National Gun Ban "Reasonable" - Page 3

National Gun Ban "Reasonable"

This is a discussion on National Gun Ban "Reasonable" within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by stanislaskasava Well, duuuuuhh! So maching guns are 'arms'? Is that why soldiers carry them? And we have the right to keep and ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 45 of 45
  1. #31
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post

    Well, duuuuuhh! So maching guns are 'arms'? Is that why soldiers carry them? And we have the right to keep and bear these 'arms'? Ohhhhh noooooo!
    ...our legal system has failed since the National Firearms Act of 1934:

    1939 Miller SCOTUS case said 2nd amendment protects "bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" and machine guns are obviously in common use...

    seems pretty obvious to me.

    by the way, the 1939 Miller Decision is a great read too:

    FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code
    Last edited by nutz4utwo; January 22nd, 2008 at 11:02 PM. Reason: added miller link
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.


  2. #32
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    The main problem I had with the brief was its insistance that "furthering government interests" was a sufficient reason to ignore or severely restrict an individual right. This essentially boils down to saying that we have rights, but we can only excercise them when it suits "government interests" to do so.

    I also have to take issue with these statements:

    Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding, as illustrated by the existing federal laws regulating firearms
    There is nothing offered to back that up, especially in the face of certain CDC studies showing exactly the opposite.

    The federal prohibitions on the possession of particular types of firearms, such as machineguns, readily pass such scrutiny. Those prohibitions are carefully targeted to firearms that have little or no legitimate private purpose, they permit possession for lawful purposes of a broad class of firearms other than those regulated, and the government’s interest in regulating firearms like the machinegun to protect the public safety is paramount.
    Again, nothing to back this up. "Legitimate private purpose" is a very nebulous term that leaves the door gaping wide open for pretty much any sort of regulation you could imagine.

    I think they're scared and are trying to "head it off at the pass". The NFA/FOPA combination is almost exactly analogous to the DC laws in question, except that they deal with machine guns instead of pistols. If one falls, the other won't be far behind.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  3. #33
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    While "over-all" the brief may say the Second Amendment is an individual right, the following excerpts are what bothers me:

    "In 2001, the Attorney General adopted the position
    that the Second Amendment protects an individual
    right to possess firearms for a lawful private purpose
    unrelated to service in a militia, and that such right—
    like other constitutional rights—is subject to reasonable
    restrictions."

    "Although the court of appeals correctly held that
    the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it
    did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s
    Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions
    of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the
    Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights
    does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically
    invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment,
    properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation
    of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context
    and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such
    as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms
    because those persons have never been understood to be
    within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the
    Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly
    no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation
    of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

    Let the government get "reasonable" and "important exceptions" allowed by the SCOTUS and see what happens.

  4. #34
    Member Array ken45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    183
    The 2nd Amendment- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...
    FREE state is the issue. Governments do NOT want a FREE state, they want their own kingdom. Of course governments will fight against the people being able to maintain a free state. It's contrary to the power of politicians and bureaucrats. The Founding Fathers knew that and that's why we have the Bill of Rights.

    Asset seizures, gun restrictions, limits on political talk, monitoring citizens without warrants, Homeland Security, The "Patriot Act", it's all part of the politicians and bureaucrats wanting to take this country away from the people and destroy it's foundations.

    Geesh, when you step back and look at the overall picture, not just the 2A, it really looks scary, very scary..

    Ken

  5. #35
    Distinguished Member Array nutz4utwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    1,644
    I am glad to see a healthy discussion going with quoting things and such...

    I think the 2 central questions to this discussion are:

    Should there be any limits on firearms owned by citizens?

    and if you answered yes, Who gets to decide what those limits are?

    ...
    "a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility" - Bill Clinton 2010.

  6. #36
    Distinguished Member Array Pro2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    1,933
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I dont believe that most folks today care one bit about other peoples rights. I have even heard elected officials say the people get their rights from the constitution. The news people never even questioned it.
    Most government folks that I have talked to believe that protecting the country means to protect the government. They believe they are the same thing.

    Michael
    I think most Americans believe this. I don't trust our government more then I could throw it. My boss seems to misconstrue what I'm saying as saying I don't like this country.

  7. #37
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    I have stated in the past, and still believe now, no right is unlimited. When it comes to firearms, laws should be made in a "shall issue" mode. Given a background investigation (for violent crimes and mental stability only), once issued a permit you should be able to carry freely anywhere with a "no carry under the influence" exception.

  8. #38
    Senior Member Array rljohns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    I have stated in the past, and still believe now, no right is unlimited. When it comes to firearms, laws should be made in a "shall issue" mode. Given a background investigation (for violent crimes and mental stability only), once issued a permit you should be able to carry freely anywhere with a "no carry under the influence" exception.
    +1 and without exception on the "no carry under the influence" EVEN IF YOU ARE a LEO, CEO, or any type of VIP (Bloomberg, DeNiro, etc). I don't know if Bloomberg drinks, but I'm tired of two classes of Americans.

  9. #39
    VIP Member
    Array 64zebra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Panhandle of Texas
    Posts
    6,452
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    I have stated in the past, and still believe now, no right is unlimited. When it comes to firearms, laws should be made in a "shall issue" mode. Given a background investigation (for violent crimes and mental stability only), once issued a permit you should be able to carry freely anywhere with a "no carry under the influence" exception.
    the problem I have with this is that I shouldn't be forced to get a permit for something that is my right
    even with background checks, mental history checks, etc....a scumbag is still a scumbag and they won't care about a law like this or any others, yet the good guys are forced to get checks and get a permit, just my $.02

    this is going to be a VERY BIG SCOTUS case for all of us and our futures, if our sacred 2nd amendment continues to get chisled away bit by bit the other amendments and our way of life and freedoms won't be far behind
    LEO/CHL
    Certified Glock Armorer

    "I got a touch of hangover bureaucrat, don't push me"
    --G.W. McClintock

    Independence is declared; it must be maintained. Sam Houston-3/2/1836
    If loose gun laws are good for criminals why do criminals support gun control?

  10. #40
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by rljohns View Post
    +1 and without exception on the "no carry under the influence" EVEN IF YOU ARE a LEO, CEO, or any type of VIP (Bloomberg, DeNiro, etc). I don't know if Bloomberg drinks, but I'm tired of two classes of Americans.
    I enjoy a few beers with friends now and then but believe that carrying a gun under the influence is just as dangerous as driving under the influence. I know a few people that, after a couple of drinks, tend to become a little more aggressive and shouldn't have a gun at the time. As long as your not drinking, carrying in an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises should be no problem.

  11. #41
    Senior Member Array Gun Bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    759
    Reasonable restrictions?! Who decides what is reasonable? The government! The second Amendment is to protect us from government!!!
    I was and still afraid of this, the court could say the same thing, and things could get worse for America.
    Kahr CW9
    Sig P239/9mm
    Ruger LC9 (when the girlfriend lets me carry her gun)


    "First Duty is To Remember"

  12. #42
    Senior Member Array rljohns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,042
    Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    I enjoy a few beers with friends now and then but believe that carrying a gun under the influence is just as dangerous as driving under the influence. I know a few people that, after a couple of drinks, tend to become a little more aggressive and shouldn't have a gun at the time. As long as your not drinking, carrying in an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises should be no problem.

    Here in Colorado we can certainly carry in bars and resturants as long as we are not under the influence. I do carry in resturants, etc but I.m the desiganted driver. I don't even have a drink while carring.

  13. #43
    Senior Member Array Rotorflyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Among the living
    Posts
    773
    Quote Originally Posted by GBS View Post
    I do wonder about LEO's given the order to disarm the populace, will they disobey or simply say 'I've got my job to protect'?
    You'll get some from Column A and some from Column B

    And the same would hold true for those in the military, though I would be willing to bet that more in the military would blindly follow orders as it's one of the things that get ingrained into them.

    I'm not speaking for- or about all military personal, just saying the percentage of those in the military that would follow that kind of order would be higher then that of civilian law enforcement.

    Personally, I doubt we will have to worry about it in our life time though (regardless of who wins the next election)
    When Guns Are Outlawed, Only Outlaws will have guns

    Just remember, When seconds count help is mere minutes away

    Also remember, When you go to trial by jury you are putting yourself into the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array LongRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,618
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    If they ban guns, I'd see riots in the streets over night.
    There was not a peep when freedom of speech, association, assembly, due process, prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure were all abolished.
    Last edited by LongRider; January 25th, 2008 at 12:47 PM. Reason: change seize to seizure
    Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution

    Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family

  15. #45
    VIP Member Array glock27mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    clinton township
    Posts
    2,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Pro2A View Post
    I think most Americans believe this. I don't trust our government more then I could throw it. My boss seems to misconstrue what I'm saying as saying I don't like this country.
    amen,i love my country,but fear my goverment.
    (SHERIFF BUFORD T. JUSTICE) "what the hell is
    the world coming too"

    NRA LIFE MEMBER

    U.S. ARMY FT.SILL, OKLA.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Local Article on "Reasonable" Gun Laws
    By MP45Man in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: August 9th, 2010, 08:41 PM
  2. Chicago Lawmakers - "Call in the National Guard" (Merged)
    By WhoWeBePart1 in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: April 27th, 2010, 10:41 PM
  3. "Reasonable Force"
    By Arkatect in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 08:33 AM
  4. Some Thoughts on"Reasonable" Restrictions
    By OPFOR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 19th, 2008, 02:20 PM

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors