Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (17) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, 9 months ago

    Oh yeahhhh, like THIS Supreme Court would ever rule against the NRA.

  2. echoraven

    echoraven said, 9 months ago

    I must be missing something.

  3. Enoki

    Enoki said, 9 months ago

    Maybe the Supreme Court could start with the Department o Justice’s straw buyer operations like Fast and Furious…

  4. ossiningaling

    ossiningaling said, 9 months ago

    And her little dog, too!

  5. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    If Mr Guns only had a brain.
    .
    The local gun show where they could sell guns without a background check was such a big success that they planned five more.

  6. mdavis4183

    mdavis4183 GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    There are no gun shows where they sell guns without background checks.

    However, Eric Holder allowed thousands of straw purchases of guns to the Mexican drug cartels, resulting in hundreds of deaths, including two USA agents.

    Eric Holder is a criminal.

  7. eugene57

    eugene57 said, 9 months ago

    @mdavis4183

    Are you really that clueless? Around here they buy guns and 1000 round bricks at gun show so the government’s, fed, state, and local cannot track purchases.

  8. Simon_Jester

    Simon_Jester said, 9 months ago

    @Mr King

    Sorry, should have added a ‘Sarcasm’ label

  9. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    Tacoma City Council unanimously passed a resolution last week that requires background checks for firearm sales on city-managed property. The move follows a recent gun show at the Tacoma Dome that allowed buyers to purchase guns without going through criminal background checks. Many Tacomans decried the event and called on the council to tighten restrictions of gun purchases on city property.
    .
    The gun show was the first of its kind at the Tacoma Dome in two decades, but it won’t be the last even with the tighter restrictions of firearm vendors.
    .
    The Oregon-base gun show organizer, Wes Knodel Gun Show, has already confirmed another show in November and another four in 2015, according to Dome Manager Tom Alexander. Those followup events are slated for February, April, September and December, with a total of $275,000 in Dome rental contracts. The economic impact of the recent show was estimated by the Tacoma Regional Convention & Visitors Bureau to be $1.1 million in hotel and restaurant spending, an impact that will likely continue with future shows.
    .
    Washington law does not require background checks for private gun sales at gun shows. The event hosted more than 6,000 visitors during the two-day show. Event organizers recorded purchaser information from private sellers as required by state and federal law. But those laws do
    .
    not require background checks on buyers unless the seller is a licensed gun dealer, which are required to conduct background checks.
    .
    http://www.tacomaweekly.com/news/view/city-now-requires-gun-show-background-checks/

  10. eugene57

    eugene57 said, 9 months ago

    @NeoconMan

    What, you can’t send underlings in to buy for the company (you), using the security budget?

  11. MortyForTyrant

    MortyForTyrant said, 9 months ago

    That was a 5-4 decision, and THAT is a scandal. Jon Stewart played a bit of Antonin Scallia’s remarks. That man belongs in jail, not on a bench!

  12. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    Once again, liberals do not understand the origins of the suit, or the arguments for or against.

    This case was about a former cop, legally eligible to own a gun, buying a firearm for his uncle, also legally eligible to own a firearm. He did this because as a former cop, he got a discount. During the initial purchase, he checked a box on the Federal form that said the purchase was for himself. They ran his background check and sold him the gun. He then legally transferred the gun to his uncle at another gun shop, where they ran his uncle’s background check, which he passed, and transferred the gun to him. He was charged with knowingly making a false statement on the original federal form. He plead guilty pending appeals. His argument was twofold: He did not circumvent the intent of the law, which is to prevent the “straw” purchase of a firearm for someone who is ineligible to purchase a firearm because they are a felon, mentally ill, etc., because his uncle could have legally purchased the gun himself; and two: There is no law against someone buying a gun and then re-selling it or gifting it to someone else legally eligible to own one at a later date. This went to three Appeals Courts before going to the Supreme Court. The first ruled against him, the second agreed with him, the third again ruled against him. The Supreme Court upheld the final Appeals Court’s ruling.

    I tend to agree with the Majority Opinion on this one, because he clearly knowingly made a false statement. But I also think he should never have been charged in the first place, because it was all to do about nothing. His uncle could have legally bought the gun himself, and it was transferred to him legally at another gun shop, with all the Federal “i’s” dotted and “t’s” crossed. One of the purposes of the law to begin with, besides keeping firearms out of the hands of felons, etc, is for the Feds to be able to track the ownership of weapons, and there was no attempt to circumvent that.

    His sentence of 5 years probation was upheld. Whoopee. (That’s 5 years more than Holder got.)

    Did the news nerds explain this to you? Of course not. All they could blare were headlines like “Supreme Court Rules Against Straw Purchases; Setback for Gun Right’s Advocates”. It was no such thing, and was not what this case was about..

    Abramski vs. US: Majority and Minority Opinions

  13. braindead08

    braindead08 GoComics PRO Member said, 9 months ago

    Still waiting for one of the so-called ‘conservatives’ to explain why it’s okay, constitutionally, to regulate switchblades, machine guns, hand grenades, flame throwers, bombs,


    but not guns.


    I don’t remember the word ‘gun’ being part of the constitution or any of its amendments.

  14. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    @braindead08

    You’ll find your answer, most recently, in DC vs Heller. (I’ve omitted their references to other case law for the purpose of readability):

    [p.52] “We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually)
    what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordi­nary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
    startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
    when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolu­tionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
    That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right.

    [p.54 Sec. III] Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
    the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou­tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
    and for whatever purpose. For exam­ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
    such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos­ing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
    explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradi­tion of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.

    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
    detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
    capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
    effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim­ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
    protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. “


    All this reaffirms US vs Miller, the important text below:

    “In the last quarter of his brief, Jackson explained that even when Courts had held that individuals could bear arms for personal protection, “the term ’arms’ as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals. Thus, “Sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles and machine guns are clearly weapons which can have no legitimate use in the hands of private individuals. On the contrary they … are not weapons of the character which are recognized by the common opinion of good citizens as proper for defense.”

    As to switchblades, The Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 was passed following hysterical liberals and Democrats, aided by a sensational media blitz, of contrived outrage over ”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchblade#Controversy">roaming bands of juvenile delinquents and gangs composed of lower class youth and racial minorities. . As usual, Hollywood joined in on the hysteria with popular films such as Rebel Without a Cause 1955, Crime in the Streets 1956, 12 Angry Men 1957, The Delinquents 1957, High School Confidential 1958 and the Broadway musical West Side Story. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Then, just as now, we had feel-good liberals and self-serving Democrats convincing their constituents that they were doing something— anything— to combat the problem, in spite of their unintended consequences: “As an anti-violence measure, the legislation clearly failed in the United States, as youth street gangs increasingly turned from bats and knives to handguns and rifles to settle their disputes…”

    As to the law itself, according to these Professors, publishing in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, it is clearly unconstitutional.

    Now that I’ve provided you with this treasure trove of information, I’m willing to give odds that you ask the same question in approximately a week. So I’ll copy it to Word so I don’t have to waste my time doing your homework. Kay? Kay.

  15. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, 9 months ago

    Wikipedia link for above. I can’t format this crap again.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (2).