A 2nd Amendment Right or Maybe Not (Page 3/4)
blackrams OCT 26, 09:34 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


I think it is exactly the same. The ya-who did not have to have that gun shipped to that store. He also did not need the give his business card. The right to keep and bear arms does not make it a right to be able to get arms anywhere you want.



Maybe, maybe not. Looking forward to seeing this get to SCOTUS.

I've come to the conclusion that the person trying to get the weapon was intentionally intending to stir the pot on the issue of gun ownership and who can or can't buy/own one. The more I think about it, the buyer providing that business card was his way of testing the waters just to see what might happen. Now that I've learned more about what the gun store owner is responsible for, I can see why he made the decision he made. That doesn't necessarily mean I agree but, I do understand. I have no doubt the recent riots and other issues that occurred in Oregon played a factor in his decision to deny the purchaser the weapon. I don't have such an experience to go on. But I can understand how and why it may have influenced his decision.


------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 10-26-2023).]

82-T/A [At Work] OCT 26, 09:53 AM
"Shall not be infringed" is absolutely clear to me... and I think that means essentially the right to buy or own firearms without being infringed. This guy is being infringed.

That said, I am certainly enjoying left-leaning legislation being used against left-leaning people... who are then shocked when it affects them.
Jake_Dragon OCT 26, 10:16 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

"Shall not be infringed" is absolutely clear to me... and I think that means essentially the right to buy or own firearms without being infringed. This guy is being infringed.

That said, I am certainly enjoying left-leaning legislation being used against left-leaning people... who are then shocked when it affects them.



I could be wrong but the shop owner didn't sell the gun then the shop is only providing a service by doing back ground checks.
Its not so much refusing to sell the gun as I believe that part of the transaction is done, but to provide a service of running the background check.
cliffw OCT 26, 10:33 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
That said, I am certainly enjoying left-leaning legislation being used against left-leaning people... who are then shocked when it affects them.



Swallow whatever is in your mouth to protect your keyboard.

Scores of men invaded a tech job fair billed as the largest gathering of women seeking careers in STEM fields after allegedly lying about being non-binary.

The female attendees, some of whom paid about $1,300 per ticket for a chance to network with recruiters, have blasted the cisgender men for skipping all the panels and seminars in order to beat the women to the recruiting lines.

While cisgendered men are not prohibited from attending the event, as they have done so in previous years, AnitaB, the company that organized the seminar, said the men came out in higher numbers this year by skirting the rules.
olejoedad OCT 26, 10:38 AM
As I posted earlier.....

The reason there is no online background check is the human element.
The clerk has the responsibility to evaluate the purchaser before running the background check, and the clerk can refuse.

No reason needs to be given.

I doubt this case will see a courtroom.


[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 10-26-2023).]

blackrams OCT 26, 10:46 AM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:




Having read the above quoted information, makes me wonder about many things I simply don't know about. Are such rules/laws nationwide or do they vary from state to state?
I would think it would be nationwide in that it's a federal requirement. If, this is the case, then the gun store owner seems to be able to make such a decision for any reason he chooses.

I really don't agree with such a decision authority. If, the buyer passed all the background checks required, then he should have walked out the door with his weapon.
That might be a tough call to make but, infringed rights could happen to any of us.

Rams
williegoat OCT 26, 10:56 AM
I have come to the conclusion that this is not a 2A case at all. It is a civil rights case.

The tubby, tie-dyed troublemaker has the right to bear arms. I think we can agree on that. At least those of us who are not offended by cartoon crickets.

But, does the shop owner have the right to refuse service? At this point, I think he does.

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 10-26-2023).]

cliffw OCT 26, 10:56 AM

quote
Originally posted by blackrams:
That might be a tough call to make but, infringed rights could happen to any of us.



Well now. Have you considered the First Amendment rights of the gun store owner.

The old adage, "your rights stop where mine begin."
blackrams OCT 26, 11:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:


Well now. Have you considered the First Amendment rights of the gun store owner.

The old adage, "your rights stop where mine begin."



Just so we're clear, on my property, you only have the rights I grant you.



I would expect the same should I be on your's.

------------------
Rams
Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. .
You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.

olejoedad OCT 26, 11:10 AM
No reason needs to be given.