Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Rooflesstoofless]

Go to the Appendix. All the witnesses in the regional public hearings are named.

"A. Regional Hearing Witnesses Roster & Transcripts "

Ah, thanks. Their choice in who to include in groups does seem rather biased but Stand Your Ground is a bullshit law.

[PhaelixWW]

So back in August, a Ninth Ciruit judge in California ruled that the 10-day wait before picking up a firearm was unconstitutional, provided that the state could confirm that the purchaser already owned a firearm or had a CCW permit. As expected, the state AG filed an appeal, as well as a motion to extend the deadline for making the necessary changes and a motion to stay the ruling pending the appeal.

Yesterday, the judge denied both motions.

What I find amusing is the tone of the finding issued by the judge.

From the judge's denial:

The problem is that Defendant believes that other projects are deserving of greater priority. There is no description of what these critical projects are or when the deadlines might be, nor is there an explanation of why outside contractors can not be utilized for some of those projects, nor is there an explanation of why computer personnel from different departments or agencies cannot be utilized. A bench trial has concluded, and a law that is actively being enforced has been found to be unconstitutional. The Court does not know how Defendant or the BOF prioritizes projects, but dealing with an unconstitutional law should be towards the top of the list.

...

Because the waiting period laws violate their constitutional rights, the named Plaintiffs and all those who fit within the as-applied classes will suffer irreparable injury if a stay pending appeal is granted.

...

Given the on-going constitutional violations that are occurring to the likely thousands of Californians by operation of the 10-day waiting period laws, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of equities tips sharply in Defendant's favor. Combined with the public interest that weighs against granting an injunction, the Court does not find that issuing a stay is appropriate.

[Zoranon]

So back in August, a Ninth Ciruit judge in California ruled that the 10-day wait before picking up a firearm was unconstitutional, provided that the state could confirm that the purchaser already owned a firearm or had a CCW permit. As expected, the state AG filed an appeal, as well as a motion to extend the deadline for making the necessary changes and a motion to stay the ruling pending the appeal.

Yesterday, the judge denied both motions.

What I find amusing is the tone of the finding issued by the judge.

From the judge's denial:

It is really nice to see the lower courts finally catching up, two years ago such a decision would simply not happen.

[Ghostpanther]

So back in August, a Ninth Ciruit judge in California ruled that the 10-day wait before picking up a firearm was unconstitutional, provided that the state could confirm that the purchaser already owned a firearm or had a CCW permit. As expected, the state AG filed an appeal, as well as a motion to extend the deadline for making the necessary changes and a motion to stay the ruling pending the appeal.

Yesterday, the judge denied both motions.

What I find amusing is the tone of the finding issued by the judge.

From the judge's denial:

And rightfully so. A Constitutional right supersedes any state law. Even the federal government cannot make a law which violates the Constitution. Those who think the rights under the Constitution are rights which can easily with the stroke of a pin be done away with are delusional. It is very hard to change or amend the Constitution. And for good reasons. It can be done, but as of now there is simply not enough support with-in the nation to get enough states to approve a amendment to do away with the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

[TZucchini]

You don't understand the concept of a right at all.

I understands it perfectly fine. Did you notice how you couldn't answer the question I asked?

Who determines what are and what are not "rights"? If the answer is "people", then ultimately, it's the recognition of those "rights" that allow the government to grant them to the people. It's inescapable. It's why every single amendment in the Bill of Rights could be changed, altered, and eliminated, if so desired.

And in the context of all this discussion, the ability to own a firearm is dependent upon government granting you that ability. You can try to say it in a different way, but in the end, that's what it comes down to.

[lockedout]

Who determines what are and what are not "rights"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

- - - Updated - - -

And in the context of all this discussion, the ability to own a firearm is dependent upon government granting you that ability. You can try to say it in a different way, but in the end, that's what it comes down to.

Government is not granting anyone the ability. They are bound by the constitution which was created to keep the government in check. You seem to think it's the other way around which is bizarre.

[rhandric]

I understands it perfectly fine. Did you notice how you couldn't answer the question I asked?

Who determines what are and what are not "rights"? If the answer is "people", then ultimately, it's the recognition of those "rights" that allow the government to grant them to the people. It's inescapable. It's why every single amendment in the Bill of Rights could be changed, altered, and eliminated, if so desired.

And in the context of all this discussion, the ability to own a firearm is dependent upon government granting you that ability. You can try to say it in a different way, but in the end, that's what it comes down to.

Recognition and granting are completely different.

[Ghostpanther]

I understands it perfectly fine. Did you notice how you couldn't answer the question I asked?

Who determines what are and what are not "rights"? If the answer is "people", then ultimately, it's the recognition of those "rights" that allow the government to grant them to the people. It's inescapable. It's why every single amendment in the Bill of Rights could be changed, altered, and eliminated, if so desired.

And in the context of all this discussion, the ability to own a firearm is dependent upon government granting you that ability. You can try to say it in a different way, but in the end, that's what it comes down to.

It is not the government granting you that right so much as it is more we have a Constitutional right to have them. There is a difference. You could say each state grants a citizen the privilege to operate a car. That privilege can easily be taken away as there is nothing which says you have the right to be able to drive one. Not the case with a Constitutional right which applies to all lawful abiding citizens.

Not saying it is something which can never be changed within the Constitution, but the odds of it happening are extremely low because of how hard it is to change the US Constitution. It is not just a matter of congress passing a law which would end that right, because the Supreme Court would simply rule it unconstitutional as the Constitution stands now.

[TZucchini]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

You haven't answered the question. You've simply linked a wikipedia article which doesn't come close to addressing the issue. Try using your own words.

And firearm ownership is not a "natural right," by definition, since it can be altered, changed, or eliminated. Try again.

Government is not granting anyone the ability. They are bound by the constitution which was created to keep the government in check.

The Government CREATED the Constitution. That's the entire point. They determined what rights are, and what they're not. By doing so, they granted these rights to individuals.

[Mayhem]

You don't understand the concept of a right at all.

Rights are never "granted". If a benefit is granted, then it is, by definition, a privilege instead of a right. Why do you think the Bill of Rights says "No law shall abridge the right..." rather than saying "The government grants you the right..." It's because they acknowledged that the rights exist independent of the government.

Rights can't be granted. They can be acknowledged, guaranteed, and protected, or even denied, but not granted. It's the fundamental nature of a right.

yeah, that´s nice and everything but if not every human on earth has the same rights, then they are granted

and rights can be altered, or simply deleted (in a more modern world)

[lockedout]

You haven't answered the question. You've simply linked a wikipedia article which doesn't come close to addressing the issue. Try using your own words.

And firearm ownership is not a "natural right," by definition, since it can be altered, changed, or eliminated. Try again.



The Government CREATED the Constitution. That's the entire point. They determined what rights are, and what they're not. By doing so, they granted these rights to individuals.

You have a god given/natural right to defend yourself, the constitution says you can do so with a firearm.
The government didn't determine what rights are, they acknowledged the rights everyone has naturally and wrote them on paper.

[Mayhem]

You have a god given/natural right to defend yourself, the constitution says you can do so with a firearm.
The government didn't determine what rights are, they acknowledged the rights everyone has naturally and wrote them on paper.

right, everyone, unless you don´t meet the requirements, then you´re not part of everyone anymore and thus have no rights

funny how that works

[lockedout]

right, everyone, unless you don´t meet the requirements, then you´re not part of everyone anymore and thus have no rights

funny how that works

At what point does one have "no" rights?

[Mayhem]

At what point does one have "no" rights?

by the time the constitution was written a certain group of people had no rights... and a good while after that time they still had limited rights

at what point does one have "no" rights? when the government declares it

[TZucchini]

You have a god given/natural right to defend yourself

Ability /=/ right. Everyone posses the ability to defend themselves. A court of law determines whether or not the defense of self is justifiable. Law which were written by men.

"God" has no place in this discussion, and certainly no place in the discussion of firearm ownership. Unless the bible says something about firearms I'm unaware of.

the constitution says you can do so with a firearm.

No. The Constitution says some people can do it with a firearm, during very specific times, to be judged by men. Hence, the right is granted.

The government didn't determine what rights are, they acknowledged the rights everyone has naturally and wrote them on paper.

From what source did they acknowledge the rights? How did they determine which source was correct?

Either way, the decision was made by men/government, and the "rights" are thus granted.

[rhandric]

You haven't answered the question. You've simply linked a wikipedia article which doesn't come close to addressing the issue. Try using your own words.

And firearm ownership is not a "natural right," by definition, since it can be altered, changed, or eliminated. Try again.



The Government CREATED the Constitution. That's the entire point. They determined what rights are, and what they're not. By doing so, they granted these rights to individuals.

Actually, the Constitution created the government

[lockedout]

Actually, the Constitution created the government

This is his major problem he has it the exact opposite way which is why he thinks the way he does. Maybe one day he will figure it out.

[TZucchini]

Actually, the Constitution created the government

The Constitution is not a physical living entity. It didn't create anything. Men created the Constitution, which enumerates our "rights". Thus, they are granted by men.

This is his major problem he has it the exact opposite way which is why he thinks the way he does. Maybe one day he will figure it out.

It's funny how you keep responding to other people, rather than challenging my statements directly. Probably because everything I'm saying is true, and you simply have no rebuttal.

[Mayhem]

The Constitution is not a physical living entity. It didn't create anything. Men created the Constitution, which enumerates our "rights". Thus, they are granted by men.



It's funny how you keep responding to other people, rather than challenging my statements directly. Probably because everything I'm saying is true, and you simply have no rebuttal.

"uh, this one here shares my opinion, i´ll follow up with a one liner, that´ll do"

this isn´t really too hard to grasp, it´s either god given or men given rights, so if you don´t believe in god or think he´s at least a bit nuts you can only go with the men given part and well how they already trump god given rights, still your rights mean nothing if they can be revoked within seconds

[rhandric]

The Constitution is not a physical living entity. It didn't create anything. Men created the Constitution, which enumerates our "rights". Thus, they are granted by men.



It's funny how you keep responding to other people, rather than challenging my statements directly. Probably because everything I'm saying is true, and you simply have no rebuttal.

Yes, men created the Constitution, and as a result created the government. However, they did not grant rights. Again, look at the 9th, and to a lesser extent the 10th, Amendments. They didn't enumerate all of our rights, only the powers of the government. Some rights that certain parties who ratified the Constitution and Bill of Rights feared the government would try to restrict, based on history, were explicitly enumerated (including *gasp* the right to bear arms), but those rights are not being granted, but rather being prevented from being restricted by the government.

"uh, this one here shares my opinion, i´ll follow up with a one liner, that´ll do"

this isn´t really too hard to grasp, it´s either god given or men given rights, so if you don´t believe in god or think he´s at least a bit nuts you can only go with the men given part and well how they already trump god given rights, still your rights mean nothing if they can be revoked within seconds

Do you have a right to life? Did man grant you that? No, it's your right as a person. Was it granted by god? Fuck if I care, I'm an atheist, but I sure as hell know that it wasn't man granting me that right, and I'll fight to my dying breath to preserve it.