Obama to announce new executive orders on gun control

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2016, 08:40 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Owning a gun is a right, owning a car is not, big difference. You don't have to have a background check to or license to practice free speech or religion do you?

No rights are limitless. Plus there is the whole "well regulated" thing when it comes to the second as well.

[BmorePat87]

(01-02-2016, 08:40 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Owning a gun is a right, owning a car is not, big difference. You don't have to have a background check to or license to practice free speech or religion do you?

I need a permit to assemble at certain places despite it being in the 1st amendment 

[mallorian69]

(01-02-2016, 09:23 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No rights are limitless. Plus there is the whole "well regulated" thing when it comes to the second as well.

What does it say shall be well regulated? Oh that's right, the militia. It then goes on the say the rright of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

(01-02-2016, 09:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I need a permit to assemble at certain places despite it being in the 1st amendment 

Do you need a permit to assemble your friends at your house for a party? No you dont, so why do I need a permit to keep a gun at my house?

Furthermore in Murdock v Pennsylvania the SCOTUS says that the states can not take a right and make it a privilege by forcing a person to pay for a permit.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-02-2016, 10:11 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: What does it say shall be well regulated? Oh that's right, the militia. It then goes on the say the rright of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
Do you need a permit to assemble your friends at your house for a party? No you dont, so why do I need a permit to keep a gun at my house?

Furthermore in Murdock v Pennsylvania the SCOTUS says that the states can not take a right and make it a privilege by forcing a person to pay for a permit.

Hmm, wish they would issue free hunting and fishing licenses.

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2016, 10:11 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: What does it say shall be well regulated? Oh that's right, the militia. It then goes on the say the rright of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

The amendment states that the right to keep and bare arms shall not b infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary. Of course, this was in a time before we had a standing army and our founders saw the creation of such as a threat to our liberty. But, if we are to consider the armed citizenry a militia, as the amendment does appear to, then that means it can be regulated.

(01-02-2016, 10:11 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Do you need a permit to assemble your friends at your house for a party? No you dont, so why do I need a permit to keep a gun at my house?

Furthermore in Murdock v Pennsylvania the SCOTUS says that the states can not take a right and make it a privilege by forcing a person to pay for a permit.

Not making someone pay for a permit, but it does not say that they cannot require a permit to own one. Much like voter ID laws. Requiring an ID is fine, so long as it is one that can be acquired free of charge. And did I miss any one here saying there should be a required permit to own one?

[JustWinBaby]

(01-02-2016, 08:40 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Owning a gun is a right, owning a car is not, big difference. You don't have to have a background check to or license to practice free speech or religion do you?

I don't see how registering a second-hand sale of a firearm is infringing on a right in any way.  It's actually getting more into property law than civil liberties.  Certified dealers already have to register a sale, so your argument falls on precedent.

There's also nothing about the 2nd Amendment which says you have the right to own a firearm anonymously.

[Belsnickel]

(01-02-2016, 05:10 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I don't see how registering a second-hand sale of a firearm is infringing on a right in any way.  It's actually getting more into property law than civil liberties.  Certified dealers already have to register a sale, so your argument falls on precedent.

Actually, all dealers have to do is a keep a record of the sale in their own files. That's the BATF requirement. Beyond that it is up to the state. Here in Virginia, no sale is registered with the state. All they know is that the dealer requested a background check for you. Beyond that, they don't know if, what, or how many firearms you purchased from that dealer.

[fredtoast]

(01-02-2016, 10:11 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Do you need a permit to assemble your friends at your house for a party? No you dont, so why do I need a permit to keep a gun at my house?

So you have no problem with insane people and convicted killers owning guns?

[fredtoast]

(01-02-2016, 10:11 AM)mallorian69 Wrote: Furthermore in Murdock v Pennsylvania the SCOTUS says that the states can not take a right and make it a privilege by forcing a person to pay for a permit.

That vwas a very fact specific case and you left out the most important word.  The Court found that requiring a Jehovah's witness to pay for a permit was an UNREASONABLE infringement on his religious freedom.  It NEVER said that no right enumerated in the Constitution can ever be regulated.  Soliciting donations for a religious purpose can not be compared in any way with owninbg a deadly weapon.

There are many limitations on all rights granted in the Constitution.

[GMDino]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands

I read through it. I don't see a "ban" anywhere. Doesn't look like he authorized any entity to "comer fer yer gunz". In fact it didn't look like any "new" laws at all other than: "finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity."

I'm not sure what "some of the most dangerous weapons and other items" are but you expect some hyperbole in a speech like this I presume.

More money for enforcement of existing laws, an emphasis on mental health and streamlining the background checks, and looking in to ways to make guns safer.

So other than him being a Muslim/communist/socialist who hates america and wants to destroy it is there anything that upsets the more rabid defenders of the 2nd amendment?

[fredtoast]

(01-06-2016, 09:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands

I read through it.  I don't see a "ban" anywhere.  Doesn't look like he authorized any entity to "comer fer yer gunz".  In fact it didn't look like any "new" laws at all other than: "finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity."

I'm not sure what "some of the most dangerous weapons and other items" are but you expect some hyperbole in a speech like this I presume.

More money for enforcement of existing laws, an emphasis on mental health and streamlining the background checks, and looking in to ways to make guns safer.

So other than him being a Muslim/communist/socialist who hates america and wants to destroy it is there anything that upsets the more rabid defenders of the 2nd amendment?

The funniest thing I saw was Paul Ryan first saying that there was no "gun show loophole" but then losing his mind over Obama threatening to close the "gun show loophole".

[Aquapod770]

(01-06-2016, 01:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The funniest thing I saw was Paul Ryan first saying that there was no "gun show loophole" but then losing his mind over Obama threatening to close the "gun show loophole".

I though Obama blatantly lying about purchasing guns online was quite funny too  

[fredtoast]

(01-06-2016, 01:35 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: I though Obama blatantly lying about purchasing guns online was quite funny too  

link?

[Aquapod770]

(01-06-2016, 01:49 PM)fredtoast Wrote: link?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/obamas-claims-about-internet-gun-sales-are-completely-false/

Probably the best explanation I've found. 

No, Felons can not buy a gun online "no questions asked". They could use the internet as a tool to contact a private seller living in their own state, but those purchases are then made face to face. Oh and by the way, it's still illegal for a felon to buy a gun. 

[Rotobeast]

(01-06-2016, 09:01 AM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2016/01/04/live-updates-what-president-doing-keep-guns-out-wrong-hands

I read through it.  I don't see a "ban" anywhere.  Doesn't look like he authorized any entity to "comer fer yer gunz".  In fact it didn't look like any "new" laws at all other than: "finalizing a rule to require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust, corporation, or other legal entity."

I'm not sure what "some of the most dangerous weapons and other items" are but you expect some hyperbole in a speech like this I presume.

More money for enforcement of existing laws, an emphasis on mental health and streamlining the background checks, and looking in to ways to make guns safer.

So other than him being a Muslim/communist/socialist who hates america and wants to destroy it is there anything that upsets the more rabid defenders of the 2nd amendment?

I do have to give them credit for increasing the number of FFLs that are to be issued. 
It makes sense to expand that, if you want more people running checks.

[fredtoast]

(01-06-2016, 02:05 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote:  Oh and by the way, it's still illegal for a felon to buy a gun. 

Then it should be against the law to sell a gun to a felon.

Surely you agree with that, don't you?

[*bfine32*]

POTUS currently on CNN with Cooper in a "Guns Town Hall"

[*bfine32*]

(01-07-2016, 10:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: POTUS currently on CNN with Cooper in a "Guns Town Hall"

I don't know if anyone watched this, but I was impressed that POTUS took the time; even though he still could not resist the urge to be divisive.  

[StLucieBengal]

(01-08-2016, 06:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Throw up a source for this in the executive order thread. I'm curious.

Quote:This is merely the latest episode in which the president has shown support for Australia’s anti-gun measures. In a speech at a memorial service for victims of the attacks at the Washington Navy Yard on September 22, 2013, Obama lauded the United Kingdom’s and Australia’s success in banning firearms in the wake of high profile crimes. Yet by praising Australia’s restrictions, Obama has betrayed his asserted “support” for the Second Amendment and revealed just how radical his own gun control agenda really is.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/15/obama-again-touts-australian-gun-control-misleads-again-on-background-checks/#ixzz3wgoNjwhF

Basically anytime he talks up this stuff. He fuels the gun buys.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-06-2016, 02:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then it should be against the law to sell a gun to a felon.

Surely you agree with that, don't you?

Here in NC, it is a crime to sell a handgun to anyone that does not have a purchase permit issued by their County's Sherriff's Dept.  Only exception is if the purchaser has a CC permit that is current.