Jump to content

voyager9

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    4,811

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

  • Feedback

    0%

Posts posted by voyager9

  6. Posted

    1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

    this could topple the whole house of cards in states like nj. it leaves things wide open for challenges on pretty much everything.

    If I remember right there were quite a few cases held either at Scotus or circuit courts waiting on the result from Bruen.   One was the NJ mag challenge and I think an AWB (MD?).   Also the CA mag, ammo, and AWB are there somewhere.  Since those cases are already at a high level they should quickly get sent back to be redecided with the new precedent.   We shouldn’t have to wait for a new case to make its way up.  

  10. Posted

    40 minutes ago, Displaced Texan said:

    The way I read the text of the Bruen decision, I think the ‘weapons in common use’ would invalidate an AWB. And since standard capacity magazines are also in ‘common use’, I believe it would also apply to them. 
     

    I do not think that NJ will lay down very easily on that…

    Honestly I’m more excited about mag and AW bans being thrown out than I am CCW.   Let me have normal mags, stocks and unpinned barrels!

    • Agree 3

  18. Posted

    9 hours ago, CMJeepster said:

    We already know (District of Columbia v. Heller) that carrying a weapon is a right, not a privilege.

    ------

    False.  Did not read past this.

    It kind of did.  Scalia went into a lot of detail about how bear arms means carry.  This was foundational to Heller since DC banned carrying even in your home.   What they didn’t do is address whether government interests allow them to restrict that right outside the home.  

  19. Posted

    7 hours ago, Displaced Texan said:

    Yeah, I know it’s Yahoo news, but here is a bit of info on what’s being considered for ‘improved’ background checks. 
     

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-gun-negotiators-hit-snag-194330282.html

     

    Im actually not that butt hurt about considering juvenile records in NICS checks. 
     

    While many kids do stupid shit when they are young, I think the record needs to be considered. 

    The way I read it is that juvenile records would only be part of the check if you’re under 21.   Basically the record would “stop” at 18 but only get sealed at 21.   This kind of makes sense.  There is no reason a 18 year old kid’s background shouldn’t include stuff before 18.  There’s nothing else to go on.  At the same time a 40 year old can’t be jammed up for something they did at 15.  

  22. Posted

    42 minutes ago, 1LtCAP said:

     

    it is not. it's what got us 3 constitutionally illegal gun control acts, and a constitutionally illegal hughes amendment.

    Right.  It’s why the pro-gun side should never compromise.  Todays compromise is tomorrows loophole.  Perhaps if there was trust and actual compromise it would Be different.  I’ll give up A if They give up B.  Instead it is we need to give up A so they don’t take C only to have them take C a year later.  Fuck. That.  

  23. Posted

    1 hour ago, Cheflife15 said:

    I understand the experiment. My point is, the psychological evaluation is done based on what they said. What other conclusion would they have come to? 

    do you think psychologists have no basis to make proper diagnoses because if this study?

    They were admitted to the hospital for what they said.  They were diagnosed while in the hospital despite acting normal.  I would expect any diagnosis to be based on an evaluation while they were in the hospital and not biased because of the fact they were there. 

  24. Posted

    31 minutes ago, Cheflife15 said:

    Well I mean if they went to the psyche ward because they said they were hearing voices then what else would they be diagnosed with? 

    From the wiki:

    The Rosenhan experiment or Thud experimentwas an experiment conducted to determine the validity of psychiatric diagnosis. The participants feigned hallucinations to enter psychiatric hospitals but acted normally afterwards. They were diagnosed with psychiatric disorders and were given antipsychotic medication. [\quote]
     

  25. Posted

    2 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

    For it to work the person would have to be unbiased and work from structured questions.

    That is where it will fail.  Either the “structured questions” would themselves be tainted to “err on the side of caution” or the system would be set up such that the doctor would be liable for their decision.. so they would deny by default. 

     

    2 hours ago, Cheflife15 said:

    The current political climate isn't going to  allow us to deal with this.  They are going to continue to ban guns if people are legally buying guns and shooting children.

    Allowing infringements because we fear for worse infringements doesn’t seem a wise strategy and historically ends up going further anyway.  

    • Agree 1
×
×
  • Create New...