Hashtag thisismylane Drs vs NRA warning graphical content

I am not required to do either. We already do not allow the mentally ill to buy guns as per federal law. No one was required to "prove the link".

No such proof is ever required for US policy

 

Just the weight of mob activism without adherence to Constitutional principle and due process is what should drive policy, eh? Ok, Robespierre, got it. No SS, let the beheadings of old people begin.

 

Due process is always followed. Even now someone can challenge their payee status and get it overturned.


Why is it some people do not understand what due process means?

 

Following your example above as applied to murder it would be convict and jail someone for murder and then allow a challenge to appeal the verdict

I am willing to be you can’t define due process in terms of what is required.

 

Uh.......that is what we do. Lol

 

No it isn’t and that is not due process

 

Uh.....yes it is. My god do you honestly think due process means the government can never act to restrict a right without a court order? Are you kidding? We do that a thousand times a day now. Lol

 

There we go, a transition to the government violates rights so any means to achieve the end argument. Explain due process and then explain how due can legitimately be with held without challenge.

 

Point out to the member Vegas Giants, that by the logic set forth in his criteria for financial incompetence being a disqualifier for firearms ownership, such logic and criteria renders the entire united states government unfit for possession and use of weapons due to its inability to practice basic financial knowledge, such as utilizing a balanced budget.

 

Yet more meaningless DEBUNKED drivel sans substantiation ignored for obvious reasons.

 

Ironic PROJECTION on top of ironic projection!

 

I really have to explain to you what due process is? How a search can be made without warrant (even though the constitution demands a warrant). You really don't understand how the police can enter your home without a warrant? Really?

Dues process means you get your day in court.....and that does not always happen BEFORE a right is violated

 

Having ‘your day in court’ isn’t what is prescribed as process. Prior to the Constitution, under the Brits you could be hauled in front of a court tried and convicted without due process. Due process is outlined in the BOR, but what minimally constitutes due process has been adjudicated by SCOTUS and you have not explained it previously nor demonstrated any understanding. What has been advocated by you in this discussion not only violates due process, but was objected to by the ACLU and a number of senior’s and mental health advocacy groups in part because of that.
There are numbers of instances where rights are violated by various authorities, some routinely, for instance many civil forfeiture cases. That doesn’t make it the instances somehow legitimate and these are often instances that are subjected to the law suits initiated by the ACLU and other legal watchdogs.
But, there are parallels that can be drawn between instances of due process violations of due process in civil forfeitures and denying gun rights to SS recipients on capricious allegations of cognative imparement.
I think anyone following and advocating such dribble cognatively challenged and should have various rights denied.

 

Your pretense at being a scotus judge is hilarious. The fact that I have to explain strict scrutiny and compelling interest to you is equally funny. Demand a warrant the next time a cop pats you down.....lmao

 

I don’t have to be a SCOTUS judge to read the Constitution and BOR or to find the specific case where the provisions for Due Process were adjudicated by SCOTUS. That you haven’t simply described what Due Process means underscore you don’t know.
As for your second comment, strict scrutiny and compelling interest, if you understood how and when they are applied in judicial review, you’d find they don’t support a practice of removing gun rights from someone declared cognatively impaired by being capriciously judged on the basis of having difficulty with finances because of when struck scrutiny in review is prescribed and given the information in the posts I made previously.
As for demanding a warrant on a pat down, that has been adjudicated by the SCOTUS.

 

Pass the law and let scotus decide. I have said it a 100 times. Your opinion is pointless and a waste of my time.

If you can not balance a checkbook you cant handle a gun. A child can figure this out

 

Again, how do you test for this when someone is acquiring a gun. And, what is the demonstrated, factual risk? Where is the evidence someone that can’t balance a checkbook is dangerous with a gun other than your assertion? You keep ignoring both questions just repeating the narrative. You may as well be saying, if you disagree with you, you shouldn’t be allowed a gun. There is no evidence of even a correlation that has been demonstrated.

 

There are young people coming out of high school who cannot figure how to balance a checkbook, if they couldn't manage their accounts on-line they would be screwed, are they mentally ill to the point they shouldn't have access to firearms?

Vegas believes they are.

 

What about people who can not calculate interest and purchase items by the price of the monthly payment?

Under Vegas's rules they would probably also be prohibited from purchasing firearms.

Math is lightly taught in this country, very often being unable to balance a checkbook is not a sign of mental illness, it's an indication of a lack of a proper education.

 

The test is if the social security administration has them registered as having a payee which could be reported to nics. Where is the proof of risk for not allowing a gun for a child, ex felon or adjudicated mentally ill person? I will need detailed proof please. Lol

This is so easy

 

Holy cow.....do you know what has to happen for a person to be required to have a payee by social security? Lol

 

How many of those people are required to have a payee? Lol

 

I think we should lock you up unless you can prove you aren’t a future risk. We need detailed proof.

 

I think potatoes are nice at breakfast.

No proof needed. Lol

 

I see, but it is ok to demand prove that those exhibiting difficulty with finance won’t be a future risk, eh? What hypocrisy. Normally, even the most ardent antis try to prove there’s a compelling risk, but none exists and the best you can do is to say, take your word for it... something I doubt you’d get many takers here.