• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

Thundar

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
4,946
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
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
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.....
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
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.
 

hhofent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
130
Location
Iowa
"..., 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
 

hhofent

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2014
Messages
130
Location
Iowa
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
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
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!
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
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....
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
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.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
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.
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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
 

countryclubjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
2,505
Location
nj
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
 
Top