Social security gun ban is coming :(

Post Reply New Topic

Citations?


Not exactly. Federal law (Title 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(4) and (g)(4)) has, for 38 years, prohibited any individual who "has been adjudicated [by a court of law] as a mental defective or has been [involuntarily] committed to any mental institution" from purchasing, owning, possessing and using a firearm. Restriction of constitutional rights ought to be deliberately considered by such a court only.


I believe you probably meant "restoration" of rights which can only be accomplished by a federal court of law (not an "other body"). It is a long and arduous process to accomplish. If "[t]he NRA wants to restore gun rights immediately upon release" contrary to federal law, please cite your source(s).

I posted my source in the link.

My limit is mental illness of the kind that can effect judgement. Sorry if you disagree.

my mental illness doesn't affect my judgment. what really affects judgment is alcohol and pot and pain meds. if you want to take guns away, start there. also, prejudice affects judgment, and yours, sir, is severely affected.

Cathylynn leans anti gun so it's odd to see her fighting on our side. Just goes to show how prejudiced aspe is.

Which is why the federal government assigned consideration of the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 correctly to the courts where both mitigating and aggravating circumstances may be deliberated fairly and lawfully (and appealed if necessary) -- not some baseless agency regulation. That provision of the act, at least, has worked well for 38 years because it comports with the constitutional rights of Due Process and Equal Protection. The fact that the Obama administration now wants its own law apart from the existing one smacks of desperation. As I wrote initially in this topic, watch for the regulation to fail and the crocodile tears to flow from an administration which knew that its effort was little more than political theatre.

Everyone wants to be an exception to the rule.

What is this just with some Americans and their love for guns all anyway? The only people who I know that have and need guns are policemen.

Evidently, there is an epidemic of rabid skunks out there.

And, the only people who I know that need telephones, cellular phones, tablets and computers ("freedom of speech, or of the press") are legitimated news reporters who have had their criminal histories reviewed by the federal government and their intended use of the First Amendment approved in advance under law and regulation.

Sooo, if the constitutionally protected natural right to keep and bear arms is compromised, should we "spread the wealth around" and prohibit all the other freedoms ... like the right to purchase, own and use a cellular telephone?

You don't understand, it was compromised from the start. It was never absolute. There are many kinds of weapons you can't own, and many kinds of people who can't own any gun at all. There are many places where possessing a gun is illegal. The Supreme Court has set this precedent over and over, we can regulate gun ownership legally and constitutionally.

So just ban it completely then, no right is absolute by your accords. So get rid of the whole bill of rights, crown Obama our king for life and get over with it. We can all just be slaves to the rich and wealthy.

The U.S. Supreme Court made "all instruments that constitute bearable arms" lawful in the matter of Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016).


There are nine categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms under the Gun Control Act:
--Persons under indictment for, or convicted of, any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding on year;
--Fugitives from justice;
--Persons who are unlawful users of, or addicted to, any controlled substance;
--Persons who have been declared by a court as mental defectives or have been [involuntarily] committed to a mental institution;
--Illegal aliens, or aliens who were admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa;
--Persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces;
--Persons who have renounced their United States citizenship;
--Persons subject to certain types of restraining orders; and
--Persons who have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I wouldn't call nine categories "many."


The U.S. Supreme Court made it lawful to purchase, own possess and use a firearm for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home..." in the matter of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). The Court extended these rights to the states in the matter of McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).


Within the confines of these Court opinions.

Last edited by AspieUtah on 23 May 2016, 5:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Where, in the US, really? And people are seriously left to take care of an epidemic with rabies all on their own, privately?

Nothing you said contradicted what I said. Gun regulation is still legal.

So to you walking in the city knowing anyone at any minute might pull out a cellphone and send a text message is the same as that anyone at any minute might pull out a gun and shoot you?
What if in the constitution it had been decided: 'everyone has the natural right to keep a tiger' would you also buy one?