Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Can the Government limit the number of firearms you may own? Is this a 2nd A issue?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Can the Government limit the number of firearms you may own? Is this a 2nd A issue?

    From the heuristically challenged DC Federal District Court opinion in DC V. Heller II:

    "...the Second Amendment has so far been read to protect only “a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most
    notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044. While one or two firearms may be necessary for such purposes, a large collection of weapons is not. The Constitution, in short, guarantees the right “to keep and bear arms,” not the right “to keep and bear an armory.” As an individual seeks to acquire more guns, he moves farther and farther away from the right to bear arms and closer toward the constitutionally unprotected goal of assembling a personal arsenal. Any special burden the renewal requirement places on owners of multiple firearms, then, is outside the Second Amendment’s ken..."

    The district court judge was backed into a corner because the DC Circuit Court in the first appeal found that the registration and registration was more than a deminimus burden. Therefore the Judge had to make a crafty and unique argument to counter the plaintiff's argument that the cost was prohibitive for people with multiple firearms. He said people only need one or two guns to protect themselves. Anything more is not covered by the 2nd A!!!!

    The judge in the ruling recognizes first and second amendment parallels. The parallel to this intellectually void ruling is that people have the right to own a book, but only a few books. there is no 1st Amendment right to own a personal library.

    This ruling must be attacked with great zeal by GOA, the NRA, NAGR and any other organization which values all of our liberties. Letting a man or woman in black robes decide on how much liberty or property one "needs" is indeed one giant step towards tyranny.

    Live Free or Die,
    Thundar
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Sorites paradox of the heap. The 2A guarantees arms, and three do not make an armory or arsenal.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 05-16-2014 at 10:56 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    JUDGE JAMES E. BOASBERG is an idiot. The term "Arms" is the plural form of "Arm." An "Armory" is a collection of "Arms."

    In any event, as alluded to earlier, see Part III.C.4, supra, the Second Amendment has so far been read to protect only “a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3044. While one or two firearms may be necessary for such purposes, a large collection of weapons is not. The Constitution, in short, guarantees the right “to keep and bear arms,” not the right “to keep and bear an armory.” As an individual seeks to acquire more guns, he moves farther and farther away from the right to bear arms and closer toward the constitutionally unprotected goal of assembling a personal arsenal. Any special burden the renewal requirement places on owners of multiple firearms, then, is outside the Second Amendment’s ken.
    Where did this quote come from??????

    I hope this case gets appealed.....

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Sorites paradox of the heap. The 2A guarantees arms, and three do not make an armory or arsenal.
    Actually having one arm is not an armory, having two or more arms is an armory.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Actually having one arm is not an armory, having two or more arms is an armory.
    Fine then, as the 2A guarantees US arms, that you say equals armory, then the 2A guarantees US an armory. QED

    You do understand the logical paradox, or just blundered ahead?
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  6. #6
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Too late.....got all I need, and then some.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  7. #7
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    People don't NEED cars either.

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Fine then, as the 2A guarantees US arms, that you say equals armory, then the 2A guarantees US an armory. QED

    You do understand the logical paradox, or just blundered ahead?
    QED - quantum electrodynamics, whats that got to do with anything??????

    The three most important things in law is definition, definition and definition. Arm, arms and armory.

    If I recall my history correctly, I believe the British were attempting to seize the arms in the armory. Those arms were the peoples arms and also the arms the British were attempting to capture were cannons. Cannons of all things.

    So what is this logical paradox?

  9. #9
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Where did this quote come from??????
    http://media.washtimes.com/media/mis...i-decision.pdf
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    [ ... ]Where did this quote come from? [ ... ]
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...n&goto=newpost
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    I guess you did not see that I quoted the decision. My question is where did this judge get that quote? When a statement is in quotation marks it means that it came from somewhere. Where is that somewhere this judge get his quote????????

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    I guess you did not see that I quoted the decision. My question is where did this judge get that quote? When a statement is in quotation marks it means that it came from somewhere. Where is that somewhere this judge get his quote?
    A moment of research shows that phrase, to keep and bear an armory, as only occurring in that decision. So it is likely a common misuse of of quotation marks around the phrase when only armory should have been enclosed, marking its use in a special or ironic sense. (Rule 16c Harbrace College Handbook)
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    A moment of research shows that phrase, to keep and bear an armory, as only occurring in that decision. So it is likely a common misuse of of quotation marks around the phrase when only armory should have been enclosed, marking its use in a special or ironic sense. (Rule 16c Harbrace College Handbook)
    Now that that is settled, I think the judge needs to buy a dictionary.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    We are nothing but slaves if we let others dictate what our "needs" are.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  15. #15
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    An arbitrary number limiting the number of arms one may "keep and bear" IS AN INFRINGEMENT!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  16. #16
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    "..., the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    An arbitrary number limiting the number of arms one may "keep and bear" IS AN INFRINGEMENT!
    Limiting the use of devices in the gun to limit the bullets fired on one finger pull is an infringement too.
    As is limiting the guns to specified barrel lengths.



    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

  17. #17
    Regular Member hhofent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    142
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    Limiting the use of devices in the gun to limit the bullets fired on one finger pull is an infringement too.
    As is limiting the guns to arbitrary barrel lengths.



    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2


    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by hhofent View Post
    Limiting the use of devices in the gun to limit the bullets fired on one finger pull is an infringement too.
    As is limiting the guns to specified barrel lengths.



    Sent from my SCH-R680 using Tapatalk 2
    Yes, they are!

    And fixing them will require repealing the gun/crime control acts of 1968, and 1934!
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,150
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    QED - quantum electrodynamics, whats that got to do with anything?
    [ ... ]
    So what is this logical paradox?
    Latin quod erat demonstrandum, originating from the Greek analogous hóper édei deîxai (ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι), meaning "which had to be demonstrated". The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a philosophical argument.

    You have to read for education. The paradox is in the undefined number required to make an armory or a heap and the induction of remove one and is it still an armory? Remove two, is it still an armory? Remove all but ten, is it still an armory? Remove the next to the last, is it still an armory? That leads easily to an (mathematical) infinite sum and proof by reductio ad absurdum.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  20. #20
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Even without the 2A the right exists. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the feds the power to be involved in Arms, Tabocco, Alcohol or Explosives.

    Of course this doesn't stop them, they also have no authority over vices like drugs, education, medicine/healthcare, retirement pyramids (SS), foreign welfare, local welfare, wages, safety, etc....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Even without the 2A the right exists. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the feds the power to be involved in Arms, Tabocco, Alcohol or Explosives.

    Of course this doesn't stop them, they also have no authority over vices like drugs, education, medicine/healthcare, retirement pyramids (SS), foreign welfare, local welfare, wages, safety, etc....
    +1

    Truly the mindset of the people is that all things are within the authority of government and so, all political thought originates from this attitude of subjugation. I find this attitude is now prevelent in the "legal" profession as well.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    74
    It does seem these days that education may be a vice.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I called the judge and told him that I have an arsenal and dared him to come over and take some.

    Odd, he did not show up. He's talks a good talk but don't walk a good walk.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Arms-- plural, more then one...

    Modern day judges with their modernist views of the Constitution.. We need more jurist that follow the written Constitution not jurist that interrupt
    the law of the land to suit their agenda's.

    Government putting a cap on anything is pure tyranny, putting a cap on a tool that the citizens use in defense of his family, home and self is surely Unconstitutional...

    My .02

    CCJ
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277
    Guns are as American as Apple Pie, what next's the G is going to tell us how many apple pies we can bake per year.. HOW UN-AMERICAN
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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