guns

[Babagounj]

Before becoming governor this time Moonbeam's prior job tittles were being the 31st AG and the 47th Mayor of Oakland .
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Oakland-California.html

 

[Babagounj]

Never proven. If true, George appeared to have deserved a good beating for not leaving Mr. Martin alone, as he was directed to do by 911.

Do you always follow instructions given to you by unknown people over the phone ?
If yes, then stand by the IRS will be calling you soon .

 

[oldngray]

Before becoming governor this time Moonbeam's prior job tittles were being the 31st AG and the 47th Mayor of Oakland .
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Oakland-California.html

Wasn't being Linda Ronstadt's boyfriend more important?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

One thing I forgot, once registered as an assault rifle, you can not loan your firearm to ANYONE.

That includes spouse, parents or children.

It has started for real.

If you think they will stop here, you are mistaken.

Gov. Moonbeam signed 5 new gun laws, but vetoed 4 others.

There will be more, MUST TURN IN, laws coming unless we stop them.

Why did you choose to live in such a ridiculous state? Not smart enough to choose a state that respects the second amendment? Lulz.

 

[MrFedEx]

MR. MARTIN ???????? You mean Trevon's daddy?

Oh, he doesn't deserve any respect? There is zero proof that Zimmerman was in a scuffle with Martin. In fact, many think Zimmerman's wounds were self inflicted so he could say there was a physical altercation.

 

[The Other Side]

One thing I forgot, once registered as an assault rifle, you can not loan your firearm to ANYONE.

That includes spouse, parents or children.

It has started for real.

If you think they will stop here, you are mistaken.

Gov. Moonbeam signed 5 new gun laws, but vetoed 4 others.

There will be more, MUST TURN IN, laws coming unless we stop them.

There is NOTHING to stop.

There is no challenge to these new laws signed by governor Brown and there is a simple reason for it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in the Heller V DC case, clearly stated that the STATES have the power and the right to ban certain weapons and assessories as those were NOT a protected right under the second amendment.

Scalia also wrote that the STATES had the right to take guns away from those citizens that posed a threat to society at large, and that includes abusers of domestic violence.

Scalia also wrote that there was no protection under the second amendment to assault style rifles and if the states wished to ban them, they could as assault weapons are not a protected right under the second amendment.

Scalia also wrote that CCW is NOT a protected right under the second amendment.

And with that, you have these new laws on the books and if they are challenged in court, they will die in the 9th circuit as the SCOTUS would not even HEAR any challenges to these laws.

The SCOTUS has already made itself clear.

Sorry, time to move to some podunk white town in some podunk white state where you can have any gun you want.

TOS.

 

[realbrown1]

There is NOTHING to stop.

There is no challenge to these new laws signed by governor Brown and there is a simple reason for it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion in the Heller V DC case, clearly stated that the STATES have the power and the right to ban certain weapons and assessories as those were NOT a protected right under the second amendment.

Scalia also wrote that the STATES had the right to take guns away from those citizens that posed a threat to society at large, and that includes abusers of domestic violence.

Scalia also wrote that there was no protection under the second amendment to assault style rifles and if the states wished to ban them, they could as assault weapons are not a protected right under the second amendment.

Scalia also wrote that CCW is NOT a protected right under the second amendment.

And with that, you have these new laws on the books and if they are challenged in court, they will die in the 9th circuit as the SCOTUS would not even HEAR any challenges to these laws.

The SCOTUS has already made itself clear.

Sorry, time to move to some podunk white town in some podunk white state where you can have any gun you want.

TOS.

The states have the right to ban firearms not mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Then, with your liberal logic, the state can ban ALL FIREAMS since no firearm is mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

So according to you, the right to keep and bear arms means what?

Slingshot, or bb gun?

 

[BrownArmy]

The states have the right to ban firearms not mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Then, with your liberal logic, the state can ban ALL FIREAMS since no firearm is mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

So according to you, the right to keep and bear arms means what?

Slingshot, or bb gun?

Rocket launchers?

Machine guns?

You can buy those?

Oh, you can't...why?

 

[realbrown1]

Rocket launchers?

Machine guns?

You can buy those?

Oh, you can't...why?

The founding fathers talked about the people having the same weapons as a military man could carry.

I know people who have legal machine guns.

I know people who have grenade launchers that are legal.

Relatives that live out of Commiefornia.

And you know what?

No one have been injured by any of those machine guns and grenade launchers.

 

[BrownArmy]

The founding fathers talked about the people having the same weapons as a military man could carry.

I know people who have legal machine guns.

I know people who have grenade launchers that are legal.

Relatives that live out of Commiefornia.

And you know what?

No one have been injured by any of those machine guns and grenade launchers.

Is there a rational reason to restrict citizens from buying rocket launchers or machine guns?

I say yes.

By your logic, a citizen could employ anything the military does?

Fighter jets? Nukes?

Nonsense.

This is why the Constitution needs to be (and necessarily is) a 'living document'.

 

[realbrown1]

Is there a rational reason to restrict citizens from buying rocket launchers or machine guns?

I say yes.

By your logic, a citizen could employ anything the military does?

Fighter jets? Nukes?

Nonsense.

This is why the Constitution needs to be (and necessarily is) a 'living document'.

You wrongfully read into the 2nd amendment the word NEED.

It is not there.

And you obviously have never been in the military and are a special needs 1st grader because on what planet does a foot soldier carry fighter jets or nukes?

 

[BrownArmy]

You wrongfully read into the 2nd amendment the word NEED.

It is not there.

And you obviously have never been in the military and are a special needs 1st grader because on what planet does a foot soldier carry fighter jets or nukes?

Bollucks.

 

[realbrown1]

Bollucks.

Troll says what?

 

[The Other Side]

The states have the right to ban firearms not mentioned in the 2nd amendment?

Then, with your liberal logic, the state can ban ALL FIREAMS since no firearm is mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

So according to you, the right to keep and bear arms means what?

Slingshot, or bb gun?

Why not trying to read the SCOTUS ruling in Heller V DC and find out for yourself, eh??

The scotus ruled that a HANDGUN could be kept in the home for home protection and made it very clear that any other weapons could be BANNED by the States if they chose to do so as they were not a protected priviledge under the second amendment.

From SCALIA himself and his majority RULING on the second amendment....

" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"" ~Scalia

Pretty clear language.

The laws will stand.

TOS.

 

[realbrown1]

Why not trying to read the SCOTUS ruling in Heller V DC and find out for yourself, eh??

The scotus ruled that a HANDGUN could be kept in the home for home protection and made it very clear that any other weapons could be BANNED by the States if they chose to do so as they were not a protected priviledge under the second amendment.

From SCALIA himself and his majority RULING on the second amendment....

" Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"" ~Scalia

Pretty clear language.

The laws will stand.

TOS.

When did I say the 2nd amendment allows a person to keep and carry any weapon at any time?

Never.

And when did I say that felons or the mentally ill should be allowed to keep and carry?

Never.

Pretty lame of you.

You argued that the state had a right to ban any and all weapons and firearms from the 2nd amendment.

They do not.

They may ban certain firearms, like machine guns, and certain weapons, such as grenades, but they do not have the right to ban a semi-automatic rifle that LOOKS SCARY.

It is being challenged as we speak.

My guess is none of the laws that moonbeam signed into law Friday will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017.

A lot less restrictive gun laws have been struck down in other states.

And these California laws will be struck down too.

Besides, these laws restrict the rights of the poor to purchase a firearm and train with that firearm.

On those grounds alone, the laws will be struck down.

 

[The Other Side]

When did I say the 2nd amendment allows a person to keep and carry any weapon at any time?

Never.

And when did I say that felons or the mentally ill should be allowed to keep and carry?

Never.

Pretty lame of you.

You argued that the state had a right to ban any and all weapons and firearms from the 2nd amendment.

They do not.

They may ban certain firearms, like machine guns, and certain weapons, such as grenades, but they do not have the right to ban a semi-automatic rifle that LOOKS SCARY.

It is being challenged as we speak.

My guess is none of the laws that moonbeam signed into law Friday will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2017.

A lot less restrictive gun laws have been struck down in other states.

And these California laws will be struck down too.

Besides, these laws restrict the rights of the poor to purchase a firearm and train with that firearm.

On those grounds alone, the laws will be struck down.

Dont be dense. I didnt say that at all.

What I said, was that the SCOTUS ruled that weapons could be banned, with the exception of handguns for protection in the home.

I dont see on what grounds you think the new laws will be struck down, and by what courts. The 9th circuit clearly WONT strike down the laws, so that pushes it to the supreme court, but they have already made themselves CRYSTAL CLEAR and they simply wont even hear the case, and the lower 9th circuit case rulings will stand.

You may have hope, but hope doesnt mean you have intelligence.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

I find it cute that you think there is a court in california will side with you.

It says a lot about what you dont understand about the makeup of this state.

Good luck clinging to fantasyland.

TOS.

 

[realbrown1]

Dont be dense. I didnt say that at all.

What I said, was that the SCOTUS ruled that weapons could be banned, with the exception of handguns for protection in the home.

I dont see on what grounds you think the new laws will be struck down, and by what courts. The 9th circuit clearly WONT strike down the laws, so that pushes it to the supreme court, but they have already made themselves CRYSTAL CLEAR and they simply wont even hear the case, and the lower 9th circuit case rulings will stand.

You may have hope, but hope doesnt mean you have intelligence.

TOS.

The 2nd amendment was not written for the protection of the home.

Could you please cite that case and post it here.

You have made a claim.

Now back it up.

 

[realbrown1]

I find it cute that you think there is a court in california will side with you.

It says a lot about what you dont understand about the makeup of this state.

Good luck clinging to fantasyland.

TOS.

There are courts in California that will strike these stupid laws down.

If they fail, there are appeals courts that have struck down laws that were not as restrictive as these.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I dont see on what grounds you think the new laws will be struck down, and by what courts. The 9th circuit clearly WONT strike down the laws, so that pushes it to the supreme court, but they have already made themselves CRYSTAL CLEAR and they simply wont even hear the case, and the lower 9th circuit case rulings will stand.

TOS.

I haven't read into the laws at all, but if it's true the weapons have to be given to the state upon the owner's death, that seems primed to be struck down by the courts.