Looks like Trump IS really bad for the gun business. - Page 3 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Firearms General Discussion Rifles, pistols, shotguns, scopes, grips and everything in between.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-15-2019, 05:57 AM
zumhug's Avatar
zumhug zumhug is offline
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 2,545
Thanks: 6,386
Thanked 4,466 Times in 1,636 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
So you accuse Trump of not doing what YOU want? Your slogan is "support 2A" but this reciprocity act is an INFRINGEMENT on state rights. Anything that has a NATIONAL in it is bad, because then someone else would change the laws much easier than one can do now.
I see Trump's policies as "steady as she goes". Every day more and more people become new gun owners, with gun laws become more relaxied in many states. More places to shoot for these new people helps to make the ownership more meaningful.
It's not an accusation. It's a fact.

"Shall not be infringed" is not something the government grants me.

By your dialogue with Israel Putnam I can see you don't understand much of that.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to zumhug For This Useful Post:
Old 06-16-2019, 01:30 PM
ROCK6's Avatar
ROCK6 ROCK6 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Georgia/Virginia
Posts: 5,715
Thanks: 6,511
Thanked 12,925 Times in 4,207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
Of course it is: if anyone is serious about people rights he would want to abolish federal gun laws, not introduce the new ones.
I'm not a legal scholar by any means, but any Federal laws supporting the Constitution are typically enacted because some states have violated those rights for the citizens in those states. I still like the state autonomy, but when some of the more fascist states infringe on Constitutional (or God-given) rights, and the courts don't uphold the Constitution, the Federal government has a role to play to ensure those states don't infringe.

The Constitution just affirms the limitations on the federal government, but it doesn't absolve them from protecting those rights from state governments as well if the courts won't step in or make ideological stance not in accordance with the Constitution.

ROCK6
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ROCK6 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 12:59 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,124
Thanks: 1,043
Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,899 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ROCK6 View Post
I'm not a legal scholar by any means, but any Federal laws supporting the Constitution are typically enacted because some states have violated those rights for the citizens in those states. I still like the state autonomy, but when some of the more fascist states infringe on Constitutional (or God-given) rights, and the courts don't uphold the Constitution, the Federal government has a role to play to ensure those states don't infringe.

The Constitution just affirms the limitations on the federal government, but it doesn't absolve them from protecting those rights from state governments as well if the courts won't step in or make ideological stance not in accordance with the Constitution.

ROCK6
In order for a law to have any meaning it must be enforced, so the courts cannot be taken out of the equation. And, right now (and forever) courts routinely disregard the law. I have first hand knowledge of people arrested, guns confiscated even though the people obeyed the law. Conversely, people violated the law and not prosecuted. And the judges in question did not opposed the law, but simply disregarded it. In some cases the judges were correct (the law is unreasonable), but the total disregard of such is troubling.
But wait, there is more: the courts are not the worst problem, even. Unelected bureaucrats are worse, and they actually control the landscape.
Here is one of thousands of examples. Some years ago the fed gov adopted the law about traveling with guns nationwide. But New Jersey State police declared they don't care and arrest anyone going thru. Nothing happened to them.
And there is more still: there are MANY ways to prosecute someone ACTUALLY using guns for self defense, whether locals or out-of-staters. I don't want to give "Them" any additional ideas (they have too many already) but would be a piece of cake to circumvent any law they don't like.
And on and on.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2019, 04:13 PM
Israel Putnam's Avatar
Israel Putnam Israel Putnam is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: W. Central PA
Posts: 7,704
Thanks: 4,342
Thanked 12,186 Times in 4,918 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GG42 View Post
In order for a law to have any meaning it must be enforced, so the courts cannot be taken out of the equation. And, right now (and forever) courts routinely disregard the law. I have first hand knowledge of people arrested, guns confiscated even though the people obeyed the law. Conversely, people violated the law and not prosecuted. And the judges in question did not opposed the law, but simply disregarded it. In some cases the judges were correct (the law is unreasonable), but the total disregard of such is troubling.
But wait, there is more: the courts are not the worst problem, even. Unelected bureaucrats are worse, and they actually control the landscape.
Here is one of thousands of examples. Some years ago the fed gov adopted the law about traveling with guns nationwide. But New Jersey State police declared they don't care and arrest anyone going thru. Nothing happened to them.
And there is more still: there are MANY ways to prosecute someone ACTUALLY using guns for self defense, whether locals or out-of-staters. I don't want to give "Them" any additional ideas (they have too many already) but would be a piece of cake to circumvent any law they don't like.
And on and on.
What do you care?
According to you New Jersey has that right so why even waste bandwidth bringing it up?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Israel Putnam For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 04:49 PM
fx77 fx77 is offline
Hunter
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NYState
Posts: 1,318
Thanks: 1,318
Thanked 1,215 Times in 574 Posts
Default

Do not count on SCOTUS unless Ginsberg is replaced by a real conservative strict constructionist..U cannot count on Roberts
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to fx77 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 07:08 PM
Israel Putnam's Avatar
Israel Putnam Israel Putnam is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: W. Central PA
Posts: 7,704
Thanks: 4,342
Thanked 12,186 Times in 4,918 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fx77 View Post
Do not count on SCOTUS unless Ginsberg is replaced by a real conservative strict constructionist..U cannot count on Roberts
I wouldn't count on SCOTUS for anything.
Just today they kicked another baker/religious exemption case back down to the lower court instead of making another ruling based on their previous ruling in a similar case and spanking the lower court for violating the rights of the bakers.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Israel Putnam For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 07:35 PM
GG42 GG42 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 5,124
Thanks: 1,043
Thanked 3,153 Times in 1,899 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Israel Putnam View Post
What do you care?
According to you New Jersey has that right so why even waste bandwidth bringing it up?
Because when someone advocate a law he should consider such things as:
1. Is the law going to accomplish its stated purpose?
2. Is it the best way to accomplish such purpose?
3. Is the law going to make things worse?

And on and on.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2019, 10:19 PM
sarco2000's Avatar
sarco2000 sarco2000 is offline
If I had a voice I'd sing
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Beyond the Grid, in Montana
Age: 53
Posts: 7,134
Thanks: 14,569
Thanked 22,511 Times in 5,593 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Israel Putnam View Post
I wouldn't count on SCOTUS for anything.
Just today they kicked another baker/religious exemption case back down to the lower court instead of making another ruling based on their previous ruling in a similar case and spanking the lower court for violating the rights of the bakers.
Did the attorneys provide a worthwhile argument for their case? Was the case legally similar to the previous case?

I don't have ultimate faith in the court either, but they can only based their decisions on the information given to them, and the law is a very complicated thing. They can't just say, "Well this case is sorta like that other case, so we'll hear it and make the same ruling."

.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net