- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Supremes destroy Massachusetts gun law
Posted on 10/6/22 at 9:58 am
Posted on 10/6/22 at 9:58 am
quote:
"The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,'" Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority at the time. "We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."
Then why are non-violent felons denied this right yet are afforded every other constitutional right? Did Clarence Thomas just open the door to gun ownership for the non-violent felon?
WND article
This post was edited on 10/6/22 at 10:00 am
12
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:04 am to Timeoday
quote:
The report explained among the state requirements was the purchase of a license in order to possess a pistol.
What's next? Needing a valid ID to cast a ballot? Gotdamned racist misogyny white supremacists.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:04 am to Timeoday
quote:I find it interesting that a special criminal status will allow a person to rejoin society after serving their time in jail but not restore all of their constitutional rights to them. What other rights can we arbitrarily remove from felons?
Then why are non-violent felons denied this right yet are afforded every other constitutional right? Did Clarence Thomas just open the door to gun ownership for the non-violent felon?
If felons are too dangerous to be able to exercise their constitutional rights within society, perhaps the sentencing is not correct, and they should not be allowed back into society.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:07 am to FooManChoo
quote:
felons are too dangerous to be able to exercise their constitutional rights within society, perhaps the sentencing is not correct, and they should not be allowed back into society.
Make a voluntary surrendering of 2A to qualify for parole. Other than that I agree, if you’ve done your time then clearly you should be treated as full citizen.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:09 am to Timeoday
quote:
Did Clarence Thomas just open the door to gun ownership for the non-violent felon?
Hopefully so
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:11 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Make a voluntary surrendering of 2A to qualify for parole. Other than that I agree, if you’ve done your time then clearly you should be treated as full citizen.
I was trying to formulate a workable solution - but your's make it redundant -
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:17 am to FooManChoo
Good question.
I think all rights should be limited to felons.
I think all rights should be limited to felons.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:28 am to Timeoday
We should be able to carry everywhere with the exception being inside commercial airlines.
However, we should be able to carry up to the gate.
Also, any place that says you can't carry should have a secure locker that you can lock your firearm in and only you have the key to get it out.
Leaving guns in cars outside these places is just an easy score for crooks.
However, we should be able to carry up to the gate.
Also, any place that says you can't carry should have a secure locker that you can lock your firearm in and only you have the key to get it out.
Leaving guns in cars outside these places is just an easy score for crooks.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:33 am to Timeoday
We really need a proper list of all the ways the lefties have and will attempt to attack 2A. And of course the board lefties will say everything they push is "constitutional" but keep trying to chip away at an actual Constitutional right. A lefties mind is just baffling.
BTW - heard on Becks show that as of last week gun dealers are no required to send the information of the people that were rejected to the FBI. This is just a step towards getting info on gun buyers that are approved too.
BTW - heard on Becks show that as of last week gun dealers are no required to send the information of the people that were rejected to the FBI. This is just a step towards getting info on gun buyers that are approved too.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:34 am to Timeoday
The sentencing aspect is one I go on a mini rant about. Yes, once out of jail they should be restored ALL rights, voting, firearms, everything.
The thing is, to go with firearm ownership and the right thereof, we need to have freedom to own everything. Fully auto and suppressors without government interface.
So the question after that is implemented is how to we ensure only citizens are allowed this freedom and how do we incorporate equal measures to also ensure only citizens are voting?
The thing is, to go with firearm ownership and the right thereof, we need to have freedom to own everything. Fully auto and suppressors without government interface.
So the question after that is implemented is how to we ensure only citizens are allowed this freedom and how do we incorporate equal measures to also ensure only citizens are voting?
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:51 am to Timeoday
I think his focus was on the Massachusetts law requiring a "special need" to exercise a right.
Like having to provide a special reason to need free speech and having to wait for permission to exercise that right.
I think it puts gun permits on notice.
Like having to provide a special reason to need free speech and having to wait for permission to exercise that right.
I think it puts gun permits on notice.
quote:
"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."
Posted on 10/6/22 at 10:55 am to Junky
quote:
The thing is, to go with firearm ownership and the right thereof, we need to have freedom to own everything. Fully auto and suppressors without government interface.
It may very well lead to no permits required for firearms, unfortunately our domestic enemies of the Constitution will say that suppressors are not firearms.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 11:13 am to LSUbest
I have not ever purchased a permit for a gun. Knowing permits can be expensive, was the motive for such permits financial or anti-2a by the governing body?
Posted on 10/6/22 at 11:16 am to Timeoday
There is a Louisiana statute where a misdemeanor will ban you from gun ownership and rights
Posted on 10/6/22 at 11:28 am to Errerrerrwere
quote:
There is a Louisiana statute where a misdemeanor will ban you from gun ownership and rights
Sounds un-Constitutional. Now would be a good time for someone to challenge that statute.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 11:45 am to GhostOfFreedom
quote:
Also, any place that says you can't carry should have a secure locker that you can lock your firearm in and only you have the key to get it out.
I've advocated this for years.
Like ADA requires everyone to have handicap toilets, A2A should require the only few places you should not be able to carry to offer secure lockers with citizen-held keys.
That said, we should be able to conceal carry literally anywhere we go.
ANYWHERE.
This post was edited on 10/6/22 at 11:46 am
Posted on 10/6/22 at 11:50 am to Timeoday
quote:
was the motive for such permits financial or anti-2a by the governing body?
Yes.
I could have agreed to one OR the other in past times, but they have verbalized and demonstrated both motives recently.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 1:27 pm to Timeoday
quote:
We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need
This should be clear precedent for that stupid law New York keeps alighted altering and repassing every time it is struck down.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 1:30 pm to Timeoday
quote:
open the door to gun ownership for the non-violent felon?
He should. Right to vote as well.
Posted on 10/6/22 at 1:39 pm to LSUbest
quote:
our domestic enemies of the Constitution will say that suppressors are not firearms.
The constitution doesn't specify "firearms", just "arms". Which does raise a stickier question when it comes to things like anthrax or ricin gas. I don't want those things to be legal but they are undeniably arms.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News