guns

[realbrown1]

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.

How about magazines legally purchased that are going to be illegal to own or possess on Jan. 1, 2017.

Same principle.

People purchased them while they were legal to buy and own.

Jan. 1, they are illegal to own.

No compensation, no trade in, you are just SOL when it comes to the money spent to purchase those magazines?

And the $50 once a year background check to purchase ammo?

Poor people may not be able to afford this.

Is the state going to subsidize their background checks?

Are they going to be credited $50 once a year on their EBT cards.

Isn't government great?

 

[The Other Side]

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.

GEEZ, are you really this absent of thought? What did you think Heller V DC was about? What do you think the scotus in its 5 to 4 ruling said?

Cmon, dont embarrass yourself. Be like O.U.T., at least try to say something, even if its stupid.

At least he does.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

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.

What courts in california??

Are you insane? The courts in california have always backed stricker gun laws, and now, they have a scotus ruling to back them up. Our 9th circuit would be the place that any gun challenge would eventually end up, and there my friend, you have about as much a chance to have these laws reversed, as the scare crow did in the wizard of oz getting a brain.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

How about magazines legally purchased that are going to be illegal to own or possess on Jan. 1, 2017.

Same principle.

People purchased them while they were legal to buy and own.

Jan. 1, they are illegal to own.

No compensation, no trade in, you are just SOL when it comes to the money spent to purchase those magazines?

And the $50 once a year background check to purchase ammo?

Poor people may not be able to afford this.

Is the state going to subsidize their background checks?

Are they going to be credited $50 once a year on their EBT cards.

Isn't government great?

If you cant afford to buy ammo, then guess what, you shouldnt be buying guns.

TOS.

 

[baklava]

If you cant afford to buy ammo, then guess what, you shouldnt be buying guns.

TOS.

You can't be serious.

 

[realbrown1]

GEEZ, are you really this absent of thought? What did you think Heller V DC was about? What do you think the scotus in its 5 to 4 ruling said?

Cmon, dont embarrass yourself. Be like O.U.T., at least try to say something, even if its stupid.

At least he does.

TOS.

You still don't get it.

The 2nd amendment wasn't written for the protection of the home.

It was written for the protection of individuals, their families and their homes.

That's why the DC law was struck down.

And the 2nd amendment was for protecting oneself and family from the government.

The founding fathers figured us Americans might one day need guns to stop governmental tyranny.

 

[realbrown1]

You can't be serious.

That's a Democrat for you.

Make ammo to expensive to buy with extra rules and regulations, until poor people can't afford ammo for their guns.

He will come around eventually to say that poor people have a fundamental right to subsidized ammo.

We will just need to tax rich people and workers extra to make it happen.

What's the term the media uses to conn the taxpayers out of more of their money, oh yeah, BADLY NEEDED RESOURCES.

 

[realbrown1]

What courts in california??

Are you insane? The courts in california have always backed stricker gun laws, and now, they have a scotus ruling to back them up. Our 9th circuit would be the place that any gun challenge would eventually end up, and there my friend, you have about as much a chance to have these laws reversed, as the scare crow did in the wizard of oz getting a brain.

TOS.

How about the 2nd District Court of Appeals?

They are already hearing 2nd amendment cases right now.

This is California you know.

 

[The Other Side]

You still don't get it.

The 2nd amendment wasn't written for the protection of the home.

It was written for the protection of individuals, their families and their homes.

That's why the DC law was struck down.

And the 2nd amendment was for protecting oneself and family from the government.

The founding fathers figured us Americans might one day need guns to stop governmental tyranny.

You clearly dont understand what the ruling in Heller V DC was all about then. Its no surprise though.

After all the discussion and history and evaluation. The scotus ruling came down to this sentence..


majority opinion scotus: Heller V DC.

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

IN THE HOME, HANDGUNS ONLY.

The ruling spells this out. It doesnt mention anything about you being able to walk around with guns on your person or gun racks in your trucks.

You want a handgun at home, fine, you want an assault style rifle? Well, depending on your state, you may or may not be able to get one. And if they are prohibited, you may get a jail sentence.

TOS.

 

[The Other Side]

How about the 2nd District Court of Appeals?

They are already hearing 2nd amendment cases right now.

This is California you know.

umm, not sure if you understand how this works, but the 2 district doesnt hear cases from california.

TOS.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

How about magazines legally purchased that are going to be illegal to own or possess on Jan. 1, 2017.

Same principle.

People purchased them while they were legal to buy and own.

Jan. 1, they are illegal to own.

No compensation, no trade in, you are just SOL when it comes to the money spent to purchase those magazines?

And the $50 once a year background check to purchase ammo?

Poor people may not be able to afford this.

Is the state going to subsidize their background checks?

Are they going to be credited $50 once a year on their EBT cards.

Isn't government great?

Democracy at work right?
Maybe you should get your state in order. You're an embarrassment for the rest of us.

 

[realbrown1]

Democracy at work right?
Maybe you should get your state in order. You're an embarrassment for the rest of us.

Hey, it's the liberal Democrats fault.

They control the whole state.

They want to ban the confiscate all firearms.

They just gave illegal aliens the right to vote.

You can't blame me or my family because we didn't vote for any of those Democrats.

 

[realbrown1]

umm, not sure if you understand how this works, but the 2 district doesnt hear cases from california.

TOS.

The 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles doesn't hear cases in California?

When did this start?

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Hey, it's the liberal Democrats fault.

They control the whole state.

They want to ban the confiscate all firearms.

They just gave illegal aliens the right to vote.

You can't blame me or my family because we didn't vote for any of those Democrats.

I hope you and your family sinks into the ocean. You're garbage. You can blame any political party you want, it's your state, and you should be embarrassed to live there. If you don't like it, then move.

 

[Catatonic]

You can't be serious.

A whole page of posts and I can only see this one ... the rest are on Ignore.

At least it's working although I probably saw all of them in the Mod Queue.

 

[realbrown1]

You clearly dont understand what the ruling in Heller V DC was all about then. Its no surprise though.

After all the discussion and history and evaluation. The scotus ruling came down to this sentence..


majority opinion scotus: Heller V DC.

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."

IN THE HOME, HANDGUNS ONLY.

The ruling spells this out. It doesnt mention anything about you being able to walk around with guns on your person or gun racks in your trucks.

You want a handgun at home, fine, you want an assault style rifle? Well, depending on your state, you may or may not be able to get one. And if they are prohibited, you may get a jail sentence.

TOS.

It's an easy case to read and understand.

I am suprised it took so long to overturn.

And what's an assault style rifle?

And what's the difference between semi-automatic hunting rifles and an AR style rifle?

This should be good.

 

[BrownArmy]

A whole page of posts and I can only see this one ... the rest are on Ignore.

At least it's working although I probably saw all of them in the Mod Queue.

So if you log in as a civilian poster you won't see the ignored members.

if you switch to 'mod' mode, you see all the posts anyway.

As a mod, why put anyone on ignore?

Seems redundant.

 

[realbrown1]

I hope you and your family sinks into the ocean. You're garbage. You can blame any political party you want, it's your state, and you should be embarrassed to live there. If you don't like it, then move.

Who should I blame?

The Republicans didn't do this, and they don't have the numbers to stop it.

The Democrat controlled Assembly passed all these bills.

The Democrat controlled Senate passed these bills.

The Democrat Governor signed these bills and made them state law.

I am embarrassed that so many in my state and so many in my country are stupid enough and naive enough to vote for anybody in the Democrat party.

But like my wife always tells me, never underestimate the very stupid in large numbers.

And she is right.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Who should I blame?

The Republicans didn't do this, and they don't have the numbers to stop it.

The Democrat controlled Assembly passed all these bills.

The Democrat controlled Senate passed these bills.

The Democrat Governor signed these bills and made them state law.

I am embarrassed that so many in my state and so many in my country are stupid enough and naive enough to vote for anybody in the Democrat party.

But like my wife always tells me, never underestimate the very stupid in large numbers.

And she is right.

So what are you going to do about it?
Keep bitching and moaning and crying?
WAAAAHHH!!!!! Cry baby gonna cry?
Lulz.

 

[realbrown1]

So what are you going to do about it?
Keep bitching and moaning and crying?
WAAAAHHH!!!!! Cry baby gonna cry?
Lulz.

Are you OK?

They up your meds?