Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   In news that I'm certain drooling gun fetishists will accept calmly and rationally, 9th Circuit Court rules that there's no constitutional right to sell firearms   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, Supreme Court of the United States, gun, gun shops, U.S. Circuit Court, Amendment, Supreme Court, gun sellers, Alameda County  
•       •       •

5395 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2017 at 8:40 PM (10 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



188 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-10-11 06:30:45 PM  
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If Founding Fathers wanted to put in "selling" they would've put in "selling"
-ghost of Scalia
 
2017-10-11 07:20:36 PM  

whither_apophis: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If Founding Fathers wanted to put in "selling" they would've put in "selling"
-ghost of Scalia


img.fark.net
 
2017-10-11 07:40:02 PM  

whither_apophis: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If Founding Fathers wanted to put in "selling" they would've put in "selling"
-ghost of Scalia


Or "manufacture" or "import"
 
2017-10-11 07:44:06 PM  
And now, I am envisioning gun stores being run by the state like tobacconists and liquor stores,
 
2017-10-11 08:15:36 PM  
Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.
 
2017-10-11 08:45:58 PM  

harleyquinnical: And now, I am envisioning gun stores being run by the state like tobacconists and liquor stores,


LolWut?.jpg
 
2017-10-11 08:46:16 PM  
Firearms are like any other product in that they have to be produced to accepted quality standards. I don't think you're going to see a problem with that.

The problem only comes if excessive and burdensome restrictions are placed on the sale of firearms in a bid to dry up supply to law-abiding citizens. That's what the Obama Administration tried to do, and the number of gun sales outlets dropped precipitously during his administration.

Now go ahead, snowflakes, tell us again: "Don't worry, nobody's going to take away your guns (roll eyes.). But...give up all your guns."
 
2017-10-11 08:47:25 PM  

BizarreMan: Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.


Interesting.

Just because internet and other communication technology continues to advance, doesn't mean your free to express yourself using new technologies.

Better stock up on pigeons and parchment.
 
2017-10-11 08:48:43 PM  
So, homemade firearms is to become the norm?

On a side note, this is bit like there's no right to sell books and magazines and this restriction is not a violation of the 1st amendment.  I'm sure this is perfectly constitutional.
 
2017-10-11 08:48:52 PM  
Wonder how many of them will use this ruling to justify stealing them.
 
2017-10-11 08:50:30 PM  
How about the same restrictions on gun dealers as abortion providers?
 
2017-10-11 08:51:18 PM  

Deez Piles: Firearms are like any other product in that they have to be produced to accepted quality standards. I don't think you're going to see a problem with that.

The problem only comes if excessive and burdensome restrictions are placed on the sale of firearms in a bid to dry up supply to law-abiding citizens. That's what the Obama Administration tried to do, and the number of gun sales outlets dropped precipitously during his administration.

Now go ahead, snowflakes, tell us again: "Don't worry, nobody's going to take away your guns (roll eyes.). But...give up all your guns."


i.cdn.turner.com
Hope this helps.
 
2017-10-11 08:52:19 PM  

harleyquinnical: And now, I am envisioning gun stores being run by the state like tobacconists and liquor stores,


And then we could lean on that "well regulated" clause everyone likes to ignore in the 2nd Amendment.  If someone buys a bunch of Sudafed from a bunch of different pharmacies, we know they're up to no good.  And we know it because we track it.

So what if...just throwing it out there...we "well regulated" the sales of guns?  We would know the same thing.
 
2017-10-11 08:52:54 PM  

Sir Paul: How about the same restrictions on gun dealers as abortion providers?


You can't destroy a gun after it's over 67% of the way constructed?
 
2017-10-11 08:55:10 PM  

kbronsito: whither_apophis: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If Founding Fathers wanted to put in "selling" they would've put in "selling"
-ghost of Scalia

Or "manufacture" or "import"


Or shooting. Or bearing bullets. What a crock. I'm not a gun nut, but its the government making decisions like this that make me glad revoking the second amendment would result in a revolution.
 
2017-10-11 08:56:02 PM  

Deez Piles: Firearms are like any other product in that they have to be produced to accepted quality standards. I don't think you're going to see a problem with that.

The problem only comes if excessive and burdensome restrictions are placed on the sale of firearms in a bid to dry up supply to law-abiding citizens. That's what the Obama Administration tried to do, and the number of gun sales outlets dropped precipitously during his administration.

Now go ahead, snowflakes, tell us again: "Don't worry, nobody's going to take away your guns (roll eyes.). But...give up all your guns."


I got my katanas. I'm good.
 
2017-10-11 08:56:15 PM  
Really, this is more that you can't open up a gun shop until you get the city permits to open up a shop.

As was made clear in B. Tannen v Hill Valley, cities have the right to restrict gun possession within city limits and may create ad hoc gun-free zones, for example at a festival held in the town square.

So this ruling doesn't mean that you can't sell guns. It just means that you can't sell guns in a city which has made the decision to restrict gun sales.
 
2017-10-11 08:57:41 PM  

pedrop357: So, homemade firearms is to become the norm?

On a side note, this is bit like there's no right to sell books and magazines and this restriction is not a violation of the 1st amendment.  I'm sure this is perfectly constitutional.


Know how I know you didn't read TFA?
 
2017-10-11 08:57:47 PM  
So with this argument you could have a ban on the sale of all guns. That would be called a defacto ban. Not gonna happen.
 
2017-10-11 08:59:14 PM  
Since this is an economic restriction, it need only pass rational review.  That said, I do not see how this restriction passes rational review.

Oh and Mark Joseph Stern can go to hell in a hand basket.  He lacks the most basic understanding of the law or how to read cases yet he continually writes about the law.
 
2017-10-11 09:00:10 PM  

RJReves: Know how I know you didn't read TFA?


because the poster posited a more intelligent take than Mark Joseph Stern?
 
2017-10-11 09:03:56 PM  
INB4 MUH HELLER VS DC

that case didn't say what you thought it did, Cletus
 
2017-10-11 09:04:48 PM  

sprgrss: RJReves: Know how I know you didn't read TFA?

because the poster posited a more intelligent take than Mark Joseph Stern?


No. Because the same stupid first amendment analogy was explored in TFA and chopped to pieces.
 
2017-10-11 09:05:12 PM  
Meh.
 
2017-10-11 09:07:57 PM  

BizarreMan: Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.


Really, the modern equivalent of a Revolutionary-era musket is an assault rifle. And "well-regulated" means trained according to typical infantry standards of the time. So obviously we should ban everything *except* assault rifles and allow every adult to own one after making it through basic training. And then, we can eliminate all the rest of our military spending because nobody will dare invade us. Something like that works well enough for the Swiss, right? Or the Afghans...oops.
 
2017-10-11 09:09:39 PM  

sprgrss: Since this is an economic restriction, it need only pass rational review.  That said, I do not see how this restriction passes rational review.

Oh and Mark Joseph Stern can go to hell in a hand basket.  He lacks the most basic understanding of the law or how to read cases yet he continually writes about the law.


He related the decision and the words of the court. I assume the court knows more about law than you?
 
2017-10-11 09:11:50 PM  
"free State"

YMMV, and it probably does.
 
2017-10-11 09:15:24 PM  

RJReves: sprgrss: Since this is an economic restriction, it need only pass rational review.  That said, I do not see how this restriction passes rational review.

Oh and Mark Joseph Stern can go to hell in a hand basket.  He lacks the most basic understanding of the law or how to read cases yet he continually writes about the law.

He related the decision and the words of the court. I assume the court knows more about law than you?


Actually he didn't.  He interjected his own personal views.

As for the 9th Circuit knowing more about the law than others is stupid.  The 9th is notoriously anti-gun rights.  Had this come down in any other circuit the opinion would have been 180 from the opinion today.

What Mark Joseph Stern, you and the majority on this panel fail to realize, is this:  If the restriction on the sale of guns unduly impacts the rights of people to own firearms then it is an unconstitutional restriction and can be challenged by the gun stores.

I find these sorts of things interesting.  I'm sure the judges on the 9th who supported this opinion would have major issues with similar restrictions on abortion clinics, never mind that the right to keep and bear arms is explicated protected by the constitution whereas abortion rights emanate from the penumbras of the bill of rights.  In other words, less protections for an expressed right.
 
2017-10-11 09:19:47 PM  

Sir Paul: How about the same restrictions on gun dealers as abortion providers?


Wait so do the purchasers of gun have to look at murder victim photos?... I might be ok with this...
 
2017-10-11 09:19:50 PM  

RJReves: sprgrss: Since this is an economic restriction, it need only pass rational review.  That said, I do not see how this restriction passes rational review.

Oh and Mark Joseph Stern can go to hell in a hand basket.  He lacks the most basic understanding of the law or how to read cases yet he continually writes about the law.

He related the decision and the words of the court. I assume the court knows more about law than you?


This is the 9th Circus we're talking about here.
 
2017-10-11 09:21:17 PM  
I'm sure the 9th never has their decisions overturned.
 
2017-10-11 09:21:45 PM  
If they were denied the permit because of the proximity to another gun store I would question that restriction.  In what way does that rationally extend a govt need?
 
2017-10-11 09:21:53 PM  

Preston Preston: And then we could lean on that "well regulated" clause everyone likes to ignore in the 2nd Amendment.


No one ignored it. In DC v. Heller the court ruled 9-0 that the right to possess firearms is an individual right unconnected to any military service. The 2nd Amendment is two independent clauses separated by a comma, and those clauses don't restrict or modify each other.
 
2017-10-11 09:23:25 PM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: You can't destroy a gun after it's over 67% of the way constructed?


It isn't even "a gun" until it is past 80% completion. That's how you can purchase AR-15 lower receivers like paperweights (no background check, no waiting period, etc.) and do a little bit of machine work to finish it yourself. You then have a homemade firearm that, in most states, you don't even have to put a serial number on it.
 
2017-10-11 09:24:35 PM  
This dovetails nicely with my plans for when I'm elected President. Since gun ownership is a right, and since the militia is all the people, I will use established executive and legislative precedent to create a nationwide arms distribution system that will benefit all citizens. Among other things, this program will:

1. Establish individual responsibility by requiring all Americans who can afford insurance coverage a rifle to purchase it or pay a fee
2. Establish employer responsibility under which mid-size and large companies provide health weapons and weapons training to their workers or contribute to their coverage ownership and training through a fee
3. Eliminate lifetime and annual limits on insurance coverage weapons ownership and establish annual limits on out-of-pocket spending on essential health benefits ammunition purchases
4. Require health weapons ownership plans to cover dependent children up to age 26
5. Expand health provider weapons instructor training opportunities, with an emphasis on primary care, defensive tactics, including a significant expansion of the National Health Rifle Service Corps

 That's just the opening basics; we'll have to pass the bill before you can see the rest of what's in it.

/Precedent
//President?
 
2017-10-11 09:25:15 PM  
I fail to see how this prevents the purchase of firearms.
 
2017-10-11 09:26:18 PM  
Good luck enforcing that LMAO
 
2017-10-11 09:27:17 PM  

pedrop357: So, homemade firearms is to become the norm?

On a side note, this is bit like there's no right to sell books and magazines and this restriction is not a violation of the 1st amendment.  I'm sure this is perfectly constitutional.


Backdoor ban of an enumerated right? Will never fly but... 
img.fark.net

/amendment is the only way to achieve what many desire
 
2017-10-11 09:28:03 PM  
This is the part where something that should be a license has turned into a permit. When the law is perverted like that for almost any reason, it's an unnecessary and indefensible restriction on liberty. By the rationale of the county board, someone could be turned down to open a Shell station across the corner from a Texaco station because "There's already a gas station within feet, and the county already has plenty of gas stations."
 
2017-10-11 09:32:32 PM  
Slate is brain cancer personified.
 
2017-10-11 09:34:56 PM  

RJReves: Deez Piles: Firearms are like any other product in that they have to be produced to accepted quality standards. I don't think you're going to see a problem with that.

The problem only comes if excessive and burdensome restrictions are placed on the sale of firearms in a bid to dry up supply to law-abiding citizens. That's what the Obama Administration tried to do, and the number of gun sales outlets dropped precipitously during his administration.

Now go ahead, snowflakes, tell us again: "Don't worry, nobody's going to take away your guns (roll eyes.). But...give up all your guns."

I got my katanas. I'm good.


What would you need with blades that long?

Sooner or later.
 
2017-10-11 09:36:20 PM  
If nobody is allowed to sell guns then nobody can legally purchase guns, making the right to own them meaningless. This is nothing but another hail mary attempt by the left to nullify the Second Amendment. It will be easily overturned by SCOTUS, but there's always that million to one shot and in the meantime, the Progessives can tut tut about how virtuous they are.
 
2017-10-11 09:38:58 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: BizarreMan: Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.

Really, the modern equivalent of a Revolutionary-era musket is an assault rifle. And "well-regulated" means trained according to typical infantry standards of the time. So obviously we should ban everything *except* assault rifles and allow every adult to own one after making it through basic training. And then, we can eliminate all the rest of our military spending because nobody will dare invade us. Something like that works well enough for the Swiss, right? Or the Afghans...oops.


Well regulated, buddy.
As for regulations?
The Founders covered that.
archive.orgarchive.orgarchive.org
 
2017-10-11 09:39:56 PM  

big pig peaches: BizarreMan: Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.

Interesting.

Just because internet and other communication technology continues to advance, doesn't mean your free to express yourself using new technologies.

Better stock up on pigeons and parchment.


Well, the 4th amendment doesn't apply to your computer or smart phone.
 
2017-10-11 09:41:43 PM  
Oops.
Also, see
en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States​_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/2nd_​Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_33 for mandatory membership, training, registration, inspections, and reported annually to the governor of each state and to the President.
 
2017-10-11 09:45:11 PM  
 
2017-10-11 09:45:19 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: itcamefromschenectady: BizarreMan: Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.

Really, the modern equivalent of a Revolutionary-era musket is an assault rifle. And "well-regulated" means trained according to typical infantry standards of the time. So obviously we should ban everything *except* assault rifles and allow every adult to own one after making it through basic training. And then, we can eliminate all the rest of our military spending because nobody will dare invade us. Something like that works well enough for the Swiss, right? Or the Afghans...oops.

Well regulated, buddy.
As for regulations?
The Founders covered that.
[archive.org image 180x303][archive.org image 180x303][archive.org image 180x303]


Isn't that meaningless until mustered, and even then only while in service?
 
2017-10-11 09:47:00 PM  

Loaded Six String: RJReves: Deez Piles: Firearms are like any other product in that they have to be produced to accepted quality standards. I don't think you're going to see a problem with that.

The problem only comes if excessive and burdensome restrictions are placed on the sale of firearms in a bid to dry up supply to law-abiding citizens. That's what the Obama Administration tried to do, and the number of gun sales outlets dropped precipitously during his administration.

Now go ahead, snowflakes, tell us again: "Don't worry, nobody's going to take away your guns (roll eyes.). But...give up all your guns."

I got my katanas. I'm good.

What would you need with blades that long?

Sooner or later.


Holy crap. I thought everyone knew this one:
files.explosm.net
 
2017-10-11 09:51:07 PM  

bobbyjoebobby: big pig peaches: BizarreMan: Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.

Interesting.

Just because internet and other communication technology continues to advance, doesn't mean your free to express yourself using new technologies.

Better stock up on pigeons and parchment.

Well, the 4th amendment doesn't apply to your computer or smart phone.


You are incorrect. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2013/13-132
 
2017-10-11 10:01:32 PM  

itcamefromschenectady: BizarreMan: Interesting.

I'm developing the opinion that just because a gun manufacturer invents a new weapon that fires a projectile using gunpowder doesn't mean the citizenry is entitled to purchase that particular weapon just because it's a gun.

Really, the modern equivalent of a Revolutionary-era musket is an assault rifle. And "well-regulated" means trained according to typical infantry standards of the time. So obviously we should ban everything *except* assault rifles and allow every adult to own one after making it through basic training. And then, we can eliminate all the rest of our military spending because nobody will dare invade us. Something like that works well enough for the Swiss, right? Or the Afghans...oops.


Yeah wasn't the point of 2nd amendment to give militias parity with 'regular' armed forces? Shouldn't that mean all citizens can have access to all weapons? I'm not even being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.
 
Displayed 50 of 188 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report