JohnRich 4 #1 March 9, 2012 News:High Court Denial of Seattle Gun Ban Appeal "The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted that the Washington State Supreme Court has unanimously denied the City of Seattle's petition for review in the case of Winnie Chan v. City of Seattle, a legal action brought by SAF, the National Rifle Association and five individual plaintiffs. "The decision affirms the state's long-standing preemption law and two lower court rulings, thus preventing the city from banning firearms from city parks property. "It was the third straight loss for the city, which had first attempted to ban firearms from park facilities under former Mayor Greg Nickels, in open defiance of Washington State's model preemption statute..."Full story: Market Watch Strike three - you're out, Seattle! The preemption statute means that gun laws are the authority of the state, and that local municipalities may not pass laws more restrictive than the state. The purpose is to prevent a patchwork of differing gun laws that would ensnare innocent citizens in legal trouble. The SAF continues their long string of successes in beating back bad gun laws in court. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #2 March 9, 2012 Quote The purpose is to prevent a patchwork of differing gun laws that would ensnare innocent citizens in legal trouble. How about a single uniform set of enforcible laws for the entire nation, then?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #3 March 9, 2012 QuoteQuote The purpose is to prevent a patchwork of differing gun laws that would ensnare innocent citizens in legal trouble. How about a single uniform set of enforcible laws for the entire nation, then? That would probably result in federal court litigation over whether that unconstitutionally violates federalism (i.e., "states' rights"), with the final call likely being a closely-divided decision of the SCOTUS. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #4 March 10, 2012 QuoteHow about a single uniform set of enforcible laws for the entire nation, then? The problem with your idea for national level gun laws is that the Constitution gives the Feds no authority to regulate guns - that's a matter left to the states. The Feds do it anyway under the guise of "interstate commerce", but that's their only camel's-nose-in-the-tent to do it. Do you want concealed handgun licenses issued by states to be automatically honored by all other states, just like they already do with driver's licenses? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #5 March 10, 2012 QuoteQuoteHow about a single uniform set of enforcible laws for the entire nation, then? The problem with your idea for national level gun laws is that the Constitution gives the Feds no authority to regulate guns - that's a matter left to the states. The Feds do it anyway under the guise of "interstate commerce", but that's their only camel's-nose-in-the-tent to do it. Do you want concealed handgun licenses issued by states to be automatically honored by all other states, just like they already do with driver's licenses? Why not, as long as the criteria for getting one require an EFFECTIVE background check with periodic review? I wouldn't see a problem with that. I don't have a problem with honest, sane adults having guns.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #6 March 10, 2012 How about nationwide acceptance by all states of interstate travel with guns in cars, without the gun being unloaded and the ammo stored separately - are you in favor of that too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #7 March 10, 2012 To repeat, I don't have a problem with honest, sane adults having guns.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #8 March 10, 2012 So you're in favor of repealing the laws which prohibit a person from buying a firearm from a state other than his own state of residence? And you want to repeal the law which prohibits importation of firearms from other countries unless they have a "sporting purpose"? And you would repeal state laws which ban .50 caliber rifles, since they're legal under federal law? And since there is an instant criminal background check, you would repeal 15-day waiting periods present in some places? And you would repeal state laws which ban the use of hollowpoint ammo for self defense, since most states don't do that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #9 March 10, 2012 QuoteSo you're in favor of repealing the laws which prohibit a person from buying a firearm from a state other than his own state of residence? And you want to repeal the law which prohibits importation of firearms from other countries unless they have a "sporting purpose"? And you would repeal state laws which ban .50 caliber rifles, since they're legal under federal law? And since there is an instant criminal background check, you would repeal 15-day waiting periods present in some places? And you would repeal state laws which ban the use of hollowpoint ammo for self defense, since most states don't do that? I don't have a problem with honest, sane adults having guns. That is NOT the same as going to the lowest common denominator among states' laws, which is what you seem to espouse.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SeaKev 0 #10 March 11, 2012 Quote Washington, my home state, is more like Texas regarding the use and possession of weapons. You can carry them in your car if they are not within reach and the ammo is separate, and the gun unloaded. There is no 'they must be in the house' stuff for using weapons to protect your property, either. You can actually shoot someone in your driveway, for example, if they are attempting to steal your car. It's been done and no charges were filed. This attempted no-guns-in-the-park law was probably inspired by two separate incidents in Washington, one about four years ago, and one just a few months back, where two different female US Forest Service Rangers were shot and killed. The most recent happened at Mount Rainier National Park, and that one caused a great deal of distress among the citizenry. You aren't allowed to carry weapons in National Parks, at least in Washington state. I haven't checked the other parks, but it's probably the same thing. The idea of banning guns, in any case, is a lot like closing the barn door after the horses have gone. Current estimates of privately-held weapons in America range from 400 million up to a BILLION. That doesn't count anything held by the military or in sporting goods stores. This is one of the reasons I don't fear any sweeping laws that would actually ban guns in America. There would be no way to enforce it. You would need a million more cops and a warehouse the size of Nevada to store them all. I am NOT in favor of banning guns. I AM in favor of restricting the magazine capacities to ten rounds for pistols and what the cops want to do, which is to 'tag' ammunition so it can be traced. Cops say they could solve a lot more murders that way, and I suppose that makes sense. I'm also in favor of grandfathering certain models of pistols, such as Glocks, that hold more than ten, but to ban the extend-a-mags. I suppose you could say I'm in favor of the Second Amendment rights, but in a slightly more sensible manner. That's just my two cents' worth, anyway. You really should do a little research before posting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #11 March 11, 2012 QuoteYou really should do a little research before posting. Thanks for throwing that out there. I started to respond in detail to all the things that were wrong with his post, but it would have just taken too long, and gone off in too many other directions. And the idea of his claim that he is "more sensible", implies that the rest of us are "less sensible", and was just more of the usual insult stuff, and based upon his own incorrect understanding of the facts. Sheesh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #12 March 11, 2012 Objection overruled, John. he wasn't being remotely insulting.Which is to say, not remotely insulting as you constantly calling people gun o phobes.He really was trying to discuss the subject in a reasonable,non-idelogical, non-extremist fashion. But as usual, he has now learned, like so many before him, that you simply won't tolerate it. It's why so many people don't even bother with gun threads in here. So fine, have your exclusive soapbox. It's all yours. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #13 March 13, 2012 QuoteHow about a single uniform set of enforcible laws for the entire nation, then? Like say.... Oh, a Bill of Rights? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #14 March 13, 2012 QuoteQuoteHow about a single uniform set of enforcible laws for the entire nation, then? Like say.... Oh, a Bill of Rights? ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #15 March 13, 2012 Quote In Reply To Quote How about a single uniform set of enforcible laws for the entire nation, then? Like say.... Oh, a Bill of Rights? Nice how you think the Bill of Rights is boring... says a lot about you, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #16 March 13, 2012 Last warning. Both of you cut it out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,122 #17 March 14, 2012 QuoteLike say.... Oh, a Bill of Rights? So you would be in favour of no further regulation on guns, other than what the 2nd Amendment states? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #18 March 19, 2012 QuoteSo you would be in favour of no further regulation on guns, other than what the 2nd Amendment states? I think that honest people should be held only to the 2nd Amendment. I think the issue is keeping guns from the hands of criminals. History has shown that criminals don't follow laws and passing more gun laws just hurt honest citizens. So, instead of focusing on the guns... focus on the criminals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #19 March 20, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo you would be in favour of no further regulation on guns, other than what the 2nd Amendment states? I think that honest people should be held only to the 2nd Amendment. I think the issue is keeping guns from the hands of criminals. History has shown that criminals don't follow laws and passing more gun laws just hurt honest citizens. So, instead of focusing on the guns... focus on the criminals. So tell us what YOU would suggest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #20 March 26, 2012 QuoteSo tell us what YOU would suggest. Do a search, I have covered this before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #21 March 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteSo tell us what YOU would suggest. Do a search, I have covered this before. I already did, and posted the result. The answer was NOTHING.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #22 March 26, 2012 QuoteI already did, and posted the result. The answer was NOTHING. Search better, I have covered this before. Just because you don't have good search skills does not mean it is not there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #23 March 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteI already did, and posted the result. The answer was NOTHING. Search better, I have covered this before. Just because you don't have good search skills does not mean it is not there. Nope - an exhaustive search of every post you've made that has the word "felon" or "criminal" along with "gun" in it comes up with NO SUGGESTIONS you have ever made beyond increased penalties for criminals. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_35&search_string=felon&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=davinci&sb=score&mh=25 www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=criminal+gun&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=davinci&sb=score&mh=25 If you deny that, prove me wrong by providing a link.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #24 March 26, 2012 QuoteNope - an exhaustive search of every post you've made that has the word "felon" or "criminal" along with "gun" in it comes up with NO SUGGESTIONS you have ever made beyond increased penalties for criminals. Well there is PART of it.... Maybe you should READ what is posted? QuoteIf you deny that, prove me wrong by providing a link. As soon as you provide the link to YOUR plan....Or just type it out again... I will respond in kind. Until then, just like when you were asked and YOU replied with "do a search".... I will continue to tell you that it is here and you just are too lazy to look for it. But, I will commend you for finding PART of the answer... Bravo! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #25 March 26, 2012 QuoteQuoteNope - an exhaustive search of every post you've made that has the word "felon" or "criminal" along with "gun" in it comes up with NO SUGGESTIONS you have ever made beyond increased penalties for criminals. Well there is PART of it.... Maybe you should READ what is posted? QuoteIf you deny that, prove me wrong by providing a link. As soon as you provide the link to YOUR plan....Or just type it out again... I will respond in kind. Until then, just like when you were asked and YOU replied with "do a search".... I will continue to tell you that it is here and you just are too lazy to look for it. But, I will commend you for finding PART of the answer... Bravo! LAME. You have provided no substantive proposal to make it more difficult for felons an loonies to get guns. NONE. If they cared about penalties they wouldn't commit crimes in the first place. You have nothing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
