24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 33,409
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 33,409
Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
I hope this case results in this piece being cleared up. I'd like to see pot expressly excluded.

If I traveled from LA to Oregon without any guns, smoked pot while I was there, then returned home with the intention of never smoking pot again, does that make my guns illegal. Does that mean that I can no longer legally buy a gun?

I'd say no and honestly - I think the question is there so if they were to bust you as a drug addict later and found out you bought a gun in the past, they can simply stack more charges on you. If you're buying it's like MEPS - you answer the way you know to get what you want. No intelligent person is going to self- identify/answer in a way to fail the form and then be shocked.

"No" just means "new opportunities"


Me



BP-B2

Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 167
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 167
Originally Posted by 700LH
Originally Posted by prplbkrr
.... shall not be infringed.
there ya GO, that's the correct answer
There the $64 question...if the black-and-white verbiage of "shall not be infringed" gets interpreted to mean everything from Ruger Number 1's to M249's, will 3/4's of states be open to a re-write of the 2A? If so, how far would 3/4's be wiling to go? I'm thinking, in typical libtard fashion, they will overreach with any suggested modifications and come up with something that can't get ratified.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,188
M
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
M
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,188
Originally Posted by Hotrod_Lincoln
Was either NFA 1934 or GCA 68 ever voted on by congress and signed into law by a president? If not, they're both unconstitutional. Getting a veto-proof majority of strict-constitutionalist legislators and passing reasonable laws should be a top priority, but the swamp will never allow that to happen!
Voted on by Congress, and signed into "law" by the President - does NOT make laws Constitutional!
That decision rests on SCOTUS, and they don't always get it right. Liberals want to legislate, and modify the Constitution from the bench.


I've always been a curmudgeon - now I'm an old curmudgeon.
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 387
M
M16 Online Content
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 387
Hunter Biden didn’t have a problem answering no. Nothing happened to him. So if you smoked some crack the morning you go to buy a firearm you’re good.

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,845
C
Campfire Outfitter
Offline
Campfire Outfitter
C
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,845
I'm thinking that most of the drug users who shouldn't have a gun have other disqualifications as well.



Mathew 22: 37-39

Happy escapee from NY

IC-A B3

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 16,770
D
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
D
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 16,770
Amy has repeatedly said and written that she thinks the prohibition on firearm ownership for non-violent felons is unconstitutional.

We'll see how the others pile on.


Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid. - Ronald Reagan
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,518
A
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
A
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 19,518
Originally Posted by NVhntr
Next up, if a felon convicted of a non-violent crime has paid his debt to society he should have his gun rights restored.
Self defense is a basic human right, not a right to be granted by a government.

There is already a process for that to happen. Once a convicted felon has successfully completed his sentence, including parole, probation, etc., they have to live a "clean" life with no further criminal convictions for ten years. After the ten years has passed, they can petition the original court to have their Constitutional rights restored. Most petitioners are successful.

Most cons can't stay out of trouble, so they can't file the petition.

Ed


"Not in an open forum, where truth has less value than opinions, where all opinions are equally welcome regardless of their origins, rationale, inanity, or truth, where opinions are neither of equal value nor decisive." Ken Howell



Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,256
Campfire Kahuna
Offline
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,256
Originally Posted by APDDSN0864
Originally Posted by NVhntr
Next up, if a felon convicted of a non-violent crime has paid his debt to society he should have his gun rights restored.
Self defense is a basic human right, not a right to be granted by a government.

There is already a process for that to happen. Once a convicted felon has successfully completed his sentence, including parole, probation, etc., they have to live a "clean" life with no further criminal convictions for ten years. After the ten years has passed, they can petition the original court to have their Constitutional rights restored. Most petitioners are successful.

Most cons can't stay out of trouble, so they can't file the petition.

Ed
That's controlled by each state, a stolen car 50 years ago can and will prevent gun ownership


Posted by ribka
Like ruby ridge where the folk hero was on welfare most his life and of course never served in the military.

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/16187308/2
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 25,251
S
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
S
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 25,251
Originally Posted by denton
In a bit of a surprising ruling, the US District Court in Utah, a federal law against being an unlawful user of, or addicted to a controlled substance was held to be unconstitutional.

The legal reason was that the law was vague. It doesn't specify how long ago, or how frequently the substance was used. So a single use 10 years ago might be disqualifying, or it might not.

So I'm not too happy about illegal drug users being entitled to possess firearms, but it is a 2A win, I guess.

This ruling is only binding in Utah. It will undoubtedly be appealed. It would not be surprising to see this issue reach SCOTUS.
Got a link?


Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,363
bcp Online Content
Campfire Tracker
Online Content
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,363

IC-B B4

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 49,335
Campfire Oracle
Offline
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 49,335
Originally Posted by denton
In a bit of a surprising ruling, the US District Court in Utah, a federal law against being an unlawful user of, or addicted to a controlled substance was held to be unconstitutional.

The legal reason was that the law was vague. It doesn't specify how long ago, or how frequently the substance was used. So a single use 10 years ago might be disqualifying, or it might not.

So I'm not too happy about illegal drug users being entitled to possess firearms, but it is a 2A win, I guess.

This ruling is only binding in Utah. It will undoubtedly be appealed. It would not be surprising to see this issue reach SCOTUS.

No worries there sir. Nobody has ever been prohibited from buying a firearm for being a drug addict.


Trump Won.
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 34,953
Campfire Oracle
Online Content
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 34,953
Originally Posted by APDDSN0864
Originally Posted by NVhntr
Next up, if a felon convicted of a non-violent crime has paid his debt to society he should have his gun rights restored.
Self defense is a basic human right, not a right to be granted by a government.

There is already a process for that to happen. Once a convicted felon has successfully completed his sentence, including parole, probation, etc., they have to live a "clean" life with no further criminal convictions for ten years. After the ten years has passed, they can petition the original court to have their Constitutional rights restored. Most petitioners are successful.

Most cons can't stay out of trouble, so they can't file the petition.

Ed


Again, there's that vagueness. "Most petitioners are successful." as you say. That would likely lead one to believe "some" are not. The question now becomes why they are not when others are successful. Because the original court now has a makeup of judges that don't believe 10 years is long enough? Because the person came to Court in a T shirt and shorts and didn't show proper respect to the Court? Because they are poor and can't show evidence of a job and being an upstanding citizen?

If not successful in their petition, can they petition to a higher Court? All at their expense of course. Unless they're poor.


The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men.
In it is contentment
In it is death and all you seek
(Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)

member of the cabal of dysfunctional squirrels?
Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RickBin, SYSOP 

Link Copied to Clipboard
CTV-TRX
Who's Online Now
629 members (1234, 160user, 1lessdog, 10gaugemag, 10Glocks, 10gaugeman, 81 invisible), 1,837 guests, and 1,227 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
RR2/3-22

UDG-IP









Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2022 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.061s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9075 MB (Peak: 1.0357 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2022-10-06 16:32:24 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS