Glock Talk Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
 |
01-21-2013, 16:43
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: HAWAII
Posts: 5
|
State of hawaii introduced "assault weapons ban" sb219!!!!!!
Hawaii is trying to pass the assault weapon ban bill 219!
There are also other bills recently introduced including annual renewal of firearms registration including a fee which currently there is no fee and once you register you are set. Also requiring proof of ownership of a certain firearm to buy ammunition for it. PLEASE READ!!! ATTACHED IS THE BILL LINK.
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measur...billnumber=219
PDF link to bill:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessio...lls/SB219_.pdf
|
|
|
01-22-2013, 01:20
|
#2
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Mid Pac.
Posts: 696
|
Welcome, you should join the 2aHawaii forum if you haven't already. There's ongoing discussion about this.
|
|
|
');
document.write(' ');
};
//-->
01-22-2013, 14:20
|
#3
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 424
|
States have the rights to impose ridiculous restrictions, just like in california. Your only recourse is to vote with your feet. There is going to be more stupid state laws, just look at New York.
|
|
|
01-22-2013, 14:41
|
#4
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,008
|
Wow...not even a grandfather clause in that one...even NY included a grandfather clause. This bill is the worst one I have seen yet.
|
|
|
01-23-2013, 01:05
|
#5
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 528
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizard
States have the rights to impose ridiculous restrictions, just like in california. Your only recourse is to vote with your feet. There is going to be more stupid state laws, just look at New York.
|
Not anymore. The Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd into the 14th Amendment so, No, the state cannot infringe on the 2nd Amendment either.
__________________
Jerry
Niner #105
Big Dog #1004
Glock 26,30,36 and AR15
|
|
|
01-23-2013, 01:08
|
#6
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 424
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by GLJones
Not anymore. The Supreme Court incorporated the 2nd into the 14th Amendment so, No, the state cannot infringe on the 2nd Amendment either.
|
The SCOTUS affirmed the legal right to own a gun, but the state's are still able to put a ton of restrictions on it.
And, in case you have not noticed, in recent decades some states have been ignoring federal law.
Legal marijuana? Absolutely illegal under federal law.
The good news is they can't ban guns and they can't collect them. The bad news: they can, like Hawaii, put license restrictions on guns, ammo, and require registrations.
Last edited by Alizard; 01-23-2013 at 01:09..
|
|
|
01-23-2013, 16:48
|
#7
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,008
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizard
The SCOTUS affirmed the legal right to own a gun, but the state's are still able to put a ton of restrictions on it.
And, in case you have not noticed, in recent decades some states have been ignoring federal law.
Legal marijuana? Absolutely illegal under federal law.
The good news is they can't ban guns and they can't collect them. The bad news: they can, like Hawaii, put license restrictions on guns, ammo, and require registrations.
|
The Hawaii bill specifically states that you cannot own "assault weapons" anymore and even has a clause stating how you are to turn them in to the police.
|
|
|
01-23-2013, 17:32
|
#8
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 167
|
Forward to SAF and NRA.
|
|
|
01-23-2013, 17:38
|
#9
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 167
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alizard
The SCOTUS affirmed the legal right to own a gun, but the state's are still able to put a ton of restrictions on it.
And, in case you have not noticed, in recent decades some states have been ignoring federal law.
Legal marijuana? Absolutely illegal under federal law.
The good news is they can't ban guns and they can't collect them. The bad news: they can, like Hawaii, put license restrictions on guns, ammo, and require registrations.
|
I'm not sure about states can put restrictions so I welcome these laws so they can be challenged in Federal Court - specifically, SCOTUS.
If you read Heller then listen to Scalia on Youtube, he states "Bear" means any firearm that one can carry; and he ponders the question if that would include rocket grenade launchers; he shrugs and says they'll (SCOTUS) have to answer that question when a case comes before them. He also states the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for citizens to have firearms to repel a government who attacks the citzenry.
Restrictions means WHERE they can be carried - such as schools, churches, etc.
So it'll be interesting when "assault weapons" go to SCOTUS - I'll bet SCOTUS will rule any carryable firearm (including full autos) will be allowed as they were before elitist FDR was president.
I say: BRING IT!
Last edited by damnyankee20; 01-23-2013 at 17:39..
|
|
|
01-23-2013, 17:40
|
#10
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 167
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevytuff19
The Hawaii bill specifically states that you cannot own "assault weapons" anymore and even has a clause stating how you are to turn them in to the police.
|
UNCONSTITUTIONAL on every level.
Alan Gura will be more than happy to take this up to the federal courts!
|
|
|
01-23-2013, 17:41
|
#11
|
|
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 167
|
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
Noah Webster, Founding Father
An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787
Last edited by damnyankee20; 01-23-2013 at 17:44..
|
|
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
Advertisement
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:32.
|
|
|