You kind of missed the gist of what I was pointing out about waiting periods. My point was if someone is planning to commit a murder, or any other crime, what's a few days delay going to change.
Waiting periods
I live in a state (Colorado)that is in the process of passing a 3 day wait period to purchase a firearm.
This has nothing to do with safety. As many of us can attest to, many firearm purchases are spur of the moment, emotional buys. If Amazon had a 3 day waiting period Bezos would be living under a bridge.
If gunbroker had a breathalyzer on their app I would be richer.
Again and again how do our "leaders" miss the point that it's not the lawful, legitimate enthusiasts that a f#$k things up?
This has nothing to do with safety. As many of us can attest to, many firearm purchases are spur of the moment, emotional buys. If Amazon had a 3 day waiting period Bezos would be living under a bridge.
If gunbroker had a breathalyzer on their app I would be richer.
Again and again how do our "leaders" miss the point that it's not the lawful, legitimate enthusiasts that a f#$k things up?
81 - 100 of 100 Posts
Indeed. SCOTUS uses what are called balancing tests with varying degrees of scrutiny to determine if a law is unconstitutional. The degrees of scrutiny are based on the type of rights involved and types of people affected, in general.To begin with waiting periods. These are arbitrary and have no basis in 'settled law'. Lawyers for the Feds' and or states use 'wordsmith tactics' (think Textualists). That fuss over the wording itself rather than the 'intent' of the law as written.
The problem with the balancing tests is that they were invented from whole cloth and really just serve as a mechanism for determining when the government can say that plain language in the Constitution doesn't mean what it really means.
Lawfulness of orders extends to statutory law and even municipal ordinances, too. Enforcement of immigration laws is based on statutory requirements, and there are penalties for violating those statutes.Now, I'll make a comment on actual 'Law' and how It's used and abused to justify 'wrongdoing'. A lawful order is one that follows the written law as intended by the framers of the constitution.
There are a couple of tools used to interpret the meaning of a constitutional or statutory provision, and legislative intent is, indeed, one of those tools. When legislators or, in the case of our Founding Fathers, debated legislation or the Constitution, there were records of what they intended the ultimate effects of those writings to achieve. That effect can be pretty informative for future generations to use when determining how far the actual wording can be bent. It's essentially using evidence of their debates to clarify ambiguities in the plain language.This is an 'Originalist' view of the law. Even back when the framers wrote the Constitution, The Declaration of Independance & The Bill of Rights, the intention was very clear. Even with the establishment of the US Supreme Court, from the very beginning there were those who had a 'different' view of 'intent'. This is why we've seen such radical swings in our highest court(s).
Unfortunately, activist jurists like to obfuscate or even outright misrepresent evidence of intent when they interpret the Constitution or even statutes.
Indeed. It's too easy for a senior official to deny ever having ordered or even passively authorized their subordinates' illegal activities. It's most common in the military setting with units at the brigade and below. I've always Characterized it as commanders using their subordinate leaders as human shields.I agree that following an 'Unlawful Order' place the person(s) following such in legal jeopardy. Unfortunately, as has been the case, those at the top of the 'Authority' seldom if ever are punished. The Old saying. Crap rolls downhill, is and always in play. And so it is today.
In the case of border enforcement or J6, the widespread departure from the letter and spirit of the law is and was so egregious, that there is no way the officers/agents on the ground could be held solely responsible for their actions. They wouldn't all have acted in concert as they did (and continue to do) without there being a policy mandate from higher.
If the law were actually applied, there'd be a lot of federal employees going to jail as accomplices at the very least for violation of our immigration laws and instigation of riotous behavior at the Capitol building. The bad actors on the ground would not have a difficult time pointing to specific leaders who told them to do it, and with their own necks on the line, they'd do it, too.
Yes, absolutely, one of the most pernicious and vicious methods used to accomplish this is 'Plausible Deniability'. And the lack of or plain written instructions/orders. 'Obfuscation':Indeed. SCOTUS uses what are called balancing tests with varying degrees of scrutiny to determine if a law is unconstitutional. The degrees of scrutiny are based on the type of rights involved and types of people affected, in general.
The problem with the balancing tests is that they were invented from whole cloth and really just serve as a mechanism for determining when the government can say that plain language in the Constitution doesn't mean what it really means.
Lawfulness of orders extends to statutory law and even municipal ordinances, too. Enforcement of immigration laws is based on statutory requirements, and there are penalties for violating those statutes.
There are a couple of tools used to interpret the meaning of a constitutional or statutory provision, and legislative intent is, indeed, one of those tools. When legislators or, in the case of our Founding Fathers, debated legislation or the Constitution, there were records of what they intended the ultimate effects of those writings to achieve. That effect can be pretty informative for future generations to use when determining how far the actual wording can be bent. It's essentially using evidence of their debates to clarify ambiguities in the plain language.
Unfortunately, activist jurists like to obfuscate or even outright misrepresent evidence of intent when they interpret the Constitution or even statutes.
Indeed. It's too easy for a senior official to deny ever having ordered or even passively authorized their subordinates' illegal activities. It's most common in the military setting with units at the brigade and below. I've always Characterized it as commanders using their subordinate leaders as human shields.
In the case of border enforcement or J6, the widespread departure from the letter and spirit of the law is and was so egregious, that there is no way the officers/agents on the ground could be held solely responsible for their actions. They wouldn't all have acted in concert as they did (and continue to do) without there being a policy mandate from higher.
If the law were actually applied, there'd be a lot of federal employees going to jail as accomplices at the very least for violation of our immigration laws and instigation of riotous behavior at the Capitol building. The bad actors on the ground would not have a difficult time pointing to specific leaders who told them to do it, and with their own necks on the line, they'd do it, too.
- the action of making something obscure, unclear, or unintelligible:
"when confronted with sharp questions they resort to obfuscation" · "ministers put up mealy-mouthed denials and obfuscations"
No, I got the gist, and as I said, I agree with the gist. I would just not use a single instance example in a debate, and understand this is a debate. The enemy uses sound communication ("common sense") to win arguments. We need to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.You kind of missed the gist of what I was pointing out about waiting periods. My point was if someone is planning to commit a murder, or any other crime, what's a few days delay going to change.
Indeed. SCOTUS uses what are called balancing tests with varying degrees of scrutiny to determine if a law is unconstitutional. The degrees of scrutiny are based on the type of rights involved and types of people affected, in general.
The problem with the balancing tests is that they were invented from whole cloth and really just serve as a mechanism for determining when the government can say that plain language in the Constitution doesn't mean what it really means.
Lawfulness of orders extends to statutory law and even municipal ordinances, too. Enforcement of immigration laws is based on statutory requirements, and there are penalties for violating those statutes.
There are a couple of tools used to interpret the meaning of a constitutional or statutory provision, and legislative intent is, indeed, one of those tools. When legislators or, in the case of our Founding Fathers, debated legislation or the Constitution, there were records of what they intended the ultimate effects of those writings to achieve. That effect can be pretty informative for future generations to use when determining how far the actual wording can be bent. It's essentially using evidence of their debates to clarify ambiguities in the plain language.
Unfortunately, activist jurists like to obfuscate or even outright misrepresent evidence of intent when they interpret the Constitution or even statutes.NYSRPA v. Bruen eliminates balancing test for 2A cases if the Arm unless it is "Dangerous AND Unusual"*. The opinion allows for reasonable regulations restricting time & place as well as keeping arms by felons & people who have been judge mentally incompetent by due process.
Unless the arm is a NFA item any purchase or transfer necessarily involves an arm that isn't Dangerous And Unusual; so balancing tests are unconstitutional in these cases. The 9th Circus in 2016 upheld CA's 10 working day waiting period using intermediate scrutiny. The Chief Judge wrote a concurring opinion which cited waiting periods are historical. I.E. CA has had them since 1923 and it was common in the 1800's for purchasers to wait while the arm was shipped to the retailer. The majority like other post McDonald appellate court opinions ignored Heller by misreading the "AND" as "OR". This misreading was either accidental or deliberate. It took until the 2021-2022 SCOTUS session before the wild card Chief Justice Roberts's wasn't needed for a favorable to the plaintiff(s) opinion. Therefore, the many appeals of circuit court opinions weren't granted cert because Justice Thomas wanted a case where he could get 4 other justices to support a opinion that was less ambiguous than Heller. Two problems with Chief Justice Roberts is he sticks his finger into public opinion winds and he abhors expansive opinions.
Some form of waiting periods that don't apply to all purchases may withstand review by SCOTUS.
* Dangerous And Unusual comes from Heller.
It isn’t part of the agenda. If we didn’t have the second amendment, Obama would have outlawed firearms. Biden is worse. Even though COvid Joe says we don’t need these weapons to protect us from a government with nukes, he and the power mongers in DC want them gone to have absolute control.I live in a state (Colorado)that is in the process of passing a 3 day wait period to purchase a firearm. This has nothing to do with safety. As many of us can attest to, many firearm purchases are spur of the moment, emotional buys. If Amazon had a 3 day waiting period Bezos would be living under a bridge. If gunbroker had a breathalyzer on their app I would be richer. Again and again how do our "leaders" miss the point that it's not the lawful, legitimate enthusiasts that a f#$k things up?
To beat bad laws often requires obviousness and imagination. Here is a piece of that:
(1) I have, let's say, ten automatic pistols and rifles. Mindful of that, WHAT will a waiting period do to keep someone one safe?
(2)There is MUCH case law stating any law that is absurd can be declared null and void for the absurdity.
(1) I have, let's say, ten automatic pistols and rifles. Mindful of that, WHAT will a waiting period do to keep someone one safe?
(2)There is MUCH case law stating any law that is absurd can be declared null and void for the absurdity.
THIS requires elaboration: U.S. and ALL governments, be they local, state or federal, are incapable of good or ill. Only through the acts of agents can any of them be said to do anything.
When We The People make individual agents accountable, then we have the start of good government.
When We The People make individual agents accountable, then we have the start of good government.
The US government has not feared us for a long time.
IL not only has a 3-Day waiting period but requires a Firearm Owner ID card to purchase either a firearm or ammo. Chicago has no gun shops and no places to buy ammunition yet the shootings in Chicago are daily events. Could it be any worse without the either waiting period or the FOID requirements? Probably not.
Gun control is a key Democrat goal. As of November, 2022, there were 637 deaths in the US due to ”mass shootings” according to CNN. Also in 2022, we averaged 184 deaths PER DAY due to fentanyl poisoning. That’s (334 days x 184) 61,456 deaths for the same time period. Yet we hear next to nothing about this and the majority of the fentanyl comes across the southern border, which by any reasonable assessment is “open” and which the current administration is doing virtually nothing about. These facts would lead one to believe that the goal of those pursuing gun control has nothing to do with reducing the loss of life.
Gun control has nothing to do with guns and is all about control as a disarmed populace is a compliant one. If you look at the subversion of justice in this country and shake your head just wait until they disarm everyone.Gun control is a key Democrat goal. As of November, 2022, there were 637 deaths in the US due to ”mass shootings” according to CNN. Also in 2022, we averaged 184 deaths PER DAY due to fentanyl poisoning. That’s (334 days x 184) 61,456 deaths for the same time period. Yet we hear next to nothing about this and the majority of the fentanyl comes across the southern border, which by any reasonable assessment is “open” and which the current administration is doing virtually nothing about. These facts would lead one to believe that the goal of those pursuing gun control has nothing to do with reducing the loss of life.
Just FYI, Slow Joe Biden, is just Obama's 3d term, to finish 'The Fundamental Transformation' of America.It isn’t part of the agenda. If we didn’t have the second amendment, Obama would have outlawed firearms. Biden is worse. Even though COvid Joe says we don’t need these weapons to protect us from a government with nukes, he and the power mongers in DC want them gone to have absolute control.
We have no waiting period, period.In Texas, We have Constitutional Carry along with License to Carry. For those of Us w/ LTC(s), there is NO Waiting Period, because We have already been Vetted.
Don't worry. All those Californians your Governor stupidly invited in will change that soon. Look how they're trying to railroad your conservative Attorney General out of office today. That's just the beginning. We Arizonans tried to warn Texas. Look what they did to us.We have no waiting period, period.
If you mean, our new, corrupt;Don't worry. All those Californians your Governor stupidly invited in will change that soon. Look how they're trying to railroad your conservative Attorney General out of office today. That's just the beginning. We Arizonans tried to warn Texas. Look what they did to us.
Govenor
Atty Gen
Sec State
2 Dem US Senators
& various other sundry Corrupt elections
Yeah, we in Arizona got screwed
You forgot the corrupt judges. Our installed valley girl Guv now holds the record for vetoes. Every good Bill our razor thin GOP majority in the legislature passes and it's DOA. What a shame. All I can do is shake my head when I think what the actual elected Governor would have done with the border, crime, taxes etc.If you mean, our new, corrupt;
Govenor
Atty Gen
Sec State
2 Dem US Senators
& various other sundry Corrupt elections
Yeah, we in Arizona got screwed
Man, I'm 70 yrs old and I was born here. My family has been in state for 5 generations. I haven't forgotten anything. I know the 'full' drill for Arizona. I may be a poor schmuck but have had family reach high in AZ politics. An AZ Supreme Court Justice, and His son (cousin) a US Senator (Dem). I have a very good 'touch' on the pulse of my state.You forgot the corrupt judges. Our installed valley girl Guv now holds the record for vetoes. Every good Bill our razor thin GOP majority in the legislature passes and it's DOA. What a shame. All I can do is shake my head when I think what the actual elected Governor would have done with the border, crime, taxes etc.
How’s this? US citizen, former police officer, retired criminal investigator who’s had a CCW permit for years (thankfully CA is now a ’shall’ issue state) but since I don’t have a federal drivers license, I have to show my birth certificate to buy ammo and had to wait ten days to take delivery of my latest new purchase handgun. We also have to qualify with each weapon we want listed on the permit and they have to be registered to me. Fingerprints are also required for the permit. Ain’t that grand?
This is a great argument. I have over 30 guns. If I were to kill myself, I'd use one I already have. I don't need a 3 day waiting period to cool off from anything I couldn't already do.Not that I disagree with your statement of waiting periods not working, but that is not a strong argument. Your story tells us they didn't work once. If they worked at all, you would never hear about it. You can't prove the negative when it didn't happen. Sorry, I just don't like to see weak arguments that can be picked apart.
A better argument is one that has been proposed here many times. If you already have access to a gun, the waiting period is moot. Or how about this one; if you are willing to break the law about shooting people, you are probably willing to break the law about how you acquire the gun to do so.
I’ve purchased 12 or so firearms since moving to CO, taking them with me on the same day. What’s the point in a waiting period for me, or a background check for each one for that matter? Completely illogical as Spock would say.I live in a state (Colorado)that is in the process of passing a 3 day wait period to purchase a firearm.
This has nothing to do with safety. As many of us can attest to, many firearm purchases are spur of the moment, emotional buys. If Amazon had a 3 day waiting period Bezos would be living under a bridge.
If gunbroker had a breathalyzer on their app I would be richer.
Again and again how do our "leaders" miss the point that it's not the lawful, legitimate enthusiasts that a f#$k things up?
81 - 100 of 100 Posts
Ruger Forum
A forum community dedicated to Ruger firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Top Contributors this Month
View All
rmichael63
490 Replies
maddmatter1970
449 Replies
Robert70
348 Replies
Recommended Communities
