Posted on 03/01/2018 4:17:36 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
I worked for a firearms dealer, and Federal law said that I was allowed to refuse a sale for ANY reason.
That was over 20 years ago though, and I don’t recall if that same language applied to the sale of ammo.
“It will have to be litigated to find out if any or all of LesbianThespian’s list are infringements.”
Which should impel discussion on our part of the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that we will be prepared to argue our case in the event of such litigation.
Do you know how to do a web search? The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
Do you know how to do a web search? The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
An example is that current law says you must be at least 21 to buy a handgun or handgun ammunition, but you can own a handgun if you are under 21
So if you can’t legally buy one, but someone buys one for you and gives it to you, isn’t that essentially a ‘straw purchase’?
Otherwise how can you OWN one without buying it?
Point 1 will probably not happen, so we don't need to waste too much time arguing whether or not it is an infringement.
Point 2. Handguns purchases have been prohibited by those under 21 since the Gun Control Act of 1968, and has never been successfully challenged in court. Given that, I wouldn't hold out much hope that the court would feel that adding all firearms to the under 21 prohibition would be an infringement under the Second Amendment.
Point 3 is current law for handguns. Given point 2 above, point 3 would be a reasonable extension of current law, and most likely will not be found to be an infringement by the current court. The prohibition is in the purchase, not the possession. Having parental supervision on ownership of all firearms and firearm ammunition would probably sit just fine with the current court.
Points 4 and 5 are already covered under current law and more or less affirmed as constitutional under Heller.
Point 6. Given the highlighted passage in Heller that I posted above, I doubt that universal background checks will be deemed an infringement by the current court, either.
Point 7 removes a current law that has been in effect, and affirmed by the Supreme Court numerous times, since 1934. I would add short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles to the list for removal from the NFA. The original intent of putting SBRs and SBSs on the NFA was that the original NFA was going to ban all handguns, thus they also wanted to ban concealable long guns as well. The handgun portion never happened, but the long gun portion remained. However, for our discussion, since these items are on the NFA and been found not to infringe, removing them from the NFA certainly will not be an infringement of the Second Amendment.
Point 8 is sort of covered already under point 3, so I don't see that with much chance of being enacted.
A point 9 (not mine, mind you, but one proposed by others) would be another 'Assault Weapons' ban. Well, the Supreme Court failed to take up the challenge of Maryland's "assault weapons" ban, so we can start there. The current Supreme Court feels that banning AR style rifles is constitutional. (I do not, but then I also do not sit on the bench.) Heller also said that it was an infringement to ban the most common type of weapon in use for self protection (a handgun in heller's case.) So I would argue that in and of itself, semi-auto firearms are legal, and are protected under the Second Amendment, regardless of what accessories (flash hiders, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc.) may be put upon them.
A point 9A would be a prohibition of magazines above X capacity. I would argue that X is an arbitrary number, and could be 15 today, 10 tomorrow, 7 the day after, and 1 next week. Setting any limit on magazine capacity is a slippery slope towards an outright infringement of the Second Amendment.
A lot will depend on the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. A couple of more conservative justices, and we could have the reversal of state (or any future federal) assault rifle bans. We might see Constitutional Carry as a nationwide ruling. There is a California lawsuit challenging 'may issue' which may also provide for a nationwide shall issue ruling.
But it all depends on what the Courts think, not what you or I think, is an infringement of the Second Amendment.
Rebuttal?
“Rebuttal?”
I’ll be back. Real life calls.
Otherwise how can you OWN one without buying it?
A stated exception to the straw purchase (which isn't even a law, go look it up. The actual offense is lying on the 4473) is a bona fide gift. As long as the recipient is between 18 and 21, the gift is legal, and the recipient can possess the firearm. If the recipient is under 18, he or she cannot legally possess a handgun except under the direct supervision of an adult parent or guardian.
Persons between 18 and 21 also cannot purchase handgun ammunition, so mom or dad has to buy the ammo as well.
Persons between 18 and 21 also cannot purchase handgun ammunition, so mom or dad has to buy the ammo as well.
How does that work for ammos like .22, used in both?
When purchasing .22LR ammunition, talk to the clerk about how much you enjoy shooting your Ruger 10/22.
Which permits a future progressive government to assign the term "NUTBAG" to your file and disarm you. If you should not be armed, you should not be running around loose.
My copy of the Constitution does not remove the rights recognized under the second amendment from freed felons. See above. And how many domestic violence convictions are based on outright lies or massive exaggerations? See above.
Out of curiosity, were you required to STATE the reason?
A couple points:
1. The Supreme Court has not taken up (and may never take up) this issue, but I don’t know how a prohibition on handgun purchases under age 21 could pass intermediate or strict scrutiny under Heller, or be consistent with the discussion of the definition of “militia.”
2. Has the NFA been affirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court since 1934? I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court only ruled on the constitutionality of the NFA once, in Miller in 1939. I think a court honestly applying Heller (and, frankly, Miller itself) would have to question the constitutionality of many of the NFA’s prohibitions.
3. I don’t think you can necessarily infer that the “current Supreme Court feels that banning AR style rifles is constitutional” simply because it denied cert in the Maryland case. The Supreme Court declines to her numerous cases, and it does not mean the Supreme Court believes that the Courts of Appeals got it right in all of those cases. All you can infer is that less than four justices wanted to hear the case for whatever reason. It may be that they just want to see the issue worked over in more circuit cases before taking it on themselves. Or it may be that they just want to keep kicking the can down the road.
2. United States v. Miller, Haynes v. United States, United States v. Freed, and District of Columbia v. Heller were at least four times the court had an opportunity to address the NFA and failed to find it unconstitutional. There may be others, but I'm not a lawyer and my Googlefoo attention span is short. Not surprising, as the legislature back then knew they couldn't outright ban machine guns, silencers, short barreled shotguns/rifles, or destructive devices, the NFA was crafted as a tax scheme not a ban. An interesting attack on the NFA might be equating it to a poll tax, but I don't know how far that would take you.
3. Unless and until the Supreme Court grants cert on a challenge to an 'assault weapon' or 'high capacity' ban law, they are tacitly giving their approval, or at least are not outraged enough over the practice to grant cert.
I think I should have been more specific—the Supreme Court has only addressed the constitutionality of the NFA under the Second Amendment once, in Miller.
There was no Second Amendment challenge in Haynes or Freed. In Haynes, the Supreme Court held only that a registration requirement then in place in the NFA violated the 5th Amendment prohibition against self-incrimination. In Freed, the Supreme Court held that a subsequent change to the NFA cured the 5th Amendment violation found in Haynes. The Second Amendment was not mentioned in either case.
Heller did not involve the NFA at all. It was only mentioned in Heller’s discussion of the holding in Miller, where the Heller court narrowly read Miller to hold “only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.”
The Supreme Court did not have an opportunity to address the NFA’s constitutionality under the Second Amendment in Haynes, Freed, or Heller because no Second Amendment challenge to the NFA was asserted in any of those cases. The Supreme Court, like any court, can only address issues that are placed before it by the litigants, other than issues of its own jurisdiction.
Makes you wonder why Haynes and Freed didn’t attack the NFA on Second Amendment grounds.
Makes you wonder why Haynes and Freed didn’t attack the NFA on Second Amendment grounds.
OMGosh what a great point! Which just happens to go on every day and NO ONE SAYS A WORD.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.