Here we go:

Hawaii Enacts First State Law in U.S. to Place Gun Owners In Database.

Bit by bit they encroach...

Just one more glaring example that today's political leaders simply don't care about the limits on their authority (or are utterly incompetent in not knowing and not finding out whether their proposed laws are even legal).

I imagine that this will get challenged pretty quickly as a blatant violation of FOPA of 1986, which states:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established."

Which is not to say that there haven't already been significant violations of this provision.

 

How about when the GOP did it? For something less noble. Not that long ago 2008.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/sit-ins-in-congress-are-rare-but-not-unheard-of

Oh, you mean the one where the GOP followed all of the rules of the House but that Nancy Pelosi had them removed and the doors to the chambers locked?

 

I want to know if he got up by himself or needed a crane.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-lewis-pizzas_us_576b5423e4b09926ce5dca68

"Someone in California paid $344 to deliver 10-12 Domino's pizzas to John Lewis. This woman is excited to deliver em."

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/artic...sit-in-good-politics-bad-no-fly-no-buy-policy

It's the third idea, though – the one regarding terror watch lists – where the real issues begin. Civil rights advocates are, shall we say, less than pleased with the idea of using the unaccountable, unreliable lists as the basis for policymaking. As the American Civil Liberties Union put it in a letter regarding an effort by the Senate to craft a "no fly, no buy" bill, the legislation "would further entrench a watchlist system that is rife with problems." The ACLU added that the bill "lacks even the most basic due process protections." Sen. Ted Kennedy rather famously wound up entangled on such a list, as did, well, John Lewis himself.

http://theweek.com/articles/631457/...ng-gun-control-like-dick-cheney-thats-problem

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, the Democratic Party has mounted a major push on gun control policy. On the one hand, it's nice to see the party finally attempting to move the ball on a very important issue. On the other, the way they're doing it is staggeringly awful — pushing a doomed message bill that is blatantly unconstitutional and then selling it with Dick Cheney-esque terror-baiting.
...
But this is very dangerous logic indeed. If gun rights can be taken away because they're politically inconvenient, then that's a terrible precedent set for freedom of religion, speech, the press, and so on. The Bill of Rights has taken enough of a beating from the Bush/Obama security apparatus already for Democrats to be endorsing another angle of attack — and there are plenty of routes toward sensible gun policy that aren't egregious violations of elementary liberal principles.

 

Just one more glaring example that today's political leaders simply don't care about the limits on their authority (or are utterly incompetent in not knowing and not finding out whether their proposed laws are even legal).

I imagine that this will get challenged pretty quickly as a blatant violation of FOPA of 1986, which states:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established."

Which is not to say that there haven't already been significant violations of this provision.

Actually it appears to be quite legal. While there is a law that says the feds can't keep a database on firearms there is no such law for the states. While the software is FBI, the database is kept by Hawaii. And of course the founders didn't think about databases just like they didn't think about assault rifles.

 

Actually it appears to be quite legal. While there is a law that says the feds can't keep a database on firearms there is no such law for the states. While the software is FBI, the database is kept by Hawaii. And of course the founders didn't think about databases just like they didn't think about assault rifles.

At the risk of repeating myself:

"No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners' Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established."

Please explain how the State of Hawaii maintaining a database of gun owners is not in violation of this law?

 

And, more to the point, if they want to use a gun the fact that guns are illegal will not stop them from getting a gun. How many people get drugs that are illegal and have been illegal for decades?

I guess a constitutional argument could be made to legalize drugs. Whaca think? pursuit of happiness and all that.

 

I guess a constitutional argument could be made to legalize drugs. Whaca think? pursuit of happiness and all that.

People can and do make constitutional arguments for the legalization of drugs. But since the government stopped paying attention to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments a long time ago, such arguments fall on deaf ears. But, unlike drugs, the right to keep and bear arms does not rely on the catchall provisions of the last two amendments, does it?

 

People can and do make constitutional arguments for the legalization of drugs. But since the government stopped paying attention to the Ninth and Tenth Amendments a long time ago, such arguments fall on deaf ears. But, unlike drugs, the right to keep and bear arms does not rely on the catchall provisions of the last two amendments, does it?

Speaking of amendment X.
The argument for the database.



Hawaii Considers Gun Database 1:32

The proposal, which has passed the state Legislature and is awaiting a signature from Gov. David Ige, has drawn criticism from gun owners and some legal scholars who say it would infringe on owners' rights.

But others say it would probably withstand court challenges, since the Supreme Court has backed states' ability to regulate gun sales.
If it gets to court quickly it will probably be 4 -4 so Hawaii's law will stand.

 

The Democrat sit-in is truly disturbing. Every knucklehead involved swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, did they not?

Here they are now openly speaking out against the very Constitution they swore to protect. They are advocating removal of one of the amendments from the Bill of Rights, maybe three (due process). That alone might be OK if they were seeking to make these changes via the one and only legal process, the one stipulated in the Constitution itself, but they no intention of following that law either.

They see themselves as so noble. What idiots. How they would scream if other senators [oops sorry, this happened in the House] had a sit in to override - by fiat, not legal repeal - the other Bill of Rights items. Warranted searches? We don't need no stinkin' warrants! The right to a fair and speedy trial? Rubbish, that's far too slow and costly. Cruel and unusual punishment? Now we're talking.

They should be disqualified for office and immediately replaced.

Gee, I wonder why they didn't just hold the vote?

 

 

Gee, I wonder why they didn't just hold the vote?

Because, in the words of your hero, elections have consequences.

 

Would you guys on the right be surprised that back in the day, when the constitution was new, people had to register their gun ownership and allow government officials to inspect the guns at any time? And if the guns weren't properly maintained and clean the government agents had the right to confiscate them. If I can figure out how to copy a page from a PDF I'll post it. Also a lot of stuff in that PDF that makes it sound like maybe Scalia got it wrong.

 

Speaking of amendment X.
The argument for the database.



Hawaii Considers Gun Database 1:32

This is not "regulating gun sales", it is establishing a gun registration database in direct violation of federal law.

Any person that wants to hang their hat on the claim that States have the right to establish such a database when federal law prohibits them from doing so then forfeit the right to claim that States can't authorize the sale of machine guns that violate federal laws prohibiting such sales. You can't have it both ways.

 

Would you guys on the right be surprised that back in the day, when the constitution was new, people had to register their gun ownership and allow government officials to inspect the guns at any time? And if the guns weren't properly maintained and clean the government agents had the right to confiscate them. If I can figure out how to copy a page from a PDF I'll post it. Also a lot of stuff in that PDF that makes it sound like maybe Scalia got it wrong.

You mean like they do in Switzerland with 420,000 official militia (fully automatic, or "selective fire") weapons at homes?

 

This is not "regulating gun sales", it is establishing a gun registration database in direct violation of federal law.

Any person that wants to hang their hat on the claim that States have the right to establish such a database when federal law prohibits them from doing so then forfeit the right to claim that States can't authorize the sale of machine guns that violate federal laws prohibiting such sales. You can't have it both ways.

The problem, @WBahn, is that we have an executive who thinks he can have it both ways, and a legislature that lets him.

Edit: do you really think the current administration is going to prosecute Hawaii's decision, regardless of grounds?

 

Would you guys on the right be surprised that back in the day, when the constitution was new, people had to register their gun ownership and allow government officials to inspect the guns at any time? And if the guns weren't properly maintained and clean the government agents had the right to confiscate them. If I can figure out how to copy a page from a PDF I'll post it. Also a lot of stuff in that PDF that makes it sound like maybe Scalia got it wrong.

Would I be surprised that, under certain specific circumstances such as weapons issued to individuals by the government for various purposes, those individuals has to register them and that they were subject to inspection and confiscation if not properly maintained? No, I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. But if you are claiming that every person that owned a firearm had to register it and that it was subject to inspection and confiscation, then you had better cite verifiable proof of that claim and not just some page from some PDF that someone wrote making such a claim.

 

Would I be surprised that, under certain specific circumstances such as weapons issued to individuals by the government for various purposes, those individuals has to register them and that they were subject to inspection and confiscation if not properly maintained? No, I wouldn't be surprised by that at all. But if you are claiming that every person that owned a firearm had to register it and that it was subject to inspection and confiscation, then you had better cite verifiable proof of that claim and not just some page from some PDF that someone wrote making such a claim.

The .pdf was published from G. Washington's iPad.

 

The problem, @WBahn, is that we have an executive who thinks he can have it both ways, and a legislature that lets him.

Edit: do you really think the current administration is going to prosecute Hawaii's decision, regardless of grounds?

Not to worry. H will fix it.

 

The problem, @WBahn, is that we have an executive who thinks he can have it both ways, and a legislature that lets him.

Edit: do you really think the current administration is going to prosecute Hawaii's decision, regardless of grounds?

No, but it doesn't require the administration to challenge it. Individuals can challenge it since anyone that is placed in that database would have standing. The question is whether the Supreme Court will uphold the law or rule based on what they want the law to be -- recent (and not so recent) experience does not give me much hope that they will even bother applying either the Constitution or federal law.

 

from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-06-23/sit-ins-in-congress-are-rare-but-not-unheard-of
The lawmakers chanted “No bill, no break” between smoldering speeches about the urgent need for gun control and pledges to occupy the House as long as it might take to force majority Republicans to call a vote on a “no-fly, no buy” gun legislation.

Where are the critters today? Oh yeah, they went home for the summer recess. "no bill, no break", pure political BS, or maybe I should soften my tone and say rhetoric so I won't offend their sensitivity.