Federal Judge strikes down Handgun Transfer Ban

Discussion in 'Politics' started by BRZBoy, Feb 12, 2015.

  1. Anti-gun Nazis time to suck it again. Well you guys always are sucking it. We are like the abortion lovers. Every law dealing with abortion gets removed, struck down etc etc. Same with gun laws. You idiots pass laws dealing with it then we get off our asses pay whatever it takes to take to court. Then liberal court, conservative courts your little gun laws get removed.
     
    Its not final but working its way to the Federal Appeals court which time and time again sides with the gun owners.
     
    Basically the just of it is that before yesterday being a out of state person and buying a pistol was banned. Now its not. That in itself is a form of gun control allowing a state to dictate to you your purchase essentially.
     
    Now how this is big is the good people of California can go to Arizona buy a weapon and as long as that weapon is legal and they have legally obtained it regardless of what the Nazis of California want bring that gun back to that state.
     
    Enjoy sucking the big one Nazis. You people do it well and almost at a pro level.
     
    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/02/foghorn/breaking-federal-judge-declares-interstate-handgun-transfer-ban-unconstitutional/

     
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Score one for the good guys!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Im sure MoonBeam will find some other way to infringe upon gun owners rights.
     
  4. Man living in California I hope this happens
     
  5. I'm glad since it really annoys me when laws are made with emotional reasoning instead of empirical reasoning.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Not long before judge loses job

    -yuri
     
  7.  
    Are federal judges not elected in the States?
     
  8. Like it or not. Banning guns does save lives.
     
  9. And sometimes costs lives
     
  10.  
    There is literally no empirical proof of this.
     
  11. #12 Deleted member 839659, Feb 16, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2015
     
    Lol, Are you saying that after banning guns the same number of people would die annually from gun violence? Over 10,000 people died last year.
     
    I'm not saying you should ban guns, just change the laws a tad. People should get what they want though.
     
    Simple math dictates however less guns, less shootings leads to less killings.
     
    Empirical evidence would point to Australia. They reformed their gun laws and gun related homicide fell by 59 percent. And suicide by firearms fell by over 60 percent.
     
    edit : As a grammar nazi I'm going to have to ask you to please use the word "literally" in a more responsible fashion. That's very offensive to my people.
     
  12.  
    And overall violent crime went up 50%. Australia is not a compelling model for gun control.
     
    There's actually a significant amount of evidence that banning guns can increase gun deaths and gun crime.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Yeah, just look at Chicago. Guns are all but totally banned there and the crime and murder rate went through the roof. I used to work on the south and west side there and I wouldn't wish that shithole on my enemies.
     
  14.  
    Murder went down. If you want to change the subject to overall crime, then sure you've got a point.
     
  15.  
     
    It's too late to ban guns.
     
    There are already hundreds of millions of guns in circulation and people have the right to protect themselves from criminals with guns.
     
  16.  
    Yeah it's engrained in the American culture and the law won't make a difference.
     

Share This Page