Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Austin_Bill, Apr 28, 2020.

  1. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 1,000+ Posts

    The Texas House voted today for a Constitutional Carry bill, where if you can legally own a firearm, you can carry it for self-protection. This is a great win for gun rights, and now the bill moves onto the Senate for consideration. Halfway there!

    Texas House Passes Constitutional Carry | GOA Texas
    • Like Like x 4
  2. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    @Duck Dodgers

    I've never owned a gun so I'm not up on the law. I do support the 2nd Amendment wholeheartedly as meaning you can own a gun without being in a militia.

    But is there a federal law besides the 2nd Amendment in place today that would require some sort of background check and license or is any and all regulation "... reserved to the states..."
    • Like Like x 1
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  3. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 1,000+ Posts

    Lots of Federal laws on guns.

    To buy a firearm from a dealer (a gun dealer has a FFL - Federal Firearms License), you fill out a form 4473, which has questions related to criminal background, if you've been involuntary committed to a nuthouse, tossed out of the military (like Slow Joe's son was for being a drug fiend), or a drug addict (also like Hunter and his crack pipe).

    Then, the dealer does what is called a NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System) that verifies that the buyer has no issues that would prevent them from buying a firearm.

    No license on a Federal level to own a firearm, and the Federal government does not grant carry license - those are at a state level. The Texas License To Carry (LTC) allows you to carry in about 35-38 other states or so.
  4. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    Cool. I was just wondering about the minefield of a state passing a law that would supplant existing Federal law, meaning the state's legislation would be unconstitutional or arguably so.
  5. Duck Dodgers

    Duck Dodgers 1,000+ Posts

    There are no Federal laws on the carry of firearms in non-Federal locations. It is against their law to carry on Federal property, even in the parking lot of a post office. You see, having that sign posted magically keeps bad dudes away - you should try that at home to keep crooks at bay.

    So states are free to pass whatever carry laws they like.

    Now there is a split in the Appeals Courts as to if there is a Constitutional right to carry a firearm. The 9th says there isn't, while the DC one, and whatever one covers Illinois says there is, to the point that those courts mandated that DC and Ill create a Shall-Issue handgun permit system.

    You'd think this would be something that the Supreme Court would want to take up, but so far quiet as a church mouse about it. You know Roberts in pissing himself in fear that it'll be accepted by the Court, and he'll once again have to twist himself into a pretzel and be the subject of ridicule, so as follow the DC Ruling Classes wishes
  6. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    The background check asks you more questions that will self incriminate you when you lie than actually prevent you from getting the gun. Of course, criminals and crazy people would never lie.
  7. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    Funny how the "believe science" crowd will never objectively review the data that shows gun control laws have been abject failures. A scientific review of the Brady Act showed no reduction in overall homicide or suicide rates. Why are we here 27 years after the Brady Act was implement still talking about background checks? Why are Gun Control advocates never forced to explain why all of their other regulations have failed so spectacularly?
    • Like Like x 1
  8. bystander

    bystander 5,000+ Posts

    In Indianapolis Shooting, a Red Flag That Never Flew

    "The case of Brandon Hole appeared, at first, to be exactly the kind of situation these laws were designed to address. Indeed, last March, when Hole’s mother raised alarms about his mental state, the police seized a shotgun from his home. It was never returned.

    But a year later, the police say, Hole, 19, shot and killed eight people at a FedEx facility before killing himself, using rifles he had legally purchased not long after that incident in March 2020.

    While many details are still unclear, Hole’s case is a sobering example of how even states with widely supported safeguards can fail to prevent dangerous people from obtaining firearms. The laws, experts say, are often used only as short-term solutions. In the days after the shooting, local officials have struggled to explain how a man who was deemed by law enforcement as too unstable to possess a weapon could go on to legally buy one months later.

    “Any law is only as good as the people that are enforcing it,” said Brad Banks, a former prosecutor in Marion County, which includes Indianapolis, who is now in private practice. “Does it make sense we took away the gun because he’s too dangerous to have one, but we didn’t take the step to prevent him from going out and buying one the next day?

    Red flag laws are in place in more than a dozen states, including Florida and New York. Their conditions vary widely; in California, for example, family members can directly petition to have firearms temporarily seized from their loved ones. But in Indiana, only law enforcement can initiate that process in court."

    • Agree Agree x 2
  9. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    Interesting how I got something else out of the article.
    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  10. iatrogenic

    iatrogenic 2,500+ Posts

    That the government is run by low IQ folks?
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. EDT

    EDT 1,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 2
  12. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    Well, yeah. @bystander pointed out the portions that feed into the "don't try gun laws because they don't work," whereas I was more drawn to the idea that existing gun laws aren't enforced properly, or in the case of Hole, probably needed to be more harsh.

    This is what the NYT does. It finds just enough "both sidesisms" to make sure that people keep reading and getting outraged.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. theiioftx

    theiioftx Sponsor Deputy

    • Winner Winner x 4
  14. EDT

    EDT 1,000+ Posts

    • Funny Funny x 3
  15. UTChE96

    UTChE96 2,500+ Posts

    If a law cannot be enforced properly then is it not fair to say that the law doesn't work? For a law to properly function, it must be effective and enforceable. Red flag laws appear to be very problematic in terms of enforcement.
    Last edited: May 1, 2021

Share This Page