[petrarkaponye]

Stupid Question: If you own a handgun in the US, are you required to register it? Is this the responsibility of the person who sells it to you?

[Precturge]

If that's the case, then that amendment won't stand up to a legal challenge. There's nothing that prevents Congress from passing or the President from signing unconstitutional bills into law. That's why we have a Supreme Court: to protect and interpret the Constitution.

Bzzt! WRONG! While the Supreme Court may invalidate the law, there is no requirement that they do so, and, in this case, they have refused to directly rule so far.

However, the Supreme Court has, so far, declared this law Constitutional on other grounds, even though, in this case, the law was being applied after-the-fact.

[elton]

Bzzt! WRONG! While the Supreme Court may invalidate the law, there is no requirement that they do so, and, in this case, they have refused to directly rule so far.

However, the Supreme Court has, so far, declared this law Constitutional on other grounds, even though, in this case, the law was being applied after-the-fact.

So, just curious, how do you explain the refusal by an unarguably conservative court to hear these appeals?

Of course, I can imagine the reluctance by certain officials to stand up for the gun rights of those convicted of domestic violence...

[Precturge]

I have little doubt that's probably why, but the court never gave a reason nor is it required to do so.

[Dwencejed]

Bzzt! WRONG! While the Supreme Court may invalidate the law, there is no requirement that they do so, and, in this case, they have refused to directly rule so far.

How is what I said wrong? If you think a law is unconstitutional, you submit a brief to the Supreme Court; if you case has legal merit, they hear it.

The Supremes don't go examining the constitutionality of every law that's passed; if they did so, they'd be treating on the feet of the legislative branch and violating the separation of powers.

[Precturge]

How is what I said wrong? If you think a law is unconstitutional, you submit a brief to the Supreme Court; if you case has legal merit, they hear it.

Once again, that did happen. Once again, they are under no obligation to review any case. Indeed, in U.S. v. Hayes, they upheld said law, though not specifically upholding that aspect.

[Dwencejed]

Once again, that did happen. Once again, they are under no obligation to review any case. Indeed, in U.S. v. Hayes, they upheld said law, though not specifically upholding that aspect.

And if the Court decides not to hear a case it's because they feel that it has no merit or that a lower court's ruling should stand.

[jhkjurter]

And if the Court decides not to hear a case it's because they feel that it has no merit or that a lower court's ruling should stand.

Aren't conservatives the ones who yell and scream when a court overturns duly-enacted legislation that court is being "activist" and we need to get rid of all the "activist" judges?

Now you guys want an activist court?

Time to be honest ... you simply want what everyone wants, a court that makes decisions consistent with your political philosophy. "Activism" has nothing to do with it.

[Assentesy]

Stupid Question: If you own a handgun in the US, are you required to register it? Is this the responsibility of the person who sells it to you?

It varies from state to state (and sometimes dependent on if it the buyer/seller is a private individual or a business).

[tigoCeree]

A case could be made that this is unwarranted and intimidating, which seems to be the purpose.

i suppose an argument could be made that any time the police try to enforce the law it's intimidating, but how is it unwarranted?

[Precturge]

And if the Court decides not to hear a case it's because they feel that it has no merit or that a lower court's ruling should stand.

Or it's because they don't want to, are too busy, etc.

[Precturge]

Aren't conservatives the ones who yell and scream when a court overturns duly-enacted legislation that court is being "activist" and we need to get rid of all the "activist" judges?

Now you guys want an activist court?

Time to be honest ... you simply want what everyone wants, a court that makes decisions consistent with your political philosophy. "Activism" has nothing to do with it.

Why is it liberals argue in favor of upholding a law that blatantly violates the Constitution? Time to be honest...you simply want what everyone wants, rights with which you agree upheld and ones you don't eviscerated.

[Precturge]

i suppose an argument could be made that any time the police try to enforce the law it's intimidating, but how is it unwarranted?

Leaving out the issue that a registry serves little or no valid purpose other than for confiscatory purposes, the same thing can be accomplished with a letter and would probably be cheaper.

[petrarkaponye]

Leaving out the issue that a registry serves little or no valid purpose other than for confiscatory purposes...

My concern when I asked the question above. I mean, were I to buy a gun, I would not want to register it. What business is it of the state's if I have a firearm or not.

[Nutpoode]

Aren't conservatives the ones who yell and scream when a court overturns duly-enacted legislation that court is being "activist" and we need to get rid of all the "activist" judges?

Is it me or does it seem like this poster has to add the word "conservative" and one or more of the following words into every one of their posts.

bitch
moan
scream
whine
yell


Who here is doing any of those? it seems like a pretty civil debate.

[Precturge]

My concern when I asked the question above. I mean, were I to buy a gun, I would not want to register it. What business is it of the state's if I have a firearm or not.

Exactly. Registries are actually counterproductive, as in the case of Canada's. But sorry for missing your earlier question, but when you fill out the Form 4473, you, in a sense, are registering it. The difference between the U.S. system and full-blown registries is that the 4473 is kept by the gun dealer until he goes out of business, in which case it goes to the feds. Therefore, it links the gun, you, and the dealer. PA also maintains a registry, in violation of Pennsylvania State and Federal law.

[Precturge]

Is it me or does it seem like this poster has to add the word "conservative" and one or more of the following words into every one of their posts.

bitch
moan
scream
whine
yell


Who here is doing any of those? it seems like a pretty civil debate.

Yeah, you're right. I should stop letting this crybaby drag the discussion down. She never has anything valuable to contribute.

[petrarkaponye]

Exactly. Registries are actually counterproductive, as in the case of Canada's. But sorry for missing your earlier question, but when you fill out the Form 4473, you, in a sense, are registering it. The difference between the U.S. system and full-blown registries is that the 4473 is kept by the gun dealer until he goes out of business, in which case it goes to the feds. Therefore, it links the gun, you, and the dealer. PA also maintains a registry, in violation of Pennsylvania State and Federal law.

So, in the US, you're unable to purchase a firearm without registering it by using form 4473?

[Assentesy]

So, in the US, you're unable to purchase a firearm without registering it by using form 4473?

It depends where you live. In PA all transactions must be recorded. I've lived in other states where sales bewtween private individuals were just that, private.

[Precturge]

So, in the US, you're unable to purchase a firearm without registering it by using form 4473?

From a dealer, no. The 4473 is required every time. You can purchase a gun from a private individual in some states without the 4473. However, few people would sell you one without at least making a copy of your driver's license, as if the gun were used in a crime and a trace done, the paper trail would end with the seller.