2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Bota-CS1 on February 26, 2018, 01:40:39 PM
-
https://www.scribd.com/document/372469353/Assault-Weapons-Ban-of-2018?irgwc=1&content=27795&campaign=VigLink&ad_group=1980661&keyword=ft500noi&source=impactradius&medium=affiliate#from_embed
-
At this point I'm kind of interested to see how far it goes. I have a vintage AR that would probably fund three or four new builds if the market is right.
-
Not hoping it goes through but if it does this will have to end up before SCOTUS and if it does they would have to rule in unconstitutional and as such change a lot of gun laws.
from Heller
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
The AR15 and such other so called assault weapons are the firearm that would make up that of the militia and are in common use for lawful purposes. For the court to find them ban able they would have to ignore the case law of miller and of Heller.
-
SHIT.... guess the 2019 Hawaii Legislative Session is going to be a bitch considering the copy-cat syndrome of Hawaii politicians.
-
Friend from NC said he went to a gun store there today. All AR15s are SOLD OUT.
The Obama effect continues ....
-
SHIT.... guess the 2019 Hawaii Legislative Session is going to be a bitch considering the copy-cat syndrome of Hawaii politicians.
kalifornia passed a featureless stock bill this year, i am told...
-
kalifornia passed a featureless stock bill this year, i am told...
They definitely did! If an owner did not register a non Kalifornia compliant assault weapon before the beginning of this year, it is illegal.
The politicians and tree huggers are betting on attrition getting rid of all the scary black rifles. Patience and time will rid them of their problem (cannot transfer an assault weapon to next of kin).
They snuck it in as a line item in the last voting year’s laws. If you wanted the gun show loophole and some other common sense gun laws to get passed into law, you had to accept this line item of the law.
The Kommunist also snuck in background checks for ammo and no shipping of ammo into the state.
-
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087
Hey, it's cosponsored by our future governor. I really hope Gabbard doesn't jump on this too.
-
Sad because all the insane laws, and not just gun laws, eventually drive really good people out of these states, or at least those people who can leave and are willing to uproot everything. In the end, the liberal politicians win and have a state full of like minded flaming liberals. California is the prototype and that state is full of flaming liberals, who love their sanctuary cities, disarming the citizenry little by little, hatred for law enforcement and enforcement of the laws, etc, etc. Hawaii is heading down a very similar path.
-
hatred for law enforcement and enforcement of the laws, etc, etc. Hawaii is heading down a very similar path.
I'm pretty sure Hawaii's law enforcement earned their bad reputation all on their own. That and the Dems looked the other way and pretty much gave them permission to get as dirty as they like. Can't have a police state without the police.
-
The Kommunist also snuck in background checks for ammo and no shipping of ammo into the state.
If I lived in CA I would just drive out of state to buy ammo. Front Sight is real close to the CA border and Stockpile Defense there sells tens of millions rounds of ammo each year.
-
If I lived in CA I would just drive out of state to buy ammo. Front Sight is real close to the CA border and Stockpile Defense there sells tens of millions rounds of ammo each year.
That is illegal. You must purchase all ammo from a state-authorized dealer within the borders of California, all other options are illegal. They stop you at the border and ask "Do you have any fruit, vegetables or ammo in your vehicle?"
In the near future (July or Jan 1, 2019?) all ammo purchasers must have a license/permit/card issued by the state after a background check to purchase any ammo. I'm sure all these "commonsense gun safety regulations" are on the list of the Hawaii AG and numerous state legislators. Only a matter of time.
-
Oh my god, they're trying to ban Hi Point carbines by name?
This is the most ridiculous bit of legislature I've ever seen, no way it'll pass. My wife and I are still writing our congressmen this weekend though, just in case.
-
So far all the dems support this bill. But they would still need some republicans to support also. We all know McCain will support this. But how many more votes do they need?
I wrote to the 4 senators, thanks London for the info.
-
Sad because all the insane laws, and not just gun laws, eventually drive really good people out of these states, or at least those people who can leave and are willing to uproot everything. In the end, the liberal politicians win and have a state full of like minded flaming liberals. California is the prototype and that state is full of flaming liberals, who love their sanctuary cities, disarming the citizenry little by little, hatred for law enforcement and enforcement of the laws, etc, etc. Hawaii is heading down a very similar path.
Yes it's sad, but as they flee the state they still take their "feel good" policies and politics with them and infect the next place they live. All you have to do is look at Vegas. It used to be a 90% red area when I moved there in 96. When I left in 2014 it was 80% blue, thanks to the Cali influx
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Yes it's sad, but as they flee the state they still take their "feel good" policies and politics with them and infect the next place they live. All you have to do is look at Vegas. It used to be a 90% red area when I moved there in 96. When I left in 2014 it was 80% blue, thanks to the Cali influx
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Vegas is still blue, but they support gun rights (CCW, normal cap mags, bump stocks, etc...)
I'm planning on retiring in a pro 2a state 40 years from now.
-
(https://gabfiles.blob.core.windows.net/image/5a905befb2c8c.jpeg)
-
Trump met with the NRA and I hope they informed him to veto this bill.
-
Hey, it's cosponsored by our future governor. I really hope Gabbard doesn't jump on this too.
Dammit Gabbard just jumped on as a cosponsor. That makes 173 dems out of 193.
-
Dammit Gabbard just jumped on as a cosponsor. That makes 173 dems out of 193.
1. Yeah, the Dems are going (trigger warning!) full retard on all the gun restriction legislation.
2. Aren't you the guy who a while ago was proclaiming that Gabbard was "open to persuasion"? Has your time in the trenches straightened you out? ;) :shaka:
-
1. Yeah, the Dems are going (trigger warning!) full retard on all the gun restriction legislation.
2. Aren't you the guy who a while ago was proclaiming that Gabbard was "open to persuasion"? Has your time in the trenches straightened you out? ;) :shaka:
Gabbard is the most conservative out of the 4, I think she was a Republican in the past. She sometimes will go on her own instead of follow the party.
The problem is I can't get people to get out and persuade her.
-
Gabbard is the most conservative out of the 4, I think she was a Republican in the past. She sometimes will go on her own instead of follow the party.
The problem is I can't get people to get out and persuade her.
Just vote her out. I know monumental feat for a blue state
-
Just vote her out. I know monumental feat for a blue state
Just vote her out. I know monumental impossible feat for a blue state
FIFY
2016 Vote:
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PCT.
Tulsi Gabbard Democrat 170,848 81.2%
Angela Kaaihue Republican 39,668 18.8%
-
Just vote her out. I know monumental impossible feat for a blue state
FIFY
2016 Vote:
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTES PCT.
Tulsi Gabbard Democrat 170,848 81.2%
Angela Kaaihue Republican 39,668 18.8%
To be fair, Kaaihue is a certified nut. I went to HS with her. All sorts of drama with friends of mine. Try look up her antics in social media.
-
To be fair, Kaaihue is a certified nut. I went to HS with her. All sorts of drama with friends of mine. Try look up her antics in social media.
Was Kawika Crowley "a certified nut" too? If not, is being a sane competent candidate worthy of receiving almost 1% FEWER votes? Name someone who would have even a snowball's chance in hell of beating Gabbard. She's the darling of this leftist progressive union-run nanny state hellhole called Hawaii.
U.S. House, Hawaii District 2 General Election, 2014
Party Candidate Vote % Votes
Democratic Tulsi Gabbard 75.8% 141,996
Republican Kawika Crowley 17.9% 33,624
Libertarian Joe Kent 2.5% 4,692
Total Votes 180,312
Source: Hawaii Office of Elections
-
Was Kawika Crowley "a certified nut" too? If not, is being a sane competent candidate worthy of receiving almost 1% FEWER votes? Name someone who would have even a snowball's chance in hell of beating Gabbard. She's the darling of this leftist progressive union-run nanny state hellhole called Hawaii.
U.S. House, Hawaii District 2 General Election, 2014
Party Candidate Vote % Votes
Democratic Tulsi Gabbard 75.8% 141,996
Republican Kawika Crowley 17.9% 33,624
Libertarian Joe Kent 2.5% 4,692
Total Votes 180,312
Source: Hawaii Office of Elections
Um, Kawika Crowley
(https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/121026094520-01-kawika-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg)
He lives/lived in that thing and would park it near my house to wave signs, lol.