Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Confiscation Has Started!
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ace_on_the_Turn" data-source="post: 2137613" data-attributes="member: 27417"><p>The hospital was not instrumental in voiding her constitutional rights, federal law is why she lost her right. You seem to be arguing against settled federal law. The question is not if she is a danger, it's that by being committed she's lost her right to own a firearm. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the law, but the SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of denying the right to own a firearm for a person that has been committed. In writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller Justice Scalia wrote; "The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...(A)ssuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights" Federal law holds, very clearly, that being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital is a disqualifying event. Understand that what California is doing is not based on California law. It's based on federal law. Any state could chose to do it tomorrow without passing any law. And it's not new. Keep in mind that there are over 200,000 people, nationwide, that are now disqualified. Last year, about 2000 of them had their firearms confiscated. That's 1% of disqualified people (most are due to felon conviction and VPO's, not mental health issues) losing their firearms. And there is a process in place to get them back, if a judge rules they are legally able to own a firearm. Arguing that this case is the "start of confiscation" is tilting at windmills. </p><p></p><p>As gun owners and supporters of the 2nd, we need to pick our battles wisely and not buy into the demagoguery of the Beck's and Jones'.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ace_on_the_Turn, post: 2137613, member: 27417"] The hospital was not instrumental in voiding her constitutional rights, federal law is why she lost her right. You seem to be arguing against settled federal law. The question is not if she is a danger, it's that by being committed she's lost her right to own a firearm. Again, I'm not saying I agree with the law, but the SCOTUS has upheld the constitutionality of denying the right to own a firearm for a person that has been committed. In writing for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller Justice Scalia wrote; "The Court has upheld gun control legislation including prohibitions on concealed weapons and possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...(A)ssuming Heller is not otherwise disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights" Federal law holds, very clearly, that being involuntarily committed to a mental hospital is a disqualifying event. Understand that what California is doing is not based on California law. It's based on federal law. Any state could chose to do it tomorrow without passing any law. And it's not new. Keep in mind that there are over 200,000 people, nationwide, that are now disqualified. Last year, about 2000 of them had their firearms confiscated. That's 1% of disqualified people (most are due to felon conviction and VPO's, not mental health issues) losing their firearms. And there is a process in place to get them back, if a judge rules they are legally able to own a firearm. Arguing that this case is the "start of confiscation" is tilting at windmills. As gun owners and supporters of the 2nd, we need to pick our battles wisely and not buy into the demagoguery of the Beck's and Jones'. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Confiscation Has Started!
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom