Quote:
1. 3 does not take care of 1 and I shouldn't even have to explain to why.
2. Read D.C. v. Heller.
1) Obviously you do. I am willing to listen, but the 'why' I will admit I can not see. I grew up in a gun culture, not one fearful of it. I do have some blind spots to the rational others use in that matter.
Maybe you don't understand the reasoning on this? This order is to allow people from one state to purchase from another state, something that is not always legal now. Sometimes people do this because the other state doesn't have notice that a person is not allowed to purchase firearms in their state. There is no nation wide system covering this information. No Conceal Carry database. No 'do not sell' database. Hence, why a nation wide NCIS database that was easy to use and could provide instant notification would solve this problem.
Quote:
To hear officials say it, Sutherland Springs shooter Devin Kelley should never have been able to buy a gun. He was court-martialed for assault on his wife and assault on their child while serving in the Air Force. He received a bad conduct discharge some time after. Now, the Air Force is acknowledging that the convictions were not properly transferred to the law enforcement database that would have allowed then to show up on an background check.
Kelley bought four weapons in total -- two in Colorado and two in Texas, the ATF said. One each was purchased in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. Two handguns were found in the shooter's vehicle. A Ruger AR-556 rifle was found in front of the church where Kelley dropped it when a local resident rushed him.
A strong NCIS database with easy access would have stopped him from buying firearms easily. Like the FBI dropping the ball with Cruz, in both cases the problem was one that wasn't properly handled by the government with the way they process things now. HENCE the need to update or totally rehaul the database.
That is why #3 covers #1, as I see it. Right now it is complicated, and people fall through the cracks.
2) Read it. Read a lot going into it, and commentary following it. And some of the remarks by the justices. You seem to have a specific point you would like to make, but the ruling supports my position.
I did not see a single thing about service members who are employed by the US Government to hold guns between us and the bad guys should be banned from buying a firearm in a different state. What I did see that upholds your point might be lodged in "Held: Paragraph 2"
Quote:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Really - I do not understand your points. Heller was paid to carry a gun in federal buildings, but was not allowed to carry one at home. He was employed by the US Gov to protect important people but was banned from protecting himself. Heller won.
A serviceman shouldn't be barred purchasing a gun in a different state then he resides, in fact, nobody should. A soldier with a clear background? Why? Heller vs DC was pretty clear on that. That is a problem when you are stationed in a different state. Even if they are gun friendly, if you are not a state resident often there are limits on even bringing a firearm into that state, or purchasing while not being a state resident, or not having that state's concealed carry permit. Limiting a serviceman is like the stupid rules that tell you you can't do math in a different state.
http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/or...for-doing-math
If he can die carrying a gun in a hostile foreign nation, he should be able to protect himself here at home, in his own house. Why is that a sticking point to hold up a large "Do Not Sell" list for people with abuse to a history of mental illness?
Quote:
The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.
When it was being argued I did a lot of research into the original comments by the founding fathers, and it was a decent eye opener.
Quote:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
Quote:
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
The precedent to legally own firearms for one's protection is rather clear and deliberate by our founding fathers. If the basis for your reply is that states should be able to ban them, well.... Heller vs DC pointed out that they are constitutionally incorrect.