grandfather clause in the proposed legislation, but as we'ver previously discussed any firearm that would be banned under the legislation that is grandfathered cannot be transferred and must be registered.  Oh, just an FYI there is a $200 fee for registering a firearm.

So now we know the new "assualt weapons ban" isn't just an "assualt weapons" ban.



2013-01-25 12:08 PM
in reply to: #4594610

User image

Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
Brock Samson - 2013-01-25 10:04 AM

We now know that the proposed Feinstein "assualt weapons ban" in its list of 150 specifically banned weapons also includes certain named pistols and shot guns.

Additionally, we now know what some of the "military characteristics" are, they include: "pistol grip", "flash suppressor", "folding or collapsible stock", "thumb hole stock"

It also bans the manufacture, sale, importation, and transfer of semi-automatic handgun or pistols with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

There is a grandfather clause in the proposed legislation, but as we'ver previously discussed any firearm that would be banned under the legislation that is grandfathered cannot be transferred and must be registered.  Oh, just an FYI there is a $200 fee for registering a firearm.

So now we know the new "assualt weapons ban" isn't just an "assualt weapons" ban.

 

Is there any way that the bill as it is written would be constitutional in your opinion?

2013-01-25 12:08 PM
in reply to: #4563361

User image

Elite
6387
50001000100100100252525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
Because we all know how deadly pistol grips and collapsible stocks are.Undecided
2013-01-25 12:23 PM
in reply to: #4563361

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions

Additionally I am tired of the rhetoric on the left about having a "candid" conversation about gun control. 

I agree we should have a candid conversation about gun control.  Let's begin with the "gun violence" statistics that are thrown out there, the 30,000 victims of "gun violence" every year.  Let's be honest that over 60% of those "victims of gun violence" as captured in this number are suicides.  Let's then look at the number of these non-suicide gun violence victims and see how many were killed by long rifles, and then break that long rifle number down even further by looking at the number or percentage that were killed by "assault weapons."  This is critical to an honest and candid debate since all the rhetoric from the left is about an "assualt weapons" ban.  The numbers are stagering...yup about 1%, that' right about 1% of those gun violence victims are killed by "assault weapons", which is the focus of all of the legislation. 

Let's then look at the prior "assault weapons ban" and at the governments own studies, there are actually numerous by various agencies including the FBI, ALL of which concluded that the 1994 Assault weapons ban did NOTHING to reduce crime rates or gun violence.

Then in our honest debate let's look at how firearms work and look at the functional difference between non-assault weapon rifles and assault weapons.

Let's also look at the definition of what under the legislation makes a weapon an "assault weapon" and see if there is any rational basis to ban that particular mechanism from a safety stand point.  I.E., does the prohibited mechanism lend to a more dangerous firearm requiring it to be banned.  So let's look: "flash suppressor"? "barrel shroud"?, "adjustable stock"?

Remember under the California ban and the 1994 Federal Ban you need two characteristics, under the newly proposed ban you only need one characteristic.  So "asjustable stock"=banned; "barrel shroud"=banned, flash suppressor=banned.

So a candid, and open and honest debate about gun control shows that our government is seeking to re-institute a ban that had no effect on gun violence and only accounts for 1% of gun violence victims.  Even though "assault weapons" are one of the best and fastest selling sectors of the gun industry. 

So, yeah let's have an honest discussion...the problem is when you start to have an honest discussion one side simply screams "Newton".

I submit that it is true that there is not an honest discussion going on about gun control and gun violence, but the side that isn't being honest may not be the one that is being portrayed in the media.

 

2013-01-25 12:24 PM
in reply to: #4594620

User image

Elite
2733
200050010010025
Venture Industries,
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
crusevegas - 2013-01-25 1:08 PM
Brock Samson - 2013-01-25 10:04 AM

We now know that the proposed Feinstein "assualt weapons ban" in its list of 150 specifically banned weapons also includes certain named pistols and shot guns.

Additionally, we now know what some of the "military characteristics" are, they include: "pistol grip", "flash suppressor", "folding or collapsible stock", "thumb hole stock"

It also bans the manufacture, sale, importation, and transfer of semi-automatic handgun or pistols with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

There is a grandfather clause in the proposed legislation, but as we'ver previously discussed any firearm that would be banned under the legislation that is grandfathered cannot be transferred and must be registered.  Oh, just an FYI there is a $200 fee for registering a firearm.

So now we know the new "assualt weapons ban" isn't just an "assualt weapons" ban.

 

Is there any way that the bill as it is written would be constitutional in your opinion?

Nope.  And that's even more offensive, because I think almost everyone in D.C. knows that.  It's offensive because a Legislature has proposed a bill that probably isn't constitutional.  Shouldn't that be offensive?

2013-01-25 12:33 PM
in reply to: #4563361

User image

Champion
10154
500050001002525
Alabama
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions

I can shoot my Remmington .30-06 just as fast as you can shoot your AR-15....amd my .30-06 is much deadlier.  An AR-15 is a toy compared to a high-powered hunting rifle.

Every time the ban or try to ban assault rifles, a few million people who wouldn't otherwise want to own one, goes out and buys one.  I think Feinstein is getting a kickback....



2013-01-25 12:34 PM
in reply to: #4594648

User image

Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
Brock Samson - 2013-01-25 10:24 AM
crusevegas - 2013-01-25 1:08 PM
Brock Samson - 2013-01-25 10:04 AM

We now know that the proposed Feinstein "assualt weapons ban" in its list of 150 specifically banned weapons also includes certain named pistols and shot guns.

Additionally, we now know what some of the "military characteristics" are, they include: "pistol grip", "flash suppressor", "folding or collapsible stock", "thumb hole stock"

It also bans the manufacture, sale, importation, and transfer of semi-automatic handgun or pistols with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

There is a grandfather clause in the proposed legislation, but as we'ver previously discussed any firearm that would be banned under the legislation that is grandfathered cannot be transferred and must be registered.  Oh, just an FYI there is a $200 fee for registering a firearm.

So now we know the new "assualt weapons ban" isn't just an "assualt weapons" ban.

 

Is there any way that the bill as it is written would be constitutional in your opinion?

Nope.  And that's even more offensive, because I think almost everyone in D.C. knows that.  It's offensive because a Legislature has proposed a bill that probably isn't constitutional.  Shouldn't that be offensive?

I don't know the legalities but I would think that they are violating their oath of office. Impeachment, treason.

I personally believe this is their "negotiating" tactic and are looking for a "compromise". 

In answer to your question, yes, it is offensive,,,,,, The comments I have for Senator Frankenstein and any other politician that would sign on to such criminal legislation as this, well BT I believe has a filter that would delete most of comments.

2013-01-25 12:46 PM
in reply to: #4563361

User image

Member
465
1001001001002525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions

And for our Animal Farm moment of the day....

 

The Washington Times reports:

 

Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/feinstein-rolls-out-proposal-ban-assault-weapons/print/#ixzz2J0vuqguQ 

 

2013-01-25 1:12 PM
in reply to: #4594714

User image

Pro
15655
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions
Jackemy1 - 2013-01-25 12:46 PM

And for our Animal Farm moment of the day....

 

The Washington Times reports:

 

Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/24/feinstein-rolls-out-proposal-ban-assault-weapons/print/#ixzz2J0vuqguQ 

 

Well, it looks like I'll be exempt if they ban AR-15's and make you turn yours in to the govt. 

Just for furture reference, I'll give you 15% of what you paid for your rifle, sight unseen. At least you'll get something. Laughing

New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Senator Feinstein's gun bill in light of DC v Heller - Constitutional questions Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3