What's wrong is that we already do that! These crazies can't even get straight what's been done and what hasn't. What is truly wrong with this picture is that people support a political organization that doesn't even know (or more likely doesn't care as long as people give them money) what the law actually is.
Latest Brady Bunch Nonsense
- Thread starter FirstFreedom
- Start date
What's wrong is that we already do that! These crazies can't even get straight what's been done and what hasn't. What is truly wrong with this picture is that people support a political organization that doesn't even know (or more likely doesn't care as long as people give them money) what the law actually is.
JuanCarlos
New member
No, we really don't. For as long as private sales aren't covered, and especially for as long as people who don't even know each other can transfer a gun without a background check at a gun show, then you can hardly say that it's being applied "comprehensively."
To open yet another can o' worms... NO, we cannot agree with the Brady Bunch.
The mandate to require a background check before being able to acquire a firearm creates a prior restraint by the government on a right. The government can deny the exercise of a right through denial or delay, without due process. This is, prima facie unconstitutional.
Unlike voting, where you only show your ID to prove you are who you claim to be, the NICS check requires the government first approve you desire to exercise your right to own a firearm. This would be similar to the government requiring newspaper editors to submit their identity information along with tomorrow's editorial opinion to get a gov't okay to publish it.
To follow the right path we could still keep the same restrictions vis a vis felons, mental patients, illegal aliens, etc. and do the NICS check post-purchase. If disqualified, the NICS system sends a warrant to the local PD and mails a notice to the purchaser. Prosecution takes place if the person really is disqualified.
The mandate to require a background check before being able to acquire a firearm creates a prior restraint by the government on a right. The government can deny the exercise of a right through denial or delay, without due process. This is, prima facie unconstitutional.
Unlike voting, where you only show your ID to prove you are who you claim to be, the NICS check requires the government first approve you desire to exercise your right to own a firearm. This would be similar to the government requiring newspaper editors to submit their identity information along with tomorrow's editorial opinion to get a gov't okay to publish it.
To follow the right path we could still keep the same restrictions vis a vis felons, mental patients, illegal aliens, etc. and do the NICS check post-purchase. If disqualified, the NICS system sends a warrant to the local PD and mails a notice to the purchaser. Prosecution takes place if the person really is disqualified.
Wildalaska
Moderator
No its not Bill. You are wrong.
WildwanttobrieftheissueAlaska
How is he wrong? Does the language used (the people) in the second amendment mean something different than what "the people" means in the first? According to legal dictionaries from the time the bill of rights was written, the term "well-regulated militia" is a legal term with a known meaning. Any police force in the United States that carries firearms is a well-regulated militia. For that matter, so is a paintball team.
DonR101395
New member
I know your goal is to come in and stir a little then leave. For once could you give something solid, semi-solid, heck I'd take jello solid to back your statement up?
The Pilgrim
New member
I like how they say "we" in this sentence...is the Brady campaign to be the final arbiter of who is trusted with firearms?
JuanCarlos
New member
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess they meant "we" as in we as a nation...you know, anybody the government passes a law to prohibit from owning firearms. Could be wrong, though.
If you want to get pedantic, though, that last bit works. Nobody prohibited from buying a gun can "legally buy one," by definition. Even if they do so through a gun show, or private sale (outside a gun show), it's still illegal. Perhaps "can buy one through legitimate channels" would be more accurate.
The Pilgrim
New member
I know exactly what they mean, and I find it offensive that they think they speak for the country at large or for me as an individual.
JuanCarlos
New member
I'm gonna go out on another limb and guess that at some point an organization such as the NRA has used "we" in the same context. Or is that less offensive because you agree?
They just won't stop till they take the guns right out of the hands of every legal firearms owner in America. And the sad fact is the bad guys will still have them. 800 years ago, there was still killing, murder, crime. What makes them think that taking away guns will make any difference.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
No, BillCA is exactly right, of course.
Duckman44!
New member
Geez!!!
Know it alls!
wildbackupyourstatementswithfactsalaska
Know it alls!
wildbackupyourstatementswithfactsalaska
The Pilgrim
New member
I see yor point, but I don't think using the collective we would be wise. If the NRA says "we" they'd better mean their membership...which includes me. If I disagree, I leave.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
Today's Email:
Enjoy.
Enjoy.
Wildalaska
Moderator
As of yet, the 2nd isnt and individual right (yet).
When it is, the Courts will strictly scrutinize and find NICS check is minimally intrusive in terms of the harm to be prevented.
Wildneedcases(ihopenotimwaystretchedthin(ner))Alaska
DonR101395
New member
Have you heard of Parker v. District of Columbia (March 2007)?
ohioleadslinger
New member
Brady yada yada yada....That is exactly what my brain receives after my ear hears the word/name Brady.
The truth is folks that Brady Bunch if not having guns to go after, and rutabaga's were the "killer" of "32" a day, would have that in their cross hairs.
There is always gonna be someone that thinks all deaths, crime and wrongs can be legislated away, and they have no qualms about infringing on your or my rights to get what they want. Lies and half(baked) truths are part and parcel to their agenda. Just think about it. They believe that its OK to spin statistics to further their agenda and the "Greater Good". Demonize evil "military assault" guns. High capacity to them is more than one cartridge, and if you let them go it will be any more than none. Every handgun is a "Saturday night special." Every bullet is a "cop killer bullet" if it might penetrate a layer of glad wrap. If they had the go ahead to write up everything they thought they wanted and it was said what ever it is we will pass it in to law no questions asked. What do you think they would put foward? Everyone give em all up! Every thing that shoots a projectile, right down to a freakin pea shooter.
Sara Brady has made a career out of her husbands misfortune. I want to see her financial records. Yeah thats it "For The Greater Good" I want to see what she has made since joining and being the mouth piece for HCI ...strike that The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Gee doesn't that roll off the tongue more eloquently? Doesn't that sounds like someone cares about us?
The Brady Center to Prevent Rutabaga Violence....almost poetic isn't it?
Godbless.....all
and god forgive Sara... she know not what she does!
The truth is folks that Brady Bunch if not having guns to go after, and rutabaga's were the "killer" of "32" a day, would have that in their cross hairs.
There is always gonna be someone that thinks all deaths, crime and wrongs can be legislated away, and they have no qualms about infringing on your or my rights to get what they want. Lies and half(baked) truths are part and parcel to their agenda. Just think about it. They believe that its OK to spin statistics to further their agenda and the "Greater Good". Demonize evil "military assault" guns. High capacity to them is more than one cartridge, and if you let them go it will be any more than none. Every handgun is a "Saturday night special." Every bullet is a "cop killer bullet" if it might penetrate a layer of glad wrap. If they had the go ahead to write up everything they thought they wanted and it was said what ever it is we will pass it in to law no questions asked. What do you think they would put foward? Everyone give em all up! Every thing that shoots a projectile, right down to a freakin pea shooter.
Sara Brady has made a career out of her husbands misfortune. I want to see her financial records. Yeah thats it "For The Greater Good" I want to see what she has made since joining and being the mouth piece for HCI ...strike that The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Gee doesn't that roll off the tongue more eloquently? Doesn't that sounds like someone cares about us?
The Brady Center to Prevent Rutabaga Violence....almost poetic isn't it?
Godbless.....all
and god forgive Sara... she know not what she does!
Special computerized checks - NICS, CA-DROS, etc. - might be minimally intrusive and restrictive, however I think the law would have to be changed;
- No charge to the gun buyer
- Checks are instant (within 5-10 minutes) or waived.
- Ambiguity in ID at NICS does not result in delay or denial
- Follow-up denial in event of ambigious ID results in notice to buyer & local PD.
- Denials are specific, citing jursidiction and date of conviction.
Since no tax, fee or license may be required to exercise a right, the government must pay the tab. Checks must take no longer than the sale of the item and filling out the requisite forms to prevent delaying the right. Denials must identify the specific reason for the denial with a method for resolving mis-identification of the buyer.
Hardly. Mrs. Brady knows exactly what she is doing. Jim Brady has a job-related disability for which I am sure he is getting government care and I have no doubt that this includes psychological treatment due to the nature of his injuries. I'm sure that Sarah has access to more-than-adequate psychological treatment if she so desires. She has "transferred" her anger and frustration at her family's misfortune to an inanimate object (firearms) as the root cause of this misfortune. Had Reagan's would-be assassin thrown knives or claw-hammers in his attempt and injured Mr. Brady, Sarah would no doubt have pushed legislation to severely control knives or hammers.
ohioleadslinger
New member
By that I meant that she is in favor of doing away with the Second Amendment.
If you are willing to do that then you are willing do away with all of them. You can pick and choose your rights based on political whim or public opinion, both sway like a tree in the wind. It's an amendment to the Constitution! Not the soup de jour!
Godbless.....