| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16156
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | Another classic LongBeachPretzel! |
Thanks for your contribution
| ringfinger wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | If you don't mind me asking, how familiar are you with case law regarding Interstate Commerce? |
I’m not that familiar with it.
Just spitballing here |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | Yeah, I'm trying to understand how you can say that it's "linked to health, safety, or some other legitimate interest" and when I ask you what the health and safety reasons are, your response is: "it's irrelevant to a Commerce Clause analysis." |
It is not the function of the courts to second guess legislatures. Unless the Commerce Clause or some other constitutional provision is involved, the courts will not ponder how many firearms manufacturers can dance on the head of a pin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16156
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aeneas Hunter wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | Yeah, I'm trying to understand how you can say that it's "linked to health, safety, or some other legitimate interest" and when I ask you what the health and safety reasons are, your response is: "it's irrelevant to a Commerce Clause analysis." |
It is not the function of the courts to second guess legislatures. Unless the Commerce Clause or some other constitutional provision is involved, the courts will not ponder how many firearms manufacturers can dance on the head of a pin. |
So on the one hand, you're saying there must be a link to "health, safety, or some other legitimate interest" but yet, on the other hand, you're also saying that the courts will not even figure into their analysis if whether those reasons are legitimate or not?
Let's get back to that Tennessee wine Supreme Court case. Here's the opinion:
| Quote: | | "Because Tennessee's two-year residency requirement for retail license applicants blatantly favors the state's residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, it is unconstitutional," wrote Justice Alito. |
In this opinion, Justice Alito said there's "little relationship to public health and safety"
Yet, you're saying:
"it's irrelevant to a Commerce Clause analysis."
"It is not the function of the courts to second guess legislatures." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Another classic LongBeachPretzel! |
Thanks for your contribution
| ringfinger wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | If you don't mind me asking, how familiar are you with case law regarding Interstate Commerce? |
I’m not that familiar with it.
Just spitballing here |
|
Cmon man. You’re just legal larping.
All this started because a few people said maybe NV ought to only sell firearms to NV residents.
AH has demonstrated something like that wouldn’t be reasonably improbable.
Let’s move on, there’s no judge here to issue a legal ruling in play court. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 16156
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Another classic LongBeachPretzel! |
Thanks for your contribution
| ringfinger wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | If you don't mind me asking, how familiar are you with case law regarding Interstate Commerce? |
I’m not that familiar with it.
Just spitballing here |
|
Cmon man. You’re just legal larping.
All this started because a few people said maybe NV ought to only sell firearms to NV residents.
AH has demonstrated something like that wouldn’t be reasonably improbable.
Let’s move on, there’s no judge here to issue a legal ruling in play court. |
Ok, I'll stop here then because "spitballer" ringfinger has given me a cease and desist order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: |
So on the one hand, you're saying there must be a link to "health, safety, or some other legitimate interest" but yet, on the other hand, you're also saying that the courts will not even figure into their analysis if whether those reasons are legitimate or not?
Let's get back to that Tennessee wine Supreme Court case. Here's the opinion:
| Quote: | | "Because Tennessee's two-year residency requirement for retail license applicants blatantly favors the state's residents and has little relationship to public health and safety, it is unconstitutional," wrote Justice Alito. |
In this opinion, Justice Alito said there's "little relationship to public health and safety"
Yet, you're saying:
"it's irrelevant to a Commerce Clause analysis."
"It is not the function of the courts to second guess legislatures." |
That is because the Tennessee law implicated the Commerce Clause. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| LongBeachPoly wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | ringfinger wrote: | | Another classic LongBeachPretzel! |
Thanks for your contribution
| ringfinger wrote: | | LongBeachPoly wrote: | | If you don't mind me asking, how familiar are you with case law regarding Interstate Commerce? |
I’m not that familiar with it.
Just spitballing here |
|
Cmon man. You’re just legal larping.
All this started because a few people said maybe NV ought to only sell firearms to NV residents.
AH has demonstrated something like that wouldn’t be reasonably improbable.
Let’s move on, there’s no judge here to issue a legal ruling in play court. |
Ok, I'll stop here then because "spitballer" ringfinger has given me a cease and desist order. |
Hahaha. I’m just saying deciding whether it can actually happen would require a legal ruling which we aren’t going to get.
On a related but separate note, I did read somewhere that gun violence in CA tends to rise after a gun show in NV. I don’t remember reading that the same is true in NV though. If true, that’s interesting to me. Why is that do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67705
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | IMO AK47, AR15 and like should not be sold to the public. Those are weapons of war. Where is the need for the public to own a gun meant for war? |
a real AK47 and AR15 are very different firearms....apples and oranges. Also, legitimate AK47's are not for sale to the general public. A purchaser must have a Federal Firearms License and even then he or she can only purchase ones manufactured before 1986. The supply is extremely limited and extremely expensive as in $25K expensive. One's that are sold in gun shops today are semi-automatic knockoffs that are similar to a deer rifle. |
All well and good. I just don't see the need for ownership of those type weapons. Also they can be altered. A bump stock can dramatically increase their rate of fire. Bump stocks are illegal but that won't take them out of play.
With all the damage being done with those type weapons my position asks what's the need for them in the hands of the public? I'm all for gun ownership but IMO some guns should be illegal.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ringfinger
Retired Number
Joined: 08 Oct 2013
Posts: 29418
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | IMO AK47, AR15 and like should not be sold to the public. Those are weapons of war. Where is the need for the public to own a gun meant for war? |
a real AK47 and AR15 are very different firearms....apples and oranges. Also, legitimate AK47's are not for sale to the general public. A purchaser must have a Federal Firearms License and even then he or she can only purchase ones manufactured before 1986. The supply is extremely limited and extremely expensive as in $25K expensive. One's that are sold in gun shops today are semi-automatic knockoffs that are similar to a deer rifle. |
All well and good. I just don't see the need for ownership of those type weapons. Also they can be altered. A bump stock can dramatically increase their rate of fire. Bump stocks are illegal but that won't take them out of play.
With all the damage being done with those type weapons my position asks what's the need for them in the hands of the public? I'm all for gun ownership but IMO some guns should be illegal. |
When you say “those types of guns”, what do you mean, exactly?
Anything that is physically capable of being altered? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67705
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ringfinger wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | IMO AK47, AR15 and like should not be sold to the public. Those are weapons of war. Where is the need for the public to own a gun meant for war? |
a real AK47 and AR15 are very different firearms....apples and oranges. Also, legitimate AK47's are not for sale to the general public. A purchaser must have a Federal Firearms License and even then he or she can only purchase ones manufactured before 1986. The supply is extremely limited and extremely expensive as in $25K expensive. One's that are sold in gun shops today are semi-automatic knockoffs that are similar to a deer rifle. |
All well and good. I just don't see the need for ownership of those type weapons. Also they can be altered. A bump stock can dramatically increase their rate of fire. Bump stocks are illegal but that won't take them out of play.
With all the damage being done with those type weapons my position asks what's the need for them in the hands of the public? I'm all for gun ownership but IMO some guns should be illegal. |
When you say “those types of guns”, what do you mean, exactly?
Anything that is physically capable of being altered? |
Weapons of war meant for mass killing, weapons of war. AK's were designed for war. I don't see a reason for them in the public arena.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kikanga
Retired Number
Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29335
Location: La La Land
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know you weren't asking me Ring.
But I think restricting the public's access to guns with a magazine size larger than X could be a decent start. X could be 10 or 12. I don't know gun magazine sizes very well.
Also increasing the cost of bullets. Of course don't charge gun ranges extra for bullets. But if someone wants to take home bullets, it should be expensive enough that people won't want to fire a bullet unless they absolutely have to.
Accommodating hunters is another can of worms. But I think it's worth discussing and trying to find a compromise. I'm not happy with the current situation. Too many gun suicides, too many accidental shootings, not to mention terrorist acts.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better” |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jodeke wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | IMO AK47, AR15 and like should not be sold to the public. Those are weapons of war. Where is the need for the public to own a gun meant for war? |
a real AK47 and AR15 are very different firearms....apples and oranges. Also, legitimate AK47's are not for sale to the general public. A purchaser must have a Federal Firearms License and even then he or she can only purchase ones manufactured before 1986. The supply is extremely limited and extremely expensive as in $25K expensive. One's that are sold in gun shops today are semi-automatic knockoffs that are similar to a deer rifle. |
All well and good. I just don't see the need for ownership of those type weapons. Also they can be altered. A bump stock can dramatically increase their rate of fire. Bump stocks are illegal but that won't take them out of play.
With all the damage being done with those type weapons my position asks what's the need for them in the hands of the public? I'm all for gun ownership but IMO some guns should be illegal. |
I guess it is how we view the firearm. I view the AR-15's and other similar weapons the same way I do kit cars.....they may have the appearance of an Italian sports car, but under the hood they are running on a General Motors 6 Cylinder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jodeke
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67705
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| adkindo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | jodeke wrote: | | IMO AK47, AR15 and like should not be sold to the public. Those are weapons of war. Where is the need for the public to own a gun meant for war? |
a real AK47 and AR15 are very different firearms....apples and oranges. Also, legitimate AK47's are not for sale to the general public. A purchaser must have a Federal Firearms License and even then he or she can only purchase ones manufactured before 1986. The supply is extremely limited and extremely expensive as in $25K expensive. One's that are sold in gun shops today are semi-automatic knockoffs that are similar to a deer rifle. |
All well and good. I just don't see the need for ownership of those type weapons. Also they can be altered. A bump stock can dramatically increase their rate of fire. Bump stocks are illegal but that won't take them out of play.
With all the damage being done with those type weapons my position asks what's the need for them in the hands of the public? I'm all for gun ownership but IMO some guns should be illegal. |
I guess it is how we view the firearm. I view the AR-15's and other similar weapons the same way I do kit cars.....they may have the appearance of an Italian sports car, but under the hood they are running on a General Motors 6 Cylinder. |
In the eyes of the beholder.
I view AR-15's and weapons of that ilk as weapons of war. I don't see them necessary for public/private ownership.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The AR15 only differs from the M-16 assault rifle in that it doesn’t have full auto. But any person who has carried an m-16 (or later versions of the 5.56 mm assault rifles) professionally, as I have, will tell you that it is extremely rare and mostly useless to use full auto. Their primary use is in semi auto mode in combat. And the civilian model has all of the deadly velocity and impact and maneuverability that makes the military version a man killer. The danger is in the velocity and damage of the round, the capacity of the mag, and the ease of transitioning between targets rapidly. None of that is missing in the civilian weapon. I could empty a thirty round clip on semi auto with two rounds in each target before switching to another at a rate of about 1 target per second or two with 75% hit rate or better. That means I could kill 12-15 people in roughly thirty seconds before reloading. And I mean kill because 5.56 hits in the torso are fatal as a rule.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90306
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a reason the military doesn’t carry deer rifles. They are slow and ineffective in combat situations. With a stock ar-15 I can easily take triple the targets as I can with a standard hunting rifle. And my kill rate will be double or better. I can take nearly as many targets with a pistol (at reasonably close range), but again, the kill rate will be drastically lower. An assault rifle, in civilian or military models, is a high volume killing machine
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13823
Location: Boulder ;)
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2019 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is like this mass shooting happened too long ago to even talk about anymore
Gilroy and El-Paso need added to Trump's resume.. not just El-Paso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
