Prior to Heller, which held that the 2A did guarantee an individual right to possess firearms, SCOTUS had never definitively ruled on the issue one way or the other . . .
Last edited:
"Red Flag Law" Could Take Guns From Those Deemed Dangerous in North Carolina
- Thread starter Watchdog
- Start date
- Status
Prior to Heller, which held that the 2A did guarantee an individual right to possess firearms, SCOTUS had never definitively ruled on the issue one way or the other . . .
CCHGN
Member
Hmmm why would you automatically think the statement wasn't "proof read"? So much so that you'd post it? IF you read the whole thing, I said the "90's". You know, when the Clintons ruled the roost. True story. Look it up. I know 'cause I lived it...lol
Last edited by a moderator:
cybermgk
US Veteran
Um, except for that pesky AWB of 1994.
I apologize. Rereading your comment to mean D.C v. Heller was still in the future your paragraph makes more sense. However, I believe Muss Muggins' was correct in the comment he made after quoting the same phrase of yours.
There was no significant SCOTUS 2A case in the 90's. Which case are you referring to . . .
CCHGN
Member
Yes, but not a TOTAL ban on guns ( what the poster was inferring) and "THE 1st LADY of the OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE USA" ( wow, how PC this place is) Who's name I won't mention, because I think she is a vile creature and a criminal, kept insisting that the 2A was for Militias ONLY..
CCHGN
Member
No other right kills people.
CCHGN
Member
EXACTLY. I'm talking about that case that never happened, that SCOTUS refused to listen to any case that had to do with the 2A, nor affirm that the 2A was an individual right, when the WH was saying it wasn't and sitting back and allowing the AWB to fly, because the Liberal majority agreed with it all.
That's not what you originally stated here. You wrote this:
Pretty adamant statement above, which is completely at odds with "SCOTUS refused to listen to any 2A case." SCOTUS didn't hear a case, pro or anti 2A, that would have addressed the issue you claim they made a definitive statement regarding. Totally not the same thing . . .
I could make a pretty good argument about the right to vote, and one almost as good about every tenet of the First . . .
Last edited:
Well, that's not true of all states, and some times it depends on the crime. In Missouri, for example, the right to vote can generally be regained after release from supervision, but if the crime was a suffrage crime, the loss of the right is permanent (I know a fella' you could call). I would support something similar for gun rights . . .
Last edited:
OP
Watchdog
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2013
- Messages
- 12,510
- Reaction score
- 32,351
That's the law. That's as it should be. Hopefully, it will always stay that way.
Dude, read for content. My comment was about voting rights. Federal law supersedes state law with regard to firearms possession for convicted felons. You can't pick up a firearm in any state in the nation when you're a convicted felon, but you can vote in most . . .
Last edited:
cybermgk
US Veteran
Neither does the 2nd. Possession of firearms do not kill people. None of my many guns have ever killed a person. People kill people.
But, I can easily make a case that 1st amendment exercise has killed a whole bunch of people. Let's put aside, for the moment, speech that fomented actual wars that led to people's deaths. Bullying speech among a whole lot of other has directly led to people committing suicide. That is just ONE direct example of speech directly causing death. Many others.
And Religions have directly motivated more people to kill others, than any other force, known to man, except maybe greed.
Last edited:
cybermgk
US Veteran
You have obviously, never been on the receiving end, or known anyone that has, of an ex parte, temporary restraining order. They generally, in practice require a very low level of proof (often not even a preponderance of evidence level). These do go through a judge, yes. But, they bypass due-process for the accused, yet can STILL mean removal from a domicile, arrest for violating (when not even knowing it exists), and in some states impact your 2nd amendment rights. And, all it takes is a made-up story by the person requesting for that temporary order. It is one of THE most abused mechanisms in our court systems, and yes, very misandrist in it's application.
Most of these lethal order of protection bills are written as badly, with the same loose language, low burden of proofs, almost complete lack of due process for ex parte/emergency requests, with little repercussions for false allegations or abuse.
In many cases, they are clear attempts at bypassing the 2nd amendment to disarm people.
He was catching up on COPS and Court TV, and made a mistake. Cut him some slack.
AFA the OP, sounds like a great bill to put a wife beater's
panties in a wad.
Walkingwolf
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2017
- Messages
- 1,624
- Reaction score
- 1,655
That's not true in North Carolina, once a felon they lose their firearm rights. A felon can still own a gun as long as it is a antique firearm or replica. Actually there is a good number of states where convicted felons can own antique firearms.
ETA I am also pretty sure a convicted felon can own a nail "gun" in most states also. It is important to remember that the context of words are usually important when interpreting laws.
Last edited:
There is something going in NC, for felons & firearm possession.
I knew a guy who did time in his younger days, for shooting and killing a man. He got over his wild youth and ended up living a pretty sedate life in NC, but ended up shooting another
guy (who was stabbing a gal on his front lawn--rough neighborhood) many years later. He said "the DA said it was a good shoot, and I get to keep my gun."
I asked him about that, and he said since it was a "war trophy"
(Tokarev he brought back from Vietnam), he was allowed to possess it, even as a felon.
That's true nationwide. No matter what the states say, federal law trumps firearms ownership. Muzzle loaders are all good. Modern black powder rifles, which can be converted to centerfire rifles, are not allowed . . .
You mean like an air powered tool that hammers nails into shingles and 2x4's when the tool is in surface contact . . . ? Totally unrelated. Pretty sure they can buy and own glue guns as well . . .
- Status
Similar threads
