Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 8:07:56 AM)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBREA1N12820140224 (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to wade into the politically volatile issue of gun control by leaving intact three court rulings rejecting challenges to federal and state laws. The court's decision not to hear the cases represented a loss for gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, which was behind two of the challenges. The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas law that prevents 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. It also raised the broader question of whether there is a broad right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in public. The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21. The third case was on the narrow question of whether consumers have the legal right to challenge laws that regulate the sale of firearms. The challenge to a federal law that restricts the interstate transport of guns, and a related Virginia law, were filed by several District of Columbia residents who wished to obtain guns via neighboring Virginia. The court has yet to decide whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question left unanswered in its two most recent gun-related decisions. In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, the court held that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court held that the earlier ruling applied to the states. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller) What are the NRA gonna do from here?

Yachtie -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 8:42:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic What are the NRA gonna do from here? Not so much what the NRA will do from here, but the Court cannot keep ducking these issues forever.

mnottertail -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 8:47:00 AM)
Sure they can.

Lucylastic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 9:07:51 AM)
They cant do anything without some group like the NRA challenging again, so yeah, its pretty much in gun groups hands.

Owner59 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 9:14:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic What are the NRA gonna do from here? Not so much what the NRA will do from here, but the Court cannot keep ducking these issues forever. I was thinking the same thing only it was the douche-bag sociopathic nra I had in mind....

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 11:21:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/24/us-usa-court-guns-idUSBREA1N12820140224 (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday declined to wade into the politically volatile issue of gun control by leaving intact three court rulings rejecting challenges to federal and state laws. The court's decision not to hear the cases represented a loss for gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association, which was behind two of the challenges. The first case involved a challenge by the NRA to a Texas law that prevents 18-20 year olds from carrying handguns in public. It also raised the broader question of whether there is a broad right under the Second Amendment to bear arms in public. The second NRA case was a challenge to several federal laws and regulations, dating back to 1968, that make it illegal for firearms dealers to sell guns or ammunition to anyone under 21. The third case was on the narrow question of whether consumers have the legal right to challenge laws that regulate the sale of firearms. The challenge to a federal law that restricts the interstate transport of guns, and a related Virginia law, were filed by several District of Columbia residents who wished to obtain guns via neighboring Virginia. The court has yet to decide whether there is a right to carry guns in public, a question left unanswered in its two most recent gun-related decisions. In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, the court held that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guaranteed an individual right to bear arms. Two years later in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the court held that the earlier ruling applied to the states. (Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller) What are the NRA gonna do from here? I may be just being difficult, but may I point out something about this law, as well as the law preventing the sale of alcohol to people in the same age group? Under the current law, a person between the ages 18 -21 cannot buy firearms or drink. If they cannot be trusted as civilians with firearms, then how the hell can they be trusted in the military with firearms? Is there some genetic change in the makeup of their brains that occurs upon enlistment? Speaking as an army vet, I can attest that 18 to 21 year olds are just as stupid in the military as they are as civilians. Actually that statement is true of all age groups. Basically the question is, if 18 to 21 year old citizens can enlist and be wounded or die for their country, why the hell cant they drink or buy guns?

kdsub -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 11:29:25 AM)
Just a little off subject but I am wondering why the NRA is pushing so hard to reduce the age for conceal and carry? Do you think the gun manufacturers lobby in the NRA is behind it? I mentioned in another thread where Missouri Legislatures with the support of the NRA are pushing to reduce the CC permit age in Missouri to 19. At the same time they have legislation to allow guns on public school properties with a CC permit. This would mean some school kids in high school could legally pack guns to school... just crazy. Butch

Lucylastic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 11:48:02 AM)
Dunno Jeff, but when I was growing up, 16 was the age of consent... 18 to vote drink n smoke, but my ol man joined the army at 16 too waiting for 21 never happened in the UK

RottenJohnny -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 2:24:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic What are the NRA gonna do from here? They'll keep pushing regardless or wait until they have a more receptive SCOTUS.

Lucylastic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/24/2014 2:35:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic What are the NRA gonna do from here? They'll keep pushing regardless or wait until they have a more receptive SCOTUS. thanks:) Do you see a challenge coming from the Georgia law to allow in bars, churches and government buildings? http://www.times-georgian.com/news/article_c7ae37f8-991c-11e3-b048-0017a43b2370.html How long do you think it will take for them to keep pushing till they succeed?..do you foresee other challenges to anything in particular, What are the chances of the SCOTUS being more receptive, given the realities of the republican party? Im asking out of interest, not for snark material, while we disagree on a few things, I can actually respect your pov...

joether -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 3:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If they cannot be trusted as civilians with firearms, then how the hell can they be trusted in the military with firearms? Is there some genetic change in the makeup of their brains that occurs upon enlistment? Speaking as an army vet, I can attest that 18 to 21 year olds are just as stupid in the military as they are as civilians. Actually that statement is true of all age groups. Basically the question is, if 18 to 21 year old citizens can enlist and be wounded or die for their country, why the hell cant they drink or buy guns? Law 101, jlf1961.....WE VOTED ON IT. We elected people to office to represent either us as individuals or as a state in Congress. That would be the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. A bill came up through the regular channels, debated and voted on. You are welcome to bitch as its your right under the 1st. If you want it changed, there exists a process for that too. That said, the reason why 18-21 year olds are given arms in the military is due to....get this jlf1961....THEIR JOB. They are kept under stricter than normal conditions than any other 18-21 year olds in civilian life. They can not use those arms when ever nor how ever they decide. They have rules. Anyone that has seen videos of that age group on youtube.com would know. The sort of hell that would come down on the military if the adults allowed the privates to fuck around with firearms. Hence why the military has rules.

joether -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 3:12:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Just a little off subject but I am wondering why the NRA is pushing so hard to reduce the age for conceal and carry? Do you think the gun manufacturers lobby in the NRA is behind it? Most people with a brain and know how to use it know why. The supporters of the NRA either are to foolish or to dumb to know. The NRA is the Gun Industry's bitch. If there is a way to increase that industry's bottom-line, the NRA will support it without a second thought.

Yachtie -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 3:22:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether That said, the reason why 18-21 year olds are given arms in the military is due to....get this jlf1961....THEIR JOB. 18 year olds can purchase long guns. But anyway, if it's THEIR JOB as you say, I (age 19) was denied a security job at a nuclear plant because I'd have to be armed with a handgun.

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 3:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 If they cannot be trusted as civilians with firearms, then how the hell can they be trusted in the military with firearms? Is there some genetic change in the makeup of their brains that occurs upon enlistment? Speaking as an army vet, I can attest that 18 to 21 year olds are just as stupid in the military as they are as civilians. Actually that statement is true of all age groups. Basically the question is, if 18 to 21 year old citizens can enlist and be wounded or die for their country, why the hell cant they drink or buy guns? Law 101, jlf1961.....WE VOTED ON IT. We elected people to office to represent either us as individuals or as a state in Congress. That would be the House of Representatives and the Senate respectively. A bill came up through the regular channels, debated and voted on. You are welcome to bitch as its your right under the 1st. If you want it changed, there exists a process for that too. That said, the reason why 18-21 year olds are given arms in the military is due to....get this jlf1961....THEIR JOB. They are kept under stricter than normal conditions than any other 18-21 year olds in civilian life. They can not use those arms when ever nor how ever they decide. They have rules. Anyone that has seen videos of that age group on youtube.com would know. The sort of hell that would come down on the military if the adults allowed the privates to fuck around with firearms. Hence why the military has rules. First of all i am a vet, second of all, I personally feel that if an 18 year old kid is old enough to be maimed, crippled or killed for his country he or she deserves the same rights as every other fucking member of society. Funny thing, country boys and girls around here usually begin handling guns awful young. Funny thing is that the "gun" accidents rarely involve kids or teenagers, but do involve quite a few drunk rednecks after the famous, "hold my beer" line. And the "Its there job" bullshit don't hold water.

deathtothepixies -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 4:00:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: joether That said, the reason why 18-21 year olds are given arms in the military is due to....get this jlf1961....THEIR JOB. 18 year olds can purchase long guns. But anyway, if it's THEIR JOB as you say, I (age 19) was denied a security job at a nuclear plant because I'd have to be armed with a handgun. gun nuts.....nuclear plants... I imagine there were many reasons why you didn't get the job

jlf1961 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 4:15:56 PM)
Yachtie, how bout posting some links proving that the 3 years between turning 18 and becoming a legal adult with limited rights changes a person by the age of 21 to be a full legal citizen.

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 7:19:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 If people are so obsessed that they would want to maintain a hold over their killing machines after so many lives have been taken because people are legally allowed to have them, then why isn't that term accurate? The obsession is the minds of the anti-gun asshats, Tkman. That would be posters who provide the same sorts of contributions you provide. Tell us. What sort of experience base do you have with firearms? Did you serve in the military of your country? Seen them on TV shows? Just spouting stuff you see on Youtube? I've asked you several times why you automatically assume the only possible use of a firearm is to kill another person, and you have run away every time. Now I make it harder. Why do you assume that a potential human target wouldn't need killing, and that the person pulling the trigger wouldn't have every legal right to do so?

Tkman117 -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 8:04:48 PM)
quote: Tell us. What sort of experience base do you have with firearms? Did you serve in the military of your country? Seen them on TV shows? Just spouting stuff you see on Youtube? 1) I don't have experience with firearms because the laws and situation in my country ensure a safe environment where I don't need to carry a gun, a stark contrast to the USA. We have higher taxes that go to maintaining the peace, health care, and other laws which keep us safe. And the statistic don't lie. We are a much safer country than the USA in part because we have a better hold on our gun laws. quote: I've asked you several times why you automatically assume the only possible use of a firearm is to kill another person, and you have run away every time. 2) I apologize if I appeared to be running away, I was not aware I was. If you own a hand gun, a sub machine gun, a sniper rifle, assault rifle, etc, the only use is to kill another person. If you have a hunting shot gun or rifle, you will likely use it for hunting. Sure you could use it to kill someone, but in a mass shooting, how many people are you going to kill with a bolt action hunting rifle in the span of a minute compared to an assault rifle or SMG? You will never need a sub machine gun to hunt. And you will never use a gun to drive to work, or to cut meat, or to do anything but riddling someone or something with bullets. A gun fires metal slugs at dangerous speeds, that is it's function. But why does it do that? Why do you need to fire metal slugs that fast? It's not to plant flowers, thats for sure. quote: Why do you assume that a potential human target wouldn't need killing, and that the person pulling the trigger wouldn't have every legal right to do so? 3) Because every day citizens are not judge, jury and executioner. If someone is coming at you with either a gun or a knife, and you knew martial arts and could defend yourself, which weapon would you prefer your attacker to have?

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 8:09:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic What are the NRA gonna do from here? The first thing they are going to do is keep selling lifetime memberships, so they can keep "the facts" of their membership numbers propped up. (See the FCC study thread, if you don't know why the quote marks are there). The Supreme Court of my country has already issued a major ruling regarding guns in quite recent years. It shouldn't have needed to be a big deal, or even to come before anything but the lowest courts in our system, given the plain language of the 2nd Amendment, but here we are all the same. The Court affirmed that firearms ownership is an individual right of the people. Well, duh. That's how we do it in this country. For those gun owners who really are obsessive about it, and for the gun haters who are even more so (and especially for those who operate without much understanding of how the United States works), there might be an assumption that this was the start of something really exciting. Sorry (if the Court had ruled otherwise, it might have been). They gave their decision, it will produce a lot of consequences in some places and very little in others, and we need to let the lower courts work on those problem spots for a while.

TheHeretic -> RE: Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws (2/25/2014 8:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tkman117 1) I don't have experience with firearms You could have stopped typing right there. You didn't say another word that was relevant to the question. quote: I apologize if I appeared to be running away, I was not aware I was. If you own a hand gun, a sub machine gun, a sniper rifle, assault rifle, etc, the only use is to kill another person. Nonsense. My handgun is the ideal tool of personal protection against attacks by coyotes or feral dogs upon my dogs, or myself. Yes. That does happen where I live. Sub-machine guns require very special licensing for civilian ownership, a "sniper rifle" is any old fucking crappy rifle in the world, and almost always a bolt action (ask Lee Oswald), an assault rifle is capable of selective fire including automatic, and again requires special licensing. You post seems to be mostly about throwing out terms you have heard, but see point 1. You claim to be a student. I'm curious if that means you are interested in learning and thinking, or just rote repetition of what you've been told to believe, and namecalling when it gets the first bit bumpy.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875