So you think forcing background checks and showing IDs to buy firearms is wrong as well?
Oh, so now you’re taking a narrow and static view of the constitution?
I'm just comparing the words that you chose to the words that the founders chose, no more no less. Buy firearms is not in there.
keep and bear arms implies acquisition. Regardless, you're taking a very strict originalistic viewpoint that is absolutely contrary to anything that you've posted previously. Happy trolling.
There is no constitutional right to be able to purchase guns. The right to keep and bear arms relates to possession. Supreme Court has upheld that the Second amendment is also not absolute. There is also not an unlimited constitutional right to vote. There are various forms of discrimination that cannot be used to impede a person from voting. States are free to implement voting procedures that don’t unfairly discriminate based on the categories outlined in the amendments (age, race, color, or sex). It’s up to courts to decide if measures implemented are discriminatory but as already stated, poll monitors have existed for some time. I would think it is not discriminatory as long as there is relatively equal representation amongst those monitors.
Keep and bear arms traces back to the 1300's when subjects were expected to acquire and keep arms to bring to bear in defense of King and country. This practice carried into the Revolution and beyond. There is no possible way that the founders of this country did not acknowledge a pre-existing right to acquire arms, including purchasing, nor did they ever intend to prohibit sales of arms. Therefore, if you want to be obtuse to make an idiotic modern policy position, then the sale and purchase of arms is acknowledged as a power of the "people" by the 10th Amendment.
^ This
Private party transactions don’t require an ID. Thus there is no ultimate requirement for an ID to purchase a firearm. There is no alternative way to vote. So it is really and apples and oranges comparison. But as I said there is no “right to vote”. Just a prohibition on voter discrimination for age, sex, and race. A state can make whatever voter requirements that they want as long as they aren't deemed discriminatory.
You're kinda close, but not quite.
The three constitutional amendments regarding voting deal with those specific types of discrimination that I mentioned. The Voting Rights Act outlined that literacy tests could not be used, but such tests technically do not violate the constitutional amendments.
For much of America, this is a false statement. At least a third of all states have passed background check requirements on private sales and many others require both the buyer and seller to have valid ID in their state. The reason that they do this is because both parties in private sales have to reside in the same state or else the seller needs a FFL. You cannot prove residency without seeing a valid ID, so they require the ID to be presented.
If Antifa is a terrorist organization and violating federal law, then federal law enforcement is well within their rights in apprehending suspects. Unlike some other western countries that people like to use as examples the US should follow, US persons can still sue the US Government to address wrongs perpetrated upon them.
While technically you may be right, most states have vague laws that prohibit a seller to “knowingly transfer” to a prohibited person. You are supposed to ask for an ID in Florida, but the enforcement of this is at the discretion of the private citizens involved in the transaction.
Your statement was that there weren't laws, not that the laws could/couldn't be enforced. If the bar to make people feel better is actively enforceable laws, then we're going to have to either remove a bunch of legislation or fund the police/regulatory agencies to a much higher level than we do today. Anecdotally, I have personally witnessed Orange County SO arrest an individual for a felony at a gunshow for attempting a private sale without verifying the conditions for a legal sale.
My statement was it didn’t require an ID. As in could be accomplished without presenting one.
You're being intentionally obtuse. All kinds of illegal activity can be accomplished and is without punishment every single day. That doesn't make any of it legal. There is no law that is going to keep someone from selling a gun to another person if they don't care about the legality of it.
What is illegal? Show me a law that says you are required to get someone’s identification for a private gun sale in Florida? You aren’t even required to have a record of the sale in Florida. It makes sense for the seller to do due diligence to cover themselves if the buyer uses it to commit a crime or something, but it isn’t required and failure to check ID isn’t something that would be enforceable for a private party sale anyway. You can also gift firearms without paperwork in Florida. The entire point was right to possess a firearm isn’t a comparable situation to the right to vote.
I linked an article that you obviously didn’t read that stated the firearm requirement. I can link a number of articles that you probably won’t read. I can point to the statute, but that is a pain in the ass to read so you won’t.
Yeah, but the constitution doesn't say anything about LOADING a firearm. Gotcha there, you inbred moron.
