Birthday Gift Handgun

[Geezerbiker]

I can't say about other states but gifts of guns to immediate family members are excluded from the restrictions of personal sales.

From what I've seen the lack of support for this law (here in OR) has been so low, that it's almost like it doesn't exist. From what I recall, 3 county sheriffs refused to enforce it...

Tony

 

[dogtown tom]

Geezerbiker I can't say about other states but gifts of guns to immediate family members are excluded from the restrictions of personal sales.

No, they aren't.
Under federal law, there is no such family exemption.
If you want to gift, sell, trade, buy, barter or any any way transfer possession of a firearm to an immediate family member who is not a resident of your state you have to transfer via a licensed dealer. It's been that way since 1968.

 

[enrikses]

When it comes to birthday gifts, a handgun is a unique choice. It depends on the person and their interests. If they're into shooting sports or self-defense, it could be a thoughtful gift. However, safety should always be the top priority, so make sure they're trained and responsible. I believe gifts should reflect the recipient's interests and needs. For example, I once received a gift that seemed random at first – a cooking class voucher. But it ended up being one of the best gifts ever, as I discovered a new passion and skill that I continue to enjoy.
So, before choosing a gift like a handgun, consider the person's life experiences and preferences. It's all about creating memorable and meaningful experiences!

 

[georgehwbush]

"Article II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and you can only have up to this caliber, this size magazine, you can't buy or sell those that you can have, and they can only function the way we say. sure seem like infringements to me. but what do i know.

 

[The Verminator]

I live in Florida.
I wish to purchase a handgun and gift it to my daughter for her birthday.
We have enjoyed quite a few days at the range.
She is over 21 and qualifies to own a firearm.
Is this OK.

Thanks

Good grief!!!

Just give her the money as a gift and let her buy the gun.

Why make things complicated?

 

[dogtown tom]

georgehwbush "Article II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

and you can only have up to this caliber, this size magazine, you can't buy or sell those that you can have, and they can only function the way we say. sure seem like infringements to me. but what do i know.

The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. Until they do, our interpretation of "shall not be infringed" doesn't matter.

 

[georgehwbush]

dogtown_tom; in a way i guess maybe... but in usa we the people are supposed to be the highest authority in all matters government, not the court not the legeslature, not the executator... but; no body asked me anyway. so i'll shut up.

 

[JohnKSa]

...we the people are supposed to be the highest authority in all matters government, not the court not the legeslature, not the executator...

In the sense that we either elect the officials or elect the officials that appoint the people you mention, we are.

But make no mistake, what they say goes. Representation is not the same as dictatorship. The Supreme Court gets to say what is constitutional and what isn't. Attempting to argue a different interpretation of the constitution is pointless as anything other than voicing a personal opinion for the sake of sharing. It may be possible for the people to put a new Senate and President in office and perhaps get the Supreme Court changed and then perhaps get some new interpretations, but until that happens, we know what constitutional means by seeing what SCOTUS says it means.

Additionally, it's easy to see why it's not possible to let everyone interpret the constitution the way they want to and have that be legally binding. Just as it's not possible for everyone to have their own legally binding interpretation of any law. The whole legal system would be essentially meaningless if everyone got to interpret the law any way they wanted and the courts had to accept everyone's personal interpretations.

 

[georgehwbush]

JohnKSa; i think you have made my point very well; (it's easy to see why it's not possible to let everyone interpret the constitution the way they want to and have that be legally binding. Just as it's not possible for everyone to have their own legally binding interpretation of any law. The whole legal system would be essentially meaningless if everyone got to interpret the law any way they wanted and the courts had to accept everyone's personal interpretations)

"i don't care what the supreme court says, i'm going to forgive those student loans anyway" auto interpretation runs rampant on capital hill. as in many many LEA directors also. hell it happens by judges all over the place that are obviously in discord with what SCOTUS has already said. but it matters not. when you have a society that deals with language as if it has any meaning you dream up and then expect us to act according to some written law from over two centuries ago.... i said i would shut up, so i will. there is a forum rule about political statements too.

 

[JohnKSa]

...happens by judges all over the place...

'Tis true. I think one could argue that it's even worse when judges make up their own law...

 

[georgehwbush]

yup !

 

[dogtown tom]

georgehwbush ....but in usa we the people are supposed to be the highest authority in all matters government, not the court not the legeslature, not the executator...

I've never heard or read anything of the sort.
I would be interested in knowing were you heard that.

 

[s3779m]

I've never heard or read anything of the sort.
I would be interested in knowing were you heard that.

Right here.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

 

[The Verminator]

Right here.

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

All that means is that we get to vote...........

It doesn't mean we run the country.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

... but in usa we the people are supposed to be the highest authority in all matters government, not the court not the legeslature, not the executator...

Didn't you just contradict yourself?

JohnKSa; i think you have made my point very well; (it's easy to see why it's not possible to let everyone interpret the constitution the way they want to and have that be legally binding. Just as it's not possible for everyone to have their own legally binding interpretation of any law. The whole legal system would be essentially meaningless if everyone got to interpret the law any way they wanted and the courts had to accept everyone's personal interpretations)

In fact, the Constitution itself establishes that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the laws and the Constitution itself say and mean:

Article III

Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

 

[s3779m]

All that means is that we get to vote...........

It doesn't mean we run the country.

This does.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That principle is what this nation is founded upon. Government is to serve the people, not the other way around.

 

[The Verminator]

This does.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Yeah........institute new government..........

BY VOTING.

Anything else is insurrection and treason.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

This does.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -

-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

That principle is what this nation is founded upon. Government is to serve the people, not the other way around.

Those quotations are from the Declaration of Independence, not from the Constitution. They are a statement of the reasons for which the founders chose to rebel against English rule, but the Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight towards deciding what's legal and what's not legal.

 

[s3779m]

Those quotations are from the Declaration of Independence, not from the Constitution. They are a statement of the reasons for which the founders chose to rebel against English rule, but the Declaration of Independence carries no legal weight towards deciding what's legal and what's not legal.

The following article explains it far better than I ever could. What the founding fathers stated in the opening statements of the DOI were people's rights. We all know they acknowledged our rights come from God, which is why in the Constitution the bill of rights restricts government, it is not up to them to determine which are our rights. To put it another way, the DOI justified to the world why they were justified to dissolve their government. That mankind has that right. The list of grievances would have not justified the decision to dissolve the government had they not had that right. Without that right, the revolution would have been criminal to all others. The constitution is the blueprint for how the government will work, it does not take away the belief the founding fathers had that the people have the right to dissolve a government.

This grand idea eventually led to the Declaration of Independence, which asserted that it was the right of the people “to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” This founding principle basically said that the people themselves held the power to form a new government at any time and in any shape that met their needs. It was a radical concept used to justify radical action.

The power to “institute a new government” also conveys the power to “alter or to abolish it.” The 1787 replacement of the Articles of Confederation with our Constitution is a historical example of this concept. Since that date, we have not seen a need to abolish our government because we have been able to alter it continuously with amendments, laws, and political movements

https://constitutingamerica.org/90d...ctive-government-guest-essayist-james-d-best/

 

[dogtown tom]

s3779m
The following article explains it far better than I ever could.

Yet it doesn't. Your understanding of the Constitution is so flawed its comical.

Please provide evidence that "we the people are supposed to be the highest authority in all matters government" and can change a SCOTUS decision....get back to us.

If you bring up gold fringe on the flag or start in on a county sheriff being the law of the land I will not be surprised.