Supreme Court affirms restrictions on buying guns for third party

[sudden valley gunner]

Every federal court that hears a state level case is legislating from the bench. The federal courts must deny the feds a redress of wrongs at every opportunity. Simplicity itself: "This is a state matter, case dismissed."

The federal courts are co-conspirators in the infringement of states rights and the rights of the people. The only thing we need to know about the federal court system and their collusion with the federal government to infringe upon our rights is Terry v. Ohio and the Kelo Decision.

+1

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In general, I don't either. What I have an issue with in this case is not the unconstitutional rules - because those were not challenged anywhere IN the case. The reason I take issue with the case is because the buyer was perfectly fine with the "rules" until they bit him in the ass, and then in the end he bounced through multiple "reasons" why he should not be held to account to rules he followed (albeit dishonestly). Under the law, the decision was the correct one. Whether the law itself is constitutional is another matter - but one that NEVER came up. What he should have done is challenged whether or not such a form is legal - especially since an answer of "no" would infringe upon his right to gain access to the firearm. The mere fact he went through numerous excuses tells me this was never really about a constitutional question to start with. He fibbed, got busted, and tried to whine his way out of it. That isn't how our forefathers would have dealt with an unconstitutional or unlawful rule.

*Read the Declaration of Arms - they challenged the existing power structure while working within it. Did they pay illegal taxes in part while whining, or did they say "hey, this isn't right, we won't do it (dump tea here) and look at government in the face with a deadly earnest? I think we know the answer....*

Where we won't agree is whether Courts should be going outside the question before them. Doing so has created the problem of legislating form the Bench - and they shouldn't be doing it - regardless of whether its a "win" or a "loss" on a subject I care about. Whether they do it or not - we both know they do. Should they? Absolutely not. It is that action that has made them part legislature - which was never their constitutional purpose.

While I agree the form is a violation of the Constitution, I can see background checks as an infringement as well. At least, if one is denied the right to purchase. The same could be said for "may issue" states when it comes to permitting. A refusal to permit a person to carry - or even the requirement that they go to some "government approved" class to get such a permit - is an infringement.

It's that rule he go in trouble for though it's under that rule the courts should have struck his conviction down.

I am sure many of the colonist paid the taxes they were afraid of men wearing redcoats with guns. Many ignored the laws and were smugglers. The act of breaking and entering into a ship and destroying property was an illegal act too.

The courts should go outside the question before them when the conviction is based on that question. As a juror I would have said not guilty because the law itself whether it is being argued or not is unconstitutional. SCOTUS should have done the same.

Yes back ground checks are unconstitutional. So is May issue. So is issuing any permission at all. Yet I have my state issued permit because it means not dealing with the violent coercive force of the state at this moment. It doesn't mean I am "conforming" or approve. It doesn't mean I don't do everything I can to minimize it in my life.