Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
Chaz, the gun could have been bought out of state.
When you call it a straw purchase, you make the seller guilty as well, and so far, the feds have not made that claim.
How about we just wait for all the details of the gun history?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
That would be illegal, too.
As much as I'd like to go home with some of the guns I see at Cabela's in Marysville ( WA ), all I can do with my California ID is look.
Plenty of laws, already on the books, had they been enforced, should have stopped this before it even started.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
Yes, illegal, but not a straw sale.
Cabela's in Marysville ( WA ) would not be a private purchase.
Farook got the guns. Where in the process could the law have been enforced?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
It's being reported he got guns from his former roommate. In California. Nothing legal about that.
To legally buy any gun from anyone, you have to do it in the state where you reside. That's already Federal law.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
Illigal, but not a straw purchase.
Generally, one can purchase out of state, as long as you are satisfying the laws of both states.
No doubt Farook had some illegalities, but how would you enforce the law in this situation?
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
So that would be the exact opposite of "legally purchased", which is what Philo posted.
Show me the path to legalization any of these guns could have possibly taken to get into Farook's possession.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
I already said there were probably some illegalities.
Still, not a straw sale.
Do you know what a straw sale is?
The guns were legally purchased by the last legal owner.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 3, 2015 - 10:24am PT
|
If you don't like my re-post then complain to the author of it not about me.
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 3, 2015 - 08:29am PT
Dear America: Here's Your Gun Solution
2 hours ago | Updated 1 hour ago
Sara Benincasa Comedian; author of "DC Trip" (Adaptive Books)
I posted the byline in the post. learn to read.
And for my "friends" I'll post what ever and when ever I want.
Get over it.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"Do you know what a straw sale is?"
Yup.
Someone who either can't pass a background check ( impossible for a California resident ) or who doesn't want their identity known to the government ( "No doubt Farook had some illegalities, but how would you enforce the law in this situation?" ) uses a third party to up-arm.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
No, a straw purchase is when one makes a purchase from an FFL with the intent of illegal distribution.
You need to show that the last legal purchase was done with the intent of illegal distribution.
Just because a gun was distributed later illegally, does not make it a straw purchase.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 3, 2015 - 10:31am PT
|
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
At the time of the Constitution was ratified, lots of states outlawed slavery (although some of course permitted it).
No.
At the time the constitution was ratified, no states outlawed slavery. Some states (5 of the original 13) outlawed the sale and importation of slaves within their borders within a couple decades.
Vermont (14th State) was the first state to outlaw slavery, and they didn't do it as a state of the Union, but as the Vermont Free state before it was part of the United States, and before the Constitution. Other states freed persons born in the state, but didn't necessarily free existing enslaved persons ( New York)
That didn't mean you were free in Vermont or any other state by virtue of being in that state.. Article four of the constitution includes the fugitive slave clause.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Not only can you be sent back to a slave state, but your service or labor isn't discharged in the "free state". The constitution thus expressly supported slavery.
That remained in place until the passage of the 13th amendment despite Lincoln's emancipation proclamation, which only applied to states in rebellion and was probably unconstitutional.
That's the reason the Underground Railroad ended in Canada.
The Dread Scott decision tested that clause. Here's the law of the land in 1857 until the passage of the 13th amendment.
On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney delivered the majority opinion. Taney ruled that:
Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Constitution.
The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer either freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to non-white individuals.
The provisions of the Act of 1820, known as the Missouri Compromise, were voided as a legislative act, since the act exceeded the powers of Congress, insofar as it attempted to exclude slavery and impart freedom and citizenship to non-white persons in the northern part of the Louisiana Purchase.[11]
The Court had ruled that African Americans had no claim to freedom or citizenship. Since they were not citizens, they did not possess the legal standing to bring suit in a federal court. As slaves were private property, Congress did not have the power to regulate slavery in the territories and could not revoke a slave owner's rights based on where he lived. This decision nullified the essence of the Missouri Compromise, which divided territories into jurisdictions either free or slave. Speaking for the majority, Taney ruled that because Scott was simply considered the private property of his owners, that he was subject to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting the taking of property from its owner "without due process".
( Wikipedia)
So The Supreme Court of the United States in a ruling which overrode state law, used the fifth amendment clause against illegal search and seizure to override any rights due blacks. ALL BLACKS.
as Taney explained:
It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.[12]
Apparently he didn't consider England a European nation, or his Dickinson law degree failed him. Their slavery abolition act was in 1833. Their de facto end of slavery began around the revolutionary war before the Declaration of Independence. Slavery had never, in fact been authorized either by statute or common law in England and Wales.
In a 1772 English ruling (Somerset v. Stewart, Somerset being a black slave suing for freedom) Lord Mansfield said from the Kings Bench:
The state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of now being introduced by Courts of Justice upon mere reasoning or inferences from any principles, natural or political; it must take its rise from positive law; the origin of it can in no country or age be traced back to any other source: immemorial usage preserves the memory of positive law long after all traces of the occasion; reason, authority, and time of its introduction are lost; and in a case so odious as the condition of slaves must be taken strictly, the power claimed by this return was never in use here; no master ever was allowed here to take a slave by force to be sold abroad because he had deserted from his service, or for any other reason whatever; we cannot say the cause set forth by this return is allowed or approved of by the laws of this kingdom, therefore the black must be discharged.
The precise opposite of the fugitive slave clause, and penned 85 years earlier when the colonies were part of England.
I lived in Frederick, Maryland for about 20 years. The courthouse ( now city hall) was across the street from Taney's home and Francis Scott Keys home (Taney married Key's sister). I think they are now museums.
On the courthouse lawn, the two people commemorated with memorials are John Marshall and Roger Brooke Taney and I walked by a statue of that odious pig of a jurist every time I had business in the courthouse.
One of the blacker moments in the Supreme Court's defense of individual liberty.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
Blahblah posted HDDJ what you wrote is correct but it in now way contradicts that there was no RIGHT to slavery in the Constitution.
Again, if there were such a right, then no state could have outlawed slavery.
The Constitution didn't explicitly protect any individual rights at all so in that very technical way philo is "wrong." Pointing out that he's "wrong" is meaningless in that neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights did anything to protect Americans from slavery or indentured servitude and in fact created mechanisms to accommodate their existence. You're kind of taking a long walk to avoid the substance of his argument which is that the authors of the Constitution both lived in very different times with very different ideas of morality and also expected that we would revise the Constitution. I seem to recall Jefferson fully expected we would have torn the thing up by now.
Farouk posted hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I told you crankloons (Phillo) that is was an F'n Muslim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Congratulations on your racism. You're clearly very proud.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Gun ownership isn't some inalienable right granted by God. Remember, the Constitution was written by men coming out of a long and bloody war near the end of the 18th century. It was written for their time.
References to the constitution/bill-of-rights are actually red herrings in this present discussion. Both reference what were taken by the founders (federalists and anti-federalists alike) to be pre-existing rights. Neither granted rights to individuals. Both were designed to limit government power, so as to protect these rights.
If there were no government at all, we would have the (negative) right to life. We collectively instantiate some form of government so as to (hopefully) better protect that right than we could all alone.
But, since the right to life is not granted by any document and pre-exists all forms of government, "philo" is patently incorrect in asserting that gun ownership is not an inalienable right.
In terms of the implication relation, the logic of the right to gun ownership is very tight:
right-to-life > right-to-self-defense > right-to-the-means-of-self-defense.
That final (also inalienable) right is not "unlimited," as it necessarily references defense against likely INDIVIDUAL threats. Nukes, for example, are not individual threats. Protection against WMDs is one reason why we form governments: to provide defense from collective threats.
As long as guns are the weapon of choice among criminals and terrorists, there simply is no legitimate argument against the INDIVIDUAL right to the appropriate means (namely: an individual's own gun) to INDIVIDUAL self-defense.
Arguments referencing car registration miss an important point: You can't put a car in your pocket and thereby trivially avoid "detection." Criminals cannot trivially HIDE their cars, thereby avoiding the scrutiny that would accompany a car on the road with no license plates or registration tag. So, the title-and-register scheme simply won't have any effect on criminal possession of guns. Again, this is a "common sense" idea that targets entirely the wrong demographic.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 3, 2015 - 11:05am PT
|
If you don't like my re-post then complain to the author of it not about me.
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 3, 2015 - 08:29am PT
Dear America: Here's Your Gun Solution
2 hours ago | Updated 1 hour ago
Sara Benincasa Comedian; author of "DC Trip" (Adaptive Books)
I posted the byline in the post. learn to read.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Congratulations on your racism. You're clearly very proud.
Racism?
Muslims are all one race?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Have they figured out what the right wingers did to this devout moderate Muslim to put him over the edge so far that he was forced into his murderous actions? Could it be the "holiday songs" at the party, or an image of Jesus he mistook as a cartoon of Mohammed, or could it be the transsexual surgery health benefits he was awarded with in his generous benefit package? Inquiring minds want to know.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
It is always interesting to check back on these type threads to see how many times and different ways the same things can be said over and over and over again..
Thanks for giving us the feebleminded perspective.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Hell is empty and all the devils are here
|
|
Would you mind repeating that?
|
|
The Chief
climber
Down the hill & across the Valley from......
|
|
Congratulations on your racism. You're clearly very proud.
So Farouk is a racist cus he made the right call on who did the terrible deed.
Had I been correct in my claim that it was Cartel Hitmen (which no took me up on my bet), I would have also been a racist cus they were of Mexican origin.
Another Liberal logical conclusion.
Go figure.
Carry on..... This thread is getting more hilarious by the page.
And SUSAN, hows them fingers doing?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!