Amateur Hour Continues

[Velo Vol]

Is what's being debated that Congres hasn't authorized a registry?

Or that Congress can't create a registry (unconstitutional)?

Those are two different things.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I know. I know. You've had enough crow for the day. Just one last dunk on you because it's so easy and fun.

As I mentioned, your reading comprehension is suspect. This is apparently the quote you're referring to from the Gifford's website:


SUMMARY OF FEDERAL LAW
There is no comprehensive national system of gun registration. In fact, federal law prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.

Note it does not say that there is a per se federal bar on the creation of a gun registration system. Rather it states that NICS can't be used to create such a system.

LMFAO! You’re a brilliant paralegal that has found the magical loophole that circumvents FOPA1986 and allows the Feds to create a national firearms registry under current law! Bravo.

God I bet you drive your husband nuts.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Is what's being debated that Congres hasn't authorized a registry? they haven’t and current law prevents any fed entity from creating “rules or regulations” to create one.

Or that Congress can't create a registry (unconstitutional)? they can via creation of a new law. The constitution is quiet on the topic of a registry. However that would be in conflict with FOPA1986 and require reconciliation since the new law would create a registry that current law forbids the implementation of.

Those are two different things.

 

[evillawyer]

Is what's being debated that Congres hasn't authorized a registry?

Or that Congress can't create a registry (unconstitutional)?

Those are two different things.

Apparently, our crow-eating friend thinks that Congress, under current statutory law, can't create a gun registry system. He begrudgingly admits such a system is likely constitutional. However, his support for the statutory bar argument is a code section that places constraints on the rules and regulations the AG/DOJ can promulgate. He thinks that this would have to be repealed before Congress could create such a registration system. He fails to see a distinction between a statute and an agency-promulgated rule/regulation, and he is unaware that statutes can be repealed by implication.

He is also fond of saying I'm not a lawyer, despite me repeatedly dunking on him over this issue. That's the current state of play, basically.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Apparently, our crow-eating friend thinks that Congress, under current statutory law, can't create a gun registry system. He begrudgingly admits such a system is likely constitutional. However, his support for the statutory bar argument is a code section that places constraints on the rules and regulations the AG/DOJ can promulgate. He thinks that this would have to be repealed before Congress could create such a registration system. He fails to see a distinction between a statute and an agency-promulgated rule/regulation, and he is unaware that statutes can be repealed by implication.

He is also fond of saying I'm not a lawyer, despite me repeatedly dunking on him over this issue. That's the current state of play, basically.

OMFG you are dense and disingenuous.

Current law prohibits any federal agency from implementing a national registry via the “rules and regulations” that would need to be promulgated to implement the registry. It’s a “you can’t write rules to do this”.

Congress will have to create a NEW law mandating a registry which at that time is in conflict of the current law. They aren’t allowed to implement the regulations.

And you’ve spent multiple pages claiming dunking on a magic loop hole that says nothing is preventing congress from creating a NEW law. No **** Sherlock. And if they do they will have to rewrite the clause in FOPA1986 to allow that implementation. And you’re totally ignoring the monumental effort of selling that. LMFAO. Go nuts and get er done sweetheart.

 

[Velo Vol]

And if they do they will have to rewrite the clause in FOPA1986 to allow that implementation.

Everyone agrees that Congress would have to pass a law for a registry. And in doing so it would overwrite the previous law.

Not sure what the point of this debate is.

 

[McDad]

Sorry @McDad. Let me look back at what you asked. I had two trolls I had to dunk on first.

Lol. The phrase "dunking on trolls" makes me laugh because i am a juvenile.

 

[evillawyer]

To avoid doubt, it probably would amend/repeal the prior law. But the prior law has no effect on Congress' legislative power and is no impediment to new congressional action.

Everyone agrees that Congress would have to pass a law for a registry. And in doing so it would overwrite the previous law.

Not sure what the point of this debate is.

 

[McDad]

In theory, I have nothing against voting id requirements as long as it is not used, and does not have the effect, of suppressing the vote.

in like manner, if gun ownership was found to be suppressed in law abiding, conscientious citizens, would it be problematic for you?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Everyone agrees that Congress would have to pass a law for a registry. And in doing so it would overwrite the previous law.

Not sure what the point of this debate is.

Take it up with evil. She’s the one claiming it’s simple to do and spent the last three pages telling us there’s nothing preventing it

Registry being Constitutional /= having a snowballs chance in hell of getting it

Hell they can’t even get Federal Assault Weapons Ban 1994 turned back on. So she’s screeching and lashing out... as usual.

Lol...

 

[NorthDallas40]

To avoid doubt, it probably would amend/repeal the prior law. But the prior law has no effect on Congress' legislative power and is no impediment to new congressional action.

NO **** SHERLOCK?!

 

[NorthDallas40]

in like manner, if gun ownership was found to be suppressed in law abiding, conscientious citizens, would it be problematic for you?

Good luck on that one!

 

[RikidyBones]

in like manner, if gun ownership was found to be suppressed in law abiding, conscientious citizens, would it be problematic for you?

@evillawyer I'd hate for you to miss this inquiry.

 

[McDad]

Good luck on that one!

I don't see inconsistency in the question. both voting and gun ownership are voluntary rights guaranteed and not compulsory . If it is troubling one can be suppressed by regulation, isn't it also troubling the other can be as well?

 

[NorthDallas40]

I don't see inconsistency in the question. both voting and gun ownership are voluntary rights guaranteed and not compulsory . If it is troubling one can be suppressed by regulation, isn't is also troubling the other can be as well?

No I agree with you. She just won’t answer she will ignore it. She is convinced her mama told her all guns are evil and from the debil

 

[RikidyBones]

I don't see inconsistency in the question. both voting and gun ownership are voluntary rights guaranteed and not compulsory . If it is troubling one can be suppressed by regulation, isn't is also troubling the other can be as well?

 

[McDad]

No I agree with you. She just won’t answer she will ignore it. She is convinced her mama told her all guns are evil and from the debil

Oh, gotcha. I misunderstood.

I think he will answer. And, I think his answer should provide insight to how he thinks.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Oh, gotcha. I misunderstood.

I think he will answer. And, I think his answer should provide insight to how he thinks.

She’s stated before. She is completely against private gun ownership as the preferred approach but will settle on extreme government vetting on private gun ownership in limited use cases.

 

[McDad]

She’s stated before. She is completely against private gun ownership as the preferred approach but will settle on extreme government vetting on private gun ownership in limited use cases.

Then it will be fascinating to gain insight into how one can hold two separate protected rights to different standards when it comes to regulation.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Everyone would support limiting the rights of the person with measles for the well being of society.

From exposure to defined case is 7 to 14 days Luther, that shoots your argument right in the ass. Another bad comparison.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Then it will be fascinating to gain insight into how one can hold two separate protected rights to different standards when it comes to regulation.

Good luck buddy. Prepare for much irrational feminine screeching and rationalization on why they are different in the reply

 

[evillawyer]

Then it will be fascinating to gain insight into how one can hold two separate protected rights to different standards when it comes to regulation.

As a matter of fact, I don't know if they're subjected to different standards of review. I know that the SCOTUS has upheld relatively modest voter ID laws (there's a mid 2000s case that addressed this). The interests and concerns are obviously different in the two cases. Would you be ok with the SCOTUS upholding modest gun registration laws for each gun you owned?

 

[hog88]

As a matter of fact, I don't know if they're subjected to different standards of review. I know that the SCOTUS has upheld relatively modest voter ID laws (there's a mid 2000s case that addressed this). The interests and concerns are obviously different in the two cases. Would you be ok with the SCOTUS upholding modest gun registration laws for each gun you owned?

Uh no.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Edit: awwww while I was typing...

Hey @evillawyer McDad has a question for you. You went all quiet.

That quiet also seemed to line up with the light bulb going off over your head that I never argued the DC court finding that a registry was constitutional but instead was pointing out that others had already realized that and thus had that clause added to FOPA1986. No it’s not as good as a Constitutional protection. But it is protection and precedent and will have to be overcome. Which was my whole point and once you calmed down took some Midol and had a glass of Chardonnay you realized your incorrect insight. Or were you just ignoring the background as usual and screeching?

Lots of use out of this gif today

 

[McDad]

As a matter of fact, I don't know if they're subjected to different standards of review. I know that the SCOTUS has upheld relatively modest voter ID laws (there's a mid 2000s case that addressed this). The interests and concerns are obviously different in the two cases. Would you be ok with the SCOTUS upholding modest gun registration laws for each gun you owned?

I filled out my information when i bought a pistol. Idk if it is a "registry" but i know i can be traced to that gun should someone want to. I also know the pistol fell out of a boat on the Tennessee river last year.

What about my other question?