Replies

I'm glad they do not give just anyone the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.

Quite frankly, with America under a domestic assault, when we are being overrun with illegal immigrants, when there are undoubtedly Muslim extremists moving in through our open borders, when we know there are Muslim extremist cells here already, --
-- It's unbelievable that the reaction is to restrict the ability to sell firearms at the retail level.
We need more armed citizens, not less.

Totally agree. When citizens are armed, crime goes down.

Mind-bending comment, - seeing that you admit both above and below that you are "-- glad they do not give just anyone the ability to sell firearms at the retail level --"

I just see removing the loophole amateur FFLs as a way to (help, perhaps only a little) ensure only law abiding citizens have easy access to weapons through the retail purchasing distribution.
I accept the need for FFLs, because I don't some psychotic on leave from the local Home for the Bewildered buying a .50 Barret, and having to fill out the yellow form at my local FFL-licensed dealer helps prevent that even if just a little, because the dealer isn't going to put his license and business on the line for one sale to a weirdo.

The 2d Amendment does not say you have to buy it from a FFL. You can buy it from your next door neighbor.

Not in California, according to their 'laws'.
-- Is it true that you support the idea States can make laws to that effect? --- Could you agree with this comment:

'--- Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --'

Not in California, according to their 'laws'.
-- Is it true that you support the idea States can make laws to that effect? --- Could you agree with this comment:

'--- Ready for the big one? California can ban all guns if they so chose. There's nothing in the state constitution (one of six states, I believe) about the right to keep and bear arms. --'

When I sat down to write this reply, I did not believe CA or any other state could ban all firearms as a matter of law, (I would argue Federal Constitutional preemption and protection, but on reflection, DC has effectively done so!!!

(I try to ignore anything to do with the People's Republic of California whenever possible. To me, they are an demonic island about 3 miles off the DPRK.)

I'm going to do some law research work tonight to see if I can find the Reporter citation where challenges to the DC action have failed. NYC requires the 'registration" of all firearms, but I want to see how (the idiots) ban all firearms. My law degree is VERY rusty (smart enough to never practice) and I believe there were no outright bans when I sat for the Bar, but since it now effectively so, I want to see the Courts holdings on this.... and I bet I am going to disagree vehemently with their ruling.

As a matter of course, I generally dislike the courts saying I cannot do something, unless my doing so would DIRECTLY affect the RIGHTS of others.