56
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 01:50 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
I never did that, I used to impersonate this bloke.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/413288390084153345/Jd3ouXiA_400x400.jpeg

Rhod, not God.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 02:08 pm
@izzythepush,
And once, this guy.

https://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/139/590x/who-is-black-rod-819542.jpg
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  4  
Reply Thu 28 Nov, 2019 07:44 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
He is right.Trump is a crook, which trade he learned from his crooked father and has passed down to his crooked spawn.
0 Replies
 
revelette3
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 10:29 am
I think it is a pretty safe bet how the following is going to go. More guns on the streets, more death in the US by guns.

Following a change in personnel, the court could expand the scope of Second Amendment rights and chastise lower courts that have upheld gun control laws.
coldjoint
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 11:31 am
@revelette3,
Quote:
More guns on the streets,

It is more gangs on the streets, especially in sanctuary cities, that cause more deaths.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 07:43 pm
@coldjoint,
And the weak laws that allow these gangs to acquire these guns.
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 07:52 pm
@coldjoint,
were most of the mass killings in sanctuary cities? I know that street murders and gang killings are in big cities .
I wouldnt include a Walmart or mall or suburban churches, or Universities , Armed forces camps and concerts or suburban nightclubs an issue of "sanctuary cities"
Weve got it all over the US, so why not try to think more like a problem solver, and not some political hack whose only interested in finger pointing and shedding blame from oneself.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 07:52 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
And the weak laws that allow these gangs to acquire these guns.

And improper policing in Democratic shitholes allow them to keep them.
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Dec, 2019 10:04 pm
@coldjoint,
Washington D C is a democratic shot hole?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 05:58 am
@coldjoint,
uberconservative nonsense, as usual.hyperpartisan
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 01:26 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

And the weak laws that allow these gangs to acquire these guns.


...I'm truly astonished at the inanity of this comment.

Do you think gangs go down to the local gun store and wait for the background check before buying their guns? NO LAW IN THE WORLD will stop these gangs from acquiring illegal guns.

Seriously, what law do you think could exist that would stop them?
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 01:29 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
uberconservative nonsense, as usual.hyperpartisan

There are a lot of Democrats that want their guns too. You are really misinformed and so stuck on spouting rhetoric it is laughable.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 07:23 pm
@coldjoint,
the comment was about your post, not reps or dems.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 3 Dec, 2019 07:33 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
the comment was about your post, not reps or dems.

You don't know what "hyper partisan" means? Who else would you be talking about?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 01:31 am
Quote:
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) on Tuesday dismissed the Czech Republic's legal challenge against the ban on semi-automatic rifles for private use introduced after terrorist attacks in 2015.

The Court ruled that the measures taken by the European Parliament and the Council "in the contested directive do not entail breaches of the principles of conferral of powers, proportionality, legal certainty, protection of legitimate expectations or non-discrimination as alleged by the Czech Republic in support of its action."

The EU measures against the use of semi-automatic rifles for private use are intended to curb gun violence and prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons on the black market.

Support for the new rules gained traction following several terror atrocities on European soil, including attacks in Paris, Nice and Brussels over the past several years.
DW

Court of Justice: C-482/17 - Czech Republic v Parliament and Council

DW-report about the EU gun rules in face of terrorism
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 02:32 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I'm not sure that the phrase "ban on semi-automatic rifles for private use" accurately describes the law in question.

My understanding is that this law only bans semi-auto rifles that have a large magazine inserted into them.

So if a semi-automatic rifle does not have a large magazine inserted into it, that semi-automatic rifle is perfectly legal under this law.

So it is more of "a law against using large magazines" than it is "a law against semi-automatic rifles".


Additionally, this restriction only applies to people who are not active members of a shooting club. So if someone joins a shooting club and practices shooting regularly, they are still allowed to insert large magazines into their rifles.

So it is more of "an encouragement for people to practice shooting regularly" than it is "an outright prohibition against the use of large magazines".
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 06:37 am
@oralloy,
The new rules were unduly restrictive for law-abiding gun owners such as hunters, the Czech Republic claimed.

But the best would have been, you'd sent your objections and legal interpretations to the EU prosecutor general's office and the Czech Republic - however, since the European Court of Justice followed the advice of the advocate general gave in April, it's too late to change this ruling.

Interesting in my opinion, however, what the court said related to Switzerland (not an EU-country, but due to the membership in the Schengen-agreement generally following EU-laws, especially regarding weapon ownership)
ECJ wrote:
Later in the judgment, the Court found that the EU legislature had at its disposal numerous analyses and recommendations covering all the issues raised in the Czech Republic’s argument and that, contrary to what that Member State claimed, the measures criticised did not appear, in the light of those analyses and recommendations, manifestly inappropriate in relation to the objectives of ensuring public safety and security for EU citizens and facilitating the functioning of the internal market in firearms for civilian use.

Consequently, the Court held that, in the case at hand, the EU institutions had not exceeded their wide discretion when called upon to conduct such complex assessments and evaluations of political, economic or social nature. Last, the Court further rejected the arguments of the Czech Republic directed more specifically against certain provisions of the contested directive which that Member State deemed to be contrary to the principles of proportionality, legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations of categories of owners or holders of weapons potentially subject to a stricter regime under the contested directive and, last, non-discrimination.

Regarding that latter principle, the Court notes inter alia that the derogation enjoyed by Switzerland takes into account both the culture and traditions of that country and the fact that, owing to those traditions, it has the proven experience and ability to trace and monitor the persons and weapons concerned, which gives reason to assume that the public security and safety objectives pursued by the contested directive will, despite that derogation, be achieved. Given that no Member State of the European Union appears to be in a comparable situation to that of Switzerland, there is no discrimination.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 10:40 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
But the best would have been, you'd sent your objections and legal interpretations to the EU prosecutor general's office and the Czech Republic - however, since the European Court of Justice followed the advice of the advocate general gave in April, it's too late to change this ruling.

I was not objecting to the law or the ruling though. I was only objecting to the inaccurate terminology used in the article.

I suppose I could contact the reporter and the editor. It's not too late for them to revise their article.


ECJ wrote:
Regarding that latter principle, the Court notes inter alia that the derogation enjoyed by Switzerland takes into account both the culture and traditions of that country and the fact that, owing to those traditions, it has the proven experience and ability to trace and monitor the persons and weapons concerned, which gives reason to assume that the public security and safety objectives pursued by the contested directive will, despite that derogation, be achieved. Given that no Member State of the European Union appears to be in a comparable situation to that of Switzerland, there is no discrimination.

Derogation... does this mean that the shooting club exemption is not available to people in the Czech Republic?

If so, they should still be able to own semi-automatic rifles. They will just not be allowed to insert magazines larger than 10 rounds into their semi-automatic rifles.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 11:16 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I was not objecting to the law or the ruling though. I was only objecting to the inaccurate terminology used in the article.
Well, the court followed the arguments by the European Parliament and the Council who had argued that the Czech Republic was wrong in law.

(What you call "inaccurate terminology" is from the argument of Czech Republic [and Hungary and Poland].)
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 4 Dec, 2019 11:21 am
@oralloy,
You answered your question with that quote:
ECJ wrote:
Regarding that latter principle, the Court notes inter alia that the derogation enjoyed by Switzerland takes into account both the culture and traditions of that country and the fact that, owing to those traditions, it has the proven experience and ability to trace and monitor the persons and weapons concerned, which gives reason to assume that the public security and safety objectives pursued by the contested directive will, despite that derogation, be achieved. Given that no Member State of the European Union appears to be in a comparable situation to that of Switzerland, there is no discrimination.

"The derogation enjoyed by Switzerland" isn't related at all to shooting clubs.

 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/12/2019 at 05:17:50