The Court's role here is to simply strike down the law or the parts deemed to be unconstitutional. It would be up to the NYC legislature to sit down and either allow the law to be struck completely or pass a new regulation that stands up to the test provided by the court. Therefore the Court cannot enshrine a right to carry absolute as they are merely passing on the constitutionality of this specific law. In Heller the Court was very restrictive in the scope of their ruling and SC would do the same here. NYC argument would fall flat im my opinion because they would first have to demonstrate a clear legislative power to totally ban the transport of guns. This alone would fail 2d amendment challenges because obviously if they are legal to be bought and sold and taken to gun ranges then the State has already recognized the right to carry and right to transport. They however decided an arbitrary difference of what types of transport were allowed and which were not. That usually fails any scrutiny due to lack of reasonableness. The total ban would fail outright. They already acknowledged the right to transport to gun ranges to an extent but they attempted to make a differentiation that seems to also fail under a due process/equal protection analysis. If NYC tried to make a stupid safety argument, that would fail under even a 1L's cross examination because the State flatly refused the unloaded and locked exception. This is one of the key flaws that makes the law's intent clearly at odds with the proposed purpose and therefore invalid. I think NYC's arguments will not be sound enough to support the law but will be done on purpose to test the Court's answer and opinion scope for guidance.
Yup. Some of them. Some of them their mother will turn in. And the others, and the insane, will not be able to buy any easily. Gradually there will be less and less. Simple logic that escapes gun nuts for some reason.
Simple logic, eh? Your "logic" tells you that a criminal will turn in his gun because it is suddenly illegal. What color is the sky in your world? I don't argue that "gradually" there will be less and less after a ban is enacted, but that could take decades. And we - the ones you call gun nuts - aren't willing to be unprotected that long. So, since you need both sides to come to the table in order to enact gun legislation that works, you can take your "logic" and piss off. All your comments do is make folks like us dig in and not want to work with you. Moonbats like you give the rest of your side of the aisle a bad name.
Once again Cary ranked number 1 in safety. Cary is the safest place to live in the U.S. https://www.cbs17.com/news/local-ne...st-place-to-live-in-us-report-says/1756436518 What makes if different than those ranked below it — the high household gun ownership rate.
And now it goes on to the full house where it has a small chance of passing and then to the Senate where it will go absolutely nowhere and certainly not be signed into law by the President. Incidentally, I support background check requirements on all sales. This bill, however, actually has way too many loopholes still in it.
Text of the bill, highlighted parts show where I have an issue with it not being strong enough. SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the “Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019”. section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or 18 U.S.C. 922 note) is amended by striking “subsection 922(t)” each place it appears and inserting “subsection (s) or (t) of section 922”. SEC. 2. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Act is to utilize the current background checks process in the United States to ensure individuals prohibited from gun possession are not able to obtain firearms. SEC. 3. FIREARMS TRANSFERS. Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— “(t)(1)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s). “(B) Upon taking possession of a firearm under subparagraph (A), a licensee shall comply with all requirements of this chapter as if the licensee were transferring the firearm from the inventory of the licensee to the unlicensed transferee. “(C) If a transfer of a firearm described in subparagraph (A) will not be completed for any reason after a licensee takes possession of the firearm (including because the transfer of the firearm to, or receipt of the firearm by, the transferee would violate this chapter), the return of the firearm to the transferor by the licensee shall not constitute the transfer of a firearm for purposes of this chapter. “(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— “(A) a law enforcement agency or any law enforcement officer, armed private security professional, or member of the armed forces, to the extent the officer, professional, or member is acting within the course and scope of employment and official duties; “(B) a transfer that is a loan or bona fide gift between spouses, between domestic partners, between parents and their children, between siblings, between aunts or uncles and their nieces or nephews, or between grandparents and their grandchildren; “(C) a transfer to an executor, administrator, trustee, or personal representative of an estate or a trust that occurs by operation of law upon the death of another person; “(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm; “(E) a transfer that is approved by the Attorney General under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or “(F) a temporary transfer if the transferor has no reason to believe that the transferee will use or intends to use the firearm in a crime or is prohibited from possessing firearms under State or Federal law, and the transfer takes place and the transferee’s possession of the firearm is exclusively— “(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting; “(ii) while reasonably necessary for the purposes of hunting, trapping, or fishing, if the transferor— “(I) has no reason to believe that the transferee intends to use the firearm in a place where it is illegal; and “(II) has reason to believe that the transferee will comply with all licensing and permit requirements for such hunting, trapping, or fishing; or “(iii) while in the presence of the transferor. “(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations. “(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring licensees to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1). “(C) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision requiring persons not licensed under this chapter to keep records of background checks or firearms transfers. “(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1). “(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer possession of, or title to, a firearm to another person who is not so licensed unless the importer, manufacturer, or dealer has provided such other person with a notice of the prohibition under paragraph (1), and such other person has certified that such other person has been provided with this notice on a form prescribed by the Attorney General.”.
Thank you for admitting you are more about scoring political points than actually solving gun violence. I mean, we pretty much knew that all along but it's nice to see you come out and openly confirm it.
1st step to fixing a problem is admitting you have a problem. The GOP's unreasonable opposition to gun-anything is a problem.