permanent residents,people on temporary visas,illegal immigrants?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 08:15:27 -0800, S K wrote:

permanent residents,people on temporary visas,illegal immigrants?

https://uclawreview.org/2016/10/17/noncitizens-and-the-second-amendment

Of much more interest (to a Brit) is the fact that since you can't own a
weapon that fires incendiary rounds in California, there clearly are
*some* limits on keeping and bearing arms possible ...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

S K wrote:

permanent residents,people on temporary visas,illegal immigrants?

https://uclawreview.org/2016/10/17/noncitizens-and-the-second-amend
ment

Of much more interest (to a Brit) is the fact that since you can't
own a weapon that fires incendiary rounds in California, there
clearly are *some* limits on keeping and bearing arms possible ...

There are reasonable limits on all Constitutional rights, mostly those
that deal with health and safety.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 10:36:06 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

S K wrote:

permanent residents,people on temporary visas,illegal immigrants?

https://uclawreview.org/2016/10/17/noncitizens-and-the-second-amend
ment

Of much more interest (to a Brit) is the fact that since you can't own
a weapon that fires incendiary rounds in California, there clearly are
*some* limits on keeping and bearing arms possible ...

There are reasonable limits on all Constitutional rights, mostly those
that deal with health and safety.

It may be true what they say about the US grasp of irony :)

OK, I'll bite. Why is banning anything bigger than a .22 not considered a "reasonable limit" for health and safetys sake ? Or at the very least a registration scheme for bigger bangs ? (That is assuming that there is a
common agreement that high school shootings are contrary to the interests
of health and safety - it may be they are considered an extreme practical
in some quarters ?????)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

There are reasonable limits on all Constitutional rights, mostly
those that deal with health and safety.

It may be true what they say about the US grasp of irony :)

OK, I'll bite. Why is banning anything bigger than a .22 not
considered a "reasonable limit" for health and safetys sake ? Or
at the very least a registration scheme for bigger bangs ? (That
is assuming that there is a common agreement that high school
shootings are contrary to the interests of health and safety - it
may be they are considered an extreme practical in some quarters
?????)

That has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's just pure
politics. The Constitution limits what government can do. It doesn't
require the government to do much if anything.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

} On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 08:15:27 -0800, S K wrote:
}
} > permanent residents,people on temporary visas,illegal immigrants?
}
} https://uclawreview.org/2016/10/17/noncitizens-and-the-second-amendment
}
} Of much more interest (to a Brit) is the fact that since you can't own a
} weapon that fires incendiary rounds in California, there clearly are
} *some* limits on keeping and bearing arms possible ...

And machine guns have been outlawed since the 30s. /b\
--
Bernie Cosell Fantasy Farm Fibers
bernie@fantasyfarm.com Pearisburg, VA
--> Too many people, too few sheep <--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/11/2021 8:15 AM, S K wrote:

permanent residents,people on temporary visas,illegal immigrants?

I would say yes to the first two and maybe to the last.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 14:13:32 -0800, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

There are reasonable limits on all Constitutional rights, mostly those
that deal with health and safety.

It may be true what they say about the US grasp of irony :)

OK, I'll bite. Why is banning anything bigger than a .22 not considered
a "reasonable limit" for health and safetys sake ? Or at the very least
a registration scheme for bigger bangs ? (That is assuming that there
is a common agreement that high school shootings are contrary to the
interests of health and safety - it may be they are considered an
extreme practical in some quarters ?????)

That has nothing to do with the Constitution. That's just pure
politics.

I think I'd worked that out :)

But it can cause quite a flap to actually state it.

The Constitution limits what government can do. It doesn't
require the government to do much if anything.

That strays into a much wider debate (quite succinctly framed by P.J. O
Rourke) about what is the purpose of government to begin with ????

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 21:05:20 -0800, Bernie Cosell wrote:

And machine guns have been outlawed since the 30s. /b\

My grasp of firearm terminology is not great but I've seen shows with
people toting Uzis in California.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)