I didn't oversimplify or not read or forget anything you wrote.
No matter what provisions or how difficult you make it to implement.. It is still a law about restricting access to guns! Which you believe is unconstitutional.

Making it harder then it is today? Or easier or writing it different will not change the fact that you are restricting access to a U.S citizen in good standing of the law! Which by your definition is unconstitutional.

I should leave that one be.. I might write something, I'll regret later.

Ummm.. Wrong coast. That would be over here. Where we still have a few trees worth hugging.

Ummmm... OK?

If you are convicted of a felony. You lose your right to vote. Your right to have weapons, your right to freedom for a time.. right to live in some cases... unable to qualify for certain license and bonding.. In some States it is grounds for an uncontested divorce.... The only way around these things are expungement or pardon.
So.. in essense you are less then a citizen. The Bill of Rights does not apply to them because of their conviction.

What you are saying in regards to the mentally ill.. is you support treating them as less then a citizen.... Even though you seem to promote the notion that all gun laws are unconstitutional.

In todays world... With the current standing that gun laws in some cases are necessary but need to be subjected to a higher standard then other laws... Restricting access to firearms by someone who is substantially mentally ill is a reasonable gun law. As is forbiding them on planes or in court rooms.

If all of a sudden the Supreme Court made gun laws of any sort unconstitutional... Then all gun laws would be repealed. Including those restricting access by the mentally ill.

The law is under United States code title 18 part 1 crimes. Chapter 44 - firearms. Or '18 U.S.C. 922'
(B) a statement that the transferee -
(i) is not under indictment for, and has not been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, and has not been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence;
(ii) is not a fugitive from justice;
(iii) is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act);
(iv) has not been adjudicated as a mental defective or been committed to a mental institution;
(v) is not an alien who -
(I) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(II) subject to subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));
(vi) has not been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; and
(vii) is not a person who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced such citizenship;

That all goes away.. along with every other provision in that section. Which includes the Brady bill.

****** Also.. notice that the section also includes the Federal limits to felons as well.. So that might be held in question too.*******

Apparently.. You want to keep the provision regarding the mentally ill, yet lose much of the rest of that section regarding fire arms control.

Is that better?
Are there any other components you want to keep?

Aluminum foil will hamper the transmission but not completely shield it.
I suggest a Mylar anti-static bag or sleeve. Or approved anti-RFID shield.

Sure! Why not... But what he expects and what he gets can be two different things.


As for the question of his sexual orientation... That probably has something to do with the thread titled.. 'I am suck a nice guy' he opened.
I'm doubting he will live that down anytime soon.

Thank you for clarifying.. I was worried there for a second.

How close is required for a 'true' relationship?

When convicted of a felony in this country..you become less then a citizen. While not removing any human rights.. you lose a great deal of civil rights as a collateral consequence of being a convict. So yes.. I repeat... It is not so much a gun law as it is a law regarding convicted criminals.

The last time I checked? Mental illness is not a crime, it is a condition. The laws regarding possessing guns and disability are gun laws.

So.. if you get your wish and gun laws are deemed unconstitutional... You also will make it unconstitutional to control access for the disabled.

Dang.. I knew I should have checked into that Freudian Treatment facility!

Sure..It is better! There is no doubt it is better to have some areas regulated. Just as it is a wise idea to have weapons illegal on airplanes and in courtrooms... Or someone who has a standing protective order not having access to firearms... Or weapons training before ownership...
But..The entire point is, if we deem all gun control unconstitutional, those laws will be unconstitutional. What I want, or what lilith wants..or your perception of those things..which neither of us has actually revealed is entirely beside the point.

Uh-huh...

and Freud also said 'America is a mistake, a giant mistake.' and 'America is the most grandiose experiment the world has seen, but, I am afraid, it is not going to be a success.'

I can't wait for those inevitable emails I'll see.. because someone sees my picture in conjunction to a post like this..and thinks it is me writing it.

Each jurisdiction has its own criteria...
Many of which adhere to the standard that you cannot use mental defect as a defense unless you can prove to the Court that you are unable to participate in your own defense. Or..that at the time of the crime you were unable to distinguish right from wrong and not able to control your own behavior, to successfully achieve a verdict of 'Not guilty by reason of insanity'. Temporary insanity is not a defense... Although it has been used as a mitigating factor during sentencing (I may be off on a few of these points.... and I am sure lilith will correct me if I am.)
Given that a crime was committed? That makes sense.

As I understand it.. It takes a considerable amount of resources and time to convince a court of this.

What you are talking about is reducing someones rights on the chance they will commit a crime.

Then comparing it to someone that has either committed a crime or is suspect of committing a crime and standing trial.

So... in this effort? In order to qualify for owning a weapon? Should we all be tested for mental defect? Or just those who have been previously diagnosed cannot own weapons? How are we going to monitor this? Since the gun laws regarding licensure are illegal? Since, according to those that think gun laws are unconstitutional.. That the Government has no right to maintain records of who owns a gun and who does not.

Not to mention... I've heard you and others maintain that you support mandatory gun training... to own a weapon, and training in public schools... Which would be gun laws.

Those laws would be unconstitutional too.

What gives you the right to say who can and cannot own a gun if gun laws are unconstitutional?

It certainly sounds like some of you want your cake and eat it too.

That somehow.. By self proclamation.. You deserve the right to keep and carry in the literal expression of the term... Yet others do not. You support laws that back that end.. Any law that stands in your way? Hell no.

There is also:

http://www.fancast.com/

http://www.hulu.com/

http://www.veoh.com/

For News
http://liveleak.com/

Soon to be:

http://www.peekvid.com/

http://next.tv/

Well.. I'm sure it is a comfortable place to see it that way.. But it is a violation of someones civil rights to make a law about a segment of the population..that has not committed an offense, which gives them fewer rights then you have.

It is a law which forbids a group from a right that you hold dear. The right to keep and bear arms.

So.. What I'm hearing is:
You think that only non felons who are of sound mind and body should be able to carry. So....Who determines what 'of sound mind and body' is? You? Me? Our Government?
Do we include those that are under educated too? Those with Attention Deficit Disorder? Dyslexia? Alcoholism, Drug addiction? Anything that falls under the definition of 'mental disorder, disability or handicap'?

Or only those ones that have statistically demonstrated a propensity to do harm to themselves or others? Just to eliminate the possibility that they could commit a crime involving a gun. Heck.. By that logic.... We should just throw them in jail now.. To eliminate any potential for them committing a crime in general. If we are going to remove one right that you believe is inalienable.. Then why not remove them all?

No matter how you slice it.. It is a gun law, and your hypocrisy is showing.

OK.. So mentally ill are not law abiding citizens?

A convicted felon loses many of their civil rights.. as a collateral consequence of conviction. I doubt that is considered a gun law by anyone's standard.

However.. Forbidding someone diagnosed with a mental disorder is a gun law... Just like the laws forbidding someone from purchasing or keeping weapons, who is under a protective order.

Again.. Some of us here have suggested that all laws regarding firearms are unconstitutional.. Which would include those laws that serve the public well.

To have a stance of 'Gun laws are unconstitutional', means that if they are? we lose all the laws regarding firearms and weapons in general.

It would be illegal to require licensure... Which would rule out my having to carry any papers certifying I have survived a background check of any sort. I would be able to buy and sell weapons without any scrutiny by anyone... Until such time I brought attention to myself by using one..criminally. I would be able to import weapons and ammunition by my discretion alone. Traffick in those weapons across State lines at will... No matter if the weapon is a purely offensive one or something to be considered of defensive use. I will be able to have an arsenal of my choice at my disposal. Rather then a rifle on my gun rack in my pick-up.. I could have an RPG or other anti-armor weapon. No place could legally forbid me to carry a weapon, concealed or otherwise. I could get on a plane, walk into a courthouse, business or school with an AK47 and a few 100 round clips. All the while.. I could be either drunk, loaded or just plain nuts...

You could place a protective order against me.. and I could break that order of protection while armed to the teeth...So long as I don't actually use the weapon.. All I could be cited for is criminal trespass and contempt of court. You could try to say I was acting in a terroristic way.. but will probably have a hard time proving it, since I did not actually break a law by walking into your place of business or neighborhood displaying a weapon. So..in six months to a year.. I will be out of jail and messing with you again.

The next generation of firearm technology will be available to me as soon as it is available to the military. So.. weapons such as what is being developed here: http://www.metalstorm.com/ and the computerized ammunition it will fire could be added to my arsenal. Giving me the ability to knock holes in reinforced concrete bunkers at a rate of fire exceeding hundreds of thousands of rounds per minute.


To believe that gun control is unconstitutional, means that you can't endorse any laws regarding guns. Not just the ones that you do not approve of.

Again.. Thank-you lordling... For the reference to

David Yassky amicus curiae, US v. Emerson
http://www.potowmack.org/yass.html

The paper I originally found, does not serve the pro-gun argument well at all.

You probably would have been better off citing the 5th District Court of Appeals decisions on the case.

"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated
collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We
hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals,
including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in
active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their
own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as
personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type
excluded by Miller."

"Although, as we have held, the Second Amendment does
protect individual rights, that does not mean that those rights may
never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailored specific
exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and
not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually
keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this
country."

This standard, at a minimum, requires that any law that
seeks to regulate the right to keep and bear arms must be
subjected to heightened scrutiny.

In other words.. It says that his rights may have been violated. While also saying that while it is a right... That the Government has a right to limit within reason. Using Miller v. US as a precedent.

Also noted

'The ruling in question is United States v. Emerson, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Emerson endorsed what the court called the "individual rights model" of the Second Amendment.

The Emerson case originally arose from state court divorce proceedings. In 1998, Dr. Timothy Emerson was ordered by a Texas judge not to threaten or harm his daughter or his estranged wife. (Emerson's ex-wife had testified that he had previously threatened to kill a friend of hers.)

A federal statute makes it a crime for a person under such an order to possess a firearm, provided that the firearm affects or has moved in interstate commerce. Shortly after the order was issued, Emerson was indicted by a federal grand jury for possessing a firearm in violation of the statute.

Emerson challenged his indictment on a number of grounds, including the Second Amendment. The federal district court dismissed the indictment. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed, upholding the indictment, because it found that the government had advanced a compelling reason for overriding Emerson's Second Amendment rights.

The court's result meant that it did not really have to reach the question of whether Emerson had Second Amendment rights in the first place. After all, even assuming he did, the court had found the government's interest overrode them. Nonetheless, a majority of the three-judge panel devoted the bulk of its opinion to interpreting the Second Amendment.

Because the majority did not have to reach the Second Amendment question, its analysis technically constitutes what lawyers call dicta — that is, reasoning unnecessary to the disposition of a case. Nevertheless, the majority's opinion could have a substantial impact on the future of gun control in the United States because other courts may follow its reasoning.'*

*http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20011031.html

Even if the case 'Heller v District of Colombia' is decided favorably to Heller.. It will not make all gun laws unconstitutional.


What some of you are saying is... to suggest that all gun laws are unconstitutional. I see no legal precedent that backs that claim.

If that were true and proven then it would be possible to carry side srms and hand grenades on domestic flights. Have a Howitzer mounted on your roof, a tank in your garage and any other weapon you could dream up...

Something tells me that neither the framers of the Bill of Rights or our current population and Government would be served well by that stance.

I have no doubt of any of this. Not in the least.
However... The ones that discussed the topic at hand? To say they were entirely for 'the people'. I don't think that is likely.
We like to believe this country is for the people.. and often reference our forefathers to make that point. Why not? That is what was taught in schools I attended.
However... Now.. I believe that this country was always about business and the elite. Same as any other..Just a bit different. The people were tools as they still are in many ways.
Given that? Why would the elite arm us without governorship? It serves no purpose to them....
As a Union... We were in charge of ourselves... in respect to the Colonies. Each were self governing. That was a fact of life in that time. Even after the Constitution was signed and delivered... Two of the Colonies would not ratify for quite some time. In other words.. The Union was a group of little Republics in many ways. Each was heard by the elite of those Republics.
I doubt that they intended to arm all of their constituency without regulation.
Given the fact that it was impossible to do it.
The only ones who could afford to be armed with modern weapons were the elite... When weapons became available to the poor and working class? They started gun control.

The proponents of keeping and bearing arms continue to argue the Constitution.. as it is written. Thinking our forefathers had our best interests in mind. Saying that gun control is unconstitutional

In my opinion? We would be better off refuting the Constitution.. As it is written.

If you want the right to bear arms of any sort, anywhere? Then you should be fighting to amend the 2nd amendment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I got to go work in the mountains now. Help a friend pull a piece of equipment off of a logging site. Hopefully I will be back late tonight.

The only suger I was apparently wanting... got over it.



You would think.. But now that it is back on my profile.. I'm sure I'm gonna get crap about it again.




Figures the Boy Wonder would show up again while I was here.