Blue States Should Outlaw Guns And Pay Rewards To People Who Report The Scofflaws
I have heard this brought up multiple times in videos and podcasts.
Without trying to create too fine of detail, this is the idea. Blue states where Democrats control the governorship and the state legislature should pass laws outlawing AR-15's immediately and offer rewards to people who anonymously report gun ownership by others.
The premise is the same as the anti-abortion bill in Texas. Citizens would sue gun owners for breaking the new state law. If they win the suit they would receive 10,000 dollars.
-
It's hard to see how such laws would be any less credible than the Texas abortion law.
Abortion is a constitutional right , and so is gun ownership. But conservatives seem to think the abortion law is ok, so then a law barring AR-15 ownership must be ok too.
I'm sure we can all agree about that.
Tags
Who is online
105 visitors
The Democrats should fight fire with fire.
Reward? Ooh! I want to rat on Vinney!
You might find, in the current make-up, a substantial issue will blow the back wall out of the current attitude that states can require a permit, then deny to issue - based on a whim.
Own at least one gun for every occasion except for a highly long range 2000 yard rifle.
There are very few rifles that can shoot at that range and they are all extremely expensive.
Out here on the prairie flat shooting at long-range is all the rage now.
My 30:06 shoots well but can't keep up with the new speed burners at extreme ranges.
You think the Supreme Court would allow that?
Please show us where abortion is listed anywhere in Constitution as a right, like the right to bare arms is?
The Supreme Court did make a law up out of thin air in Roe vs Wade; but no where in the US Constitution is abortion specifically listed as a right.
And of course Law enforcement in rural counties in these blue states would never assist in any such effort. Even now with the gun grabbing laws blue states have the red counties enforce nothing. Instead we have 2A sanctuary counties.
The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a constitutional right just like they ruled that gun ownership is a constitutional right. What are you talking about?
Ronin2 is making the argument that Roe (Abortion law) is not a right passed by 'contract' in the Constitution (state/federal houses) - (like Bill of Rights and additional amendments). S/he is arguing any law not written in plain language in the constitution 'record' (20 plus amendments) is not wholly AGREED to and can be re-litigated over and over (ad nauseam) if given a hearing in a court! That is seeking a 'favorable' court outcome (for one's side).
In a more oblique sense, the conservative argument goes there is no direct mention of a right to privacy in the Constitution, thus they maintain Justice Blackmun assent and opining made it up.
He also doesn't seem to understand how judicial review works.
If all that was sold was slingshots, the 2nd would not be violated. Nowhere in the 2A does it specify which "arms" must be sold.
What law did they make up? Specify the law in the law books! Or do you seriously think something must be explicitly stated in the constitution to be valid?
Any attempt to actually enforce such a law would be dismissed.
Then you agree that any attempt to actually enforce the Texas law would be dismissed.
As long as roe is the law, yes
Please cite where in the US Constitution I can read that abortion "is a constitutional right". Thank you.
The Supreme Court ruled that it is a constitutional right on January 22, 1973,
The Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in favor of Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") that held that women in the United States have a fundamental right to choose whether or not to have abortions.
. . . Which leads to why it keeps coming up ad nauseam, conservatives contest roe, though it has precedence on its positive side, it does not have force of amending the Constitution (which is a contract with a majority of states).
As long as roe vs Wade is law there will be no end to the fight over the issue as long as time shall last. It was illegitimate in the way it was imposed upon us and will will never accept it or make peace with it.
Then your losing streak will continue to last too.
Illegitimate how exactly? Be specific!
That's your problem then! Your acceptance is irrelevant. It's established and reaffirmed legal precedent.
Such remarks are full-on manic at certain junctures. Who can make sense of such statements bursting forth from you?
Please cite where in the Constitution abortion is not a right?
Lol..that’s not how any of this works
Actually, that IS how the Constitution works, hence the 9th Amendment.
So I take it you can't point out where in the Constitution it says abortion is not a right. Fortunately, the SCOTUS has determined abortion is a right based on the Constitution.
You're too late to propose that states outlaw guns and use citizen reporting to enforce gun laws. That's already been done. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and the District of Columbia have already banned assault rifles. Many cities have adopted even stricter gun control laws than have states. Chicago has gone so far as banning gun shops.
The Texas anti-abortion law is actually modeled on gun control laws that have already been adopted by many cities and states and tested in the courts. Gun control advocates have led the way in demonstrating how abortion can be banned.
Ok, lets make it not assault rifles. Lets make it all guns.
Some cities have already banned all guns.
Suing gun manufacturers, gun retailers, private sellers, and gun owners is already being advocated. That's no different than suing abortion providers and facilitators. An individual building their own firearm to skirt the law isn't any different than seeking a back alley abortion. The courts reinterpreting the 2nd amendment to make gun control legally easier isn't any different than the courts reinterpreting Roe v. Wade to make abortion restrictions easier.
The anit-gun movement has opened the door and paved the way for the anti-abortion movement. Gun control advocates really have provided the model for banning abortion. What works to legally restrict firearms will also work to legally restrict abortions.
Owning a firearm is a personal choice just like seeking an abortion. There isn't anything special about abortions.
All the more reason I'm thankful I live in Arizona!
Please post a link of a gun control law that is enforced by random people rather than law enforcement.
What the Supreme Court giveth, the Supreme Court can taketh away.
Perhaps you missed that part of my question that states 'random people' Nerm.
The Sandy Hook Families personally suffered HARM, in short they have standing to sue. The Texas law turns jurisprudence on it's head and allows 'random people' WITHOUT standing to sue for 'damages' that they have not suffered. It's vigilantism.
4TH Amendment protects abortion
That's not what the Supreme Court says. There is no textual case for it being a Constitutional right. People who support abortion think it should be because it's something they like, so they try and jam it into various clauses that no honest reading could possible support. Some people believe their own policy preferences match up exactly with is Constitutional and whatever they don't like is Unconstitutional .
Charles Cooke recently summed up Roe using the words of a pro-choice legal scholar pretty succinctly:
On what basis is abortion illegal?
Which is probably correct. The founders, while enshrining certain concepts of rights and privileges did not have the ability (or luxury) to know what science would wrought in several hundred years. For that they entrusted future citizens to be peace-loving and on one accord to make wise decision-making laws to extent basis understanding. That is, make positive amendments to the document they created, or in stead of that, make laws for themselves pivoting from the original.
The founders would be horrified to learn we can do not do this properly, with all our sophistication! (Today many of our leaders are like 'perpetual petulant' children trying to take some thing or another from ourselves.)
Thus, Justice Blackmun in seeking a way to help girls and women deviced a 'method' of privacy from the clauses of the Constitution-leading to conservatives arguing that the Constitution is static and not a 'living' —document. It must be treated and regarded with its original intent and not that which we 'gradual' to modern times to give it.
That is, conservatives argue that if you want something 'modern' (at whichever point in time) you have to amend the constitution with state and federal houses' blessing. Or it can be re-litigated at any times. Subject to any law that can be otherwise changed (without going through the amendment processes, plural.)
Abortion is not illegal. Thus, Texas and any other state can not stop abortion proceedings itself as an entity.
However, red states have been looking for a 'novel' way to interfere (undermine) with the (privacy) model. This new 'tactic' which bypasses the state as a entity (though with state sanctioning) is what a red state has come up with, which the SCOTUS is momentarily 'caught in the headlights.' The unanswered question: Can a state legally allow its citizens to interfere with each other's privacy in the manner being described?
On a Constitutional basis? There is none. It's silent on the topic.
But the SCOTUS was not. They said abortion is legal. 'Nuff said! It's laws making it illegal that are unconstitutional.
Thats not what I asked you. On what basis is it illegal? Are you saying abortion is murder? What court or jury would convict an abortionist of murder?
On the same basis we have any other law.
Thanks for restating the obvious. I'll restate this again, since you didn't seem to understand it the first time.
As the pro-choice legal scholar John Hart Ely noted a few months after the decision was handed down, Roe was indefensible in every conceivable way that a Supreme Court decision could be indefensible. From whole cloth, Ely wrote, Roe created a “super-protected right” that “is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure,” and thus answered “a question the Constitution has not made the Court’s business.” Roe “is bad,” he concluded, “because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
Roe has no textual basis. If the Court does it's job and interprets the actual text of the Constitution, we will be back where we should be, and we can do away with the fiction that g the Constitution has anything to say about abortion.
Even with that, testing for length of pregnancy is an unreasonable search and violation of being secure in their person
Apparently, some things need to be restated.
What you don't seem to understand is Mr. Ely is stating an opinion. And one which the SCOTUS disagrees with. In addition, Roe is a legal precedent, based on the interpretation of the Constitution by the SCOTUS (which is their job) to determine the constitutionality of then laws prohibiting abortion. The Roe precedent has only been affirmed and expanded on in subsequent challenges and rulings. Nice try Sean. But epic fail on your part!
"The general right of privacy is inferred, as it was in Griswold v. Connecticut,50 from various provisions of the Bill of Rights manifesting a concern with privacy, notably the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches, the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, and the right, inferred from the First Amendment, to keep one's political associations secret."
BTFW, Ely doesn't 'note' that Roe v. Wade is indefensible, that's Cooke's OPINION.
Abortion is a victimless 'crime. '
No one on this earth can prove that a fetus is a human being with rights. It is an opinion. There are equally valid and persuasive opinions which assert that the fetus has no rights.
We dont have that situation with other crimes like robbery, assault, hit and run, rape, etc. There are living breathing victims of those crimes.
therefore; by the 10th Amendment, it is for the states or to the people. States do not have abortions so this is to the people for themselves without anything from Federal or State government. The 10th says Abortion is unregulated
A woman who plans to terminate her pregnancy usually refers to the life within her as "the fetus." But if she intends to deliver and love and care for the little child, she affectionately calls him or her "my baby."
The need for this distinction is obvious: If a woman is going terminate her pregnancy without feeling guilt, she must first strip it of worth and dignity. She must give it a clinical name that denies its personhood. That has been so effectively accomplished in our society that an unborn child during his first six months in gestation can now be sacrificed with no sense of loss on anyone's part. There would be a far greater public outcry if we were destroying puppies or kittens than there is for the nearly million abortions that occur in America each year. This reflects the casualness with which we have accepted these deaths by writing,"[abortions] should be available in the same way as, say, an operation for beautification of the nose."
If you don't want something usually you don't take good care of it
What term the mother uses to describe what is in her 'stomach' isnt really relevant. What is relevant is at what point the fetus becomes viable to live outside the womb.
Irrelevant. It's still her choice what she decides to do.
No. It's also irrelevant.
Where do you get of presuming how anyone feels if they decide to end a pregnancy or not?
See previous statement.
Emotional rhetoric and drivel. Is there some point to all that?
I once heard a professional meat packer CEO clarify when a cow becomes meat: Only when the head is removed from the carcass.
These terms mean something in the body of law. Don't forget that when you pour it on trying to stir up emotions.
Yes! A fetus develops into a full-on baby all things being equal. However, that is the point of the 'exercise' of abortion, to end the development before accepting it as proper.