The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 6, 2017, 03:51 PM   #51
rwilson452
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,556
Quote:
Quote:
rwilson452, as discussed at length in this TFL thread, there are several classes of military discharge that are below a honorable discharge but do not make someone a prohibited person. A Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD) is one of these; it is proverbially one step on the ladder above a dishonorable discharge, analogous to a serious non-domestic misdemeanor conviction, not to a felony.

As this topic doesn't directly concern legislative proposals, I suggest that we start another thread if you wish to discuss it further.
Thanks,

Now I understand.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81
rwilson452 is offline  
Old November 6, 2017, 05:00 PM   #52
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 12,195
For the purposes of this thread, let's keep the focus on the legislative proposals and not the events being exploited to promote them.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 8, 2017, 09:31 PM   #53
Psychedelic Bang
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 3, 2009
Location: FL USA
Posts: 327
Its now a full on "Assault Weapons Ban."

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/artic...n-12341768.php
__________________
"Was always kinda partial to Roy Rogers actually. I really like those sequined shirts..."
Psychedelic Bang is offline  
Old November 9, 2017, 05:03 AM   #54
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,595
Yep. I doubt they have any kind of the push to get it through, more posturing for the base, at a safe time - between elections. Hoever, there is no underestimating the stupidity of a scared politician, and many of the establishment RINOs are scared to death of the "Trump backlash"...normally something I would call a made up leftist thing, but Virginia showed that I might be mistaken. Contact your elected Congresscritters just in case, and explain your opposition to this bill.
armoredman is offline  
Old November 10, 2017, 06:33 AM   #55
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,206
Tom Servo - I've edited the OP to add Sheila Jackson's H.R.4268, so that the bills are all in one place.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 11, 2017, 08:28 PM   #56
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 7,089
Just read Feinstein’s latest AWB offering. Talk about badly drafted. That will be difficult for ATF to enforce and there will be outright loopholes that can be exploited by pro-2A. It is basically a slightly more onerous 1994 ban with some ridiculous language and exceptions.

All variants of AR15s are banned; but Mini-14s are specifically exempt.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old November 12, 2017, 07:23 AM   #57
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts
. . . .All variants of AR15s are banned; but Mini-14s are specifically exempt.
That just almost violates the rational basis test.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 12, 2017, 10:54 PM   #58
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,662
Quote:
That just almost violates the rational basis test.
ALMOST???

However, do we want to teach the gun banners how to write a "good" law?? I don't think it wise.

Its more costly, certainly, fight once their crap becomes law (if it actually does), but once "set" in the law, they cannot fix a glaring logic flaw with a simple editorial change in committee.

If we can prevail, and get a seriously flawed law thrown out by the courts, through due process, its "dead", and over with, null and void, toast.
(legal eagles, correct me if I'm wrong, please)

In order to replace what the voided law did, the entire process has to start over with a new bill being introduced.

And the momentum to pass a new version of what they screwed up on the first time might not be there.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 13, 2017, 03:58 AM   #59
gshayd
Member
 
Join Date: May 14, 2017
Posts: 50
I say let them write the laws that are stuck on stupid because when it gets to a court the Judge might say that its bad law and unenforceable and chunk it out. Take the AWB that was passed during Clinton's Administration it basically banned certain features on some rifles but not any thing that would effect the original function. I think it actually increased gun sales once manufacturers did the cosmetic changes. Once it was done I think it passed by one vote and politicians lost elections that supported it. No politician in Congress wanted to revisit it after that and it eventually expired.
gshayd is offline  
Old November 13, 2017, 06:26 AM   #60
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,206
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
ALMOST???
"Almost." I'm not a court and reluctant to make any hard predictions as to what a court might rule on that. Too many variables.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Its more costly, certainly, fight once their crap becomes law (if it actually does), but once "set" in the law, they cannot fix a glaring logic flaw with a simple editorial change in committee.

If we can prevail, and get a seriously flawed law thrown out by the courts, through due process, its "dead", and over with, null and void, toast.
(legal eagles, correct me if I'm wrong, please)
True, but with the not-insignificant downside that the bad law remains the law until a court tosses it.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 13, 2017, 11:29 AM   #61
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 17,662
Quote:
True, but with the not-insignificant downside that the bad law remains the law until a court tosses it.
True. And there's the rub. The effort we spend shooting holes in their bill teaches those who pay attention where they are vulnerable, and while we may be successful shooting down today's bill, the next one could have better "armor", because we showed them how, by pointing out the flaws in the current bill, in detail.

In this, human nature works against us. There are people who simply cannot grasp the importance of keeping their mouths shut in their own best interest. We say "we oppose this bill, because it infringes on our rights." They respond with questions about how, and where it does this, so that "in the spirit of compromise and working together" they can write/rewrite it into a "better" bill. (better, being defined by them, as something that get them what they want, banning guns, but better meaning less vulnerable to legal challenges)

And we have people on our side who will happily tell them, in detail, point by point. They think they are helping, but they aren't. They think that if the other side just understands our points, they will recognize the rightness of our positions, and stop trying to pass laws which infringe on our rights.

THEY WON'T.

I think it is a better tactic for our side to state our opposition, and not explain to the other side every point. Make them do their own homework!!!

it may not, of course, work in the long run, but I see no point in making their task of banning our guns any easier for them.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 13, 2017, 11:58 AM   #62
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 683
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
We say "we oppose this bill, because it infringes on our rights." They respond with questions about how, and where it does this, so that "in the spirit of compromise and working together" they can write/rewrite it into a "better" bill. (better, being defined by them, as something that get them what they want, banning guns, but better meaning less vulnerable to legal challenges)

And we have people on our side who will happily tell them, in detail, point by point. They think they are helping, but they aren't.

There isn't anything wrong with pointing out how a gun bill infringes on our gun rights because all such bills will restrict our gun rights in some way. It is another matter entirely to point out the loopholes or areas the law does not cover.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old November 22, 2017, 11:36 PM   #63
Ruark
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2010
Posts: 203
It's really notable that there hasn't been ANY legislation proposed to fix the ridiculously inadequate reporting to the NICS system, which is precisely how Devin Kelley was able to purchase his weapons. I read shortly after the incident that about 30% of disqualifying incidents are not reported by the Air Force, 50% by the Army, and an astounding 92% by the Navy. But I never hear a peep about this; it's all about banning this, banning that, etc.
Ruark is offline  
Old November 23, 2017, 01:12 AM   #64
armoredman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,595
I had heard that very idea was floated some years back and the Democrats sank it, can't remember where I read that one...
armoredman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07458 seconds with 10 queries