Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 41

Thread: Gun laws

  1. #1
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    I'm sure this has been discussed before at some point in time, but I have not seen any threads about it. I think it is a topic worth discussing.

    When I read the second amendment, I understand it to prove that all these gun laws restricting our freedoms are illegal. I defined a couple of key words in the second amendment, and it makes it even more clear to me.

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right (in accordance with what is good, proper, or just; a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral.) of the people to keep (to hold or retain in one's possession; to hold as one's own.) and bear (to hold; to carry; to have; to exhibit; to have and use) Arms, shall not be infringed" ( to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another; violate or transgress)

    I understand that to mean I am promised the right to carry how, when, where, and what I want. I have never heard of anyone actually doing this, and I am not in a position to do it either (I have a family to take care of, and that's hard to do if I'm sitting in a jail fighting charges)

    Has anyone heard of someone doing this, and am I interpreting our constitution incorrectly? I am curious to see how this line of reasoning would hold up in a court of law.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    There is black letter law and case law and common law, the BoR is neither.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    I will go out on a limb here, and state that, any law that restricts, denies, undully regulates, or openly abolishes, the right to Keep and Bear Arms is Unconstitutional, that said will the laws that are on the books, that fall under these stated conditions, ever be stricken from the books, is most unlikely, but who knows, lightning has struck the same place twice, more than once, so it could be posible, especially if the Supreme Court would show a Backbone, and clearly for all time agree that the Second Amendment does in fact state that our personal Rights, are protected in relation to gun ownership, and the ability to carry them, in any manner we choose, and in any place we choose, provided we do so in a civil manner.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    I will go out on a limb here, and state that, any law that restricts, denies, undully regulates, or openly abolishes, the right to Keep and Bear Arms is Unconstitutional,
    I disagree. Since the beginning or even before the second amendment was ratified there have been restrictions on gun ownership in place. Those people who were considered dangerous to society were barred from gun ownership. In the beginning the country perceived threats were slaves and Native Americans. Fortunately we no longer follow those guidelines. There are, however, types of people who are true dangers to our society. Violent felons are a group of people I think probably don't obtain firearms strictly for their safety and that of their neighbors. Our society needs to determine who areactually dangerous without applying blanket restrictions on everyone. I don't know what other groups everyone considers dangerous but in the end most of my choices end up committing violent felonies.

    The second amendment also does have that militia clause. I personally think that firearm regulations that require individuals to first purchase and M-16 and then pick up a M-9 (I know, most of us probably have no love for this pistol) would be acceptable. Everyone should also be required to have about five hundred rounds of ammo with about seven magazines. A well regulated militia opens the door for firearm laws that set standards to the manner the militia will equip itself. Some people may even have to buy saws and 240 Bravos. In the end I prefer the second amendment without a Militia to no second amendment at all. I think without organized militias we run the risk of having troubles like Iraq where the militias are organized around individuals and personal interests during difficult times. It takes time and mutual service for individuals to genuinely care for each others like brothers and value the welfare of a country over personal wants and needs. Without opportunities for this kind of service true patriots will be hard to find when they are needed.

    "Standing armies threaten government by the people, not because they consciously seek to pervert liberty, but because they relieve the people themselves of the duty of self-defense. A people accustomed to let a special class defend them must sooner or later become unfit for liberty." Brigadier General John McAuly Palmer

    "At best, professionals are efficient, skillful, and effective. At worst they can be mercenaries, samurai, or bureaucrats in uniform." Gary Hart

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Salem, ,
    Posts
    235

    Post imported post

    I was surprised to learn recently that the states are not bound by the entire bill of rights in the federal constitution. There is a technical, legal term for this which I forget . dngreer could get that magic ruling we all want from SCOTUS, and the states can still say that guns are totally illegal, period (NY, MD, not far off IMHO).

  6. #6
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    daniel.call, Sir with all due respect, aside from the mental incapacity of an individual, what you point out is not a prohibition against guns, but the result of the violation of the use of them, therefore if we adhere to the premise that gun laws prohibiting us, from the possession, or the carryof them are, against the Constitutional provisions of the Second Amendment, then all things will remain as they are, but if violations by individuals are committed, then there are consequences to that action, but this in no way changes the provisions of the 2nd. ( there might be circumstances that an individual may be barred from Gun Possetion but again that would be as the result of that persons own actions not the Constitutional provisions of the 2nd.)

    You mentioned the resulting Bigotry of days gone by regarding Slaves and, Indians which have been addressed in the now corrected laws, as are true of the Felons, but I still hold true to the fact that these things do not change the 2nd, in any way shape or form. They havemearly been cleared up as to correct a wrong.

    As to the Militia Issue we still do observe the premise of the Militia as was referenced in the 2nd, but due to the fact that we do now have a Standing Army (Under Civilian Control) we are not faced with the necessity of providing arms in the defense of our Country, but this is not a bad idea, since we may well become under attack on our own soil in the days to come, if the Congress does not wake up, and smell the stench of war across the pond, and get out of this Hate Bush Mentality, and start to accept the fact that we are faced with a clear and present danger, to our freedom, our way of life, and our ability to worship in the manner of our faith, threatened by a radical group that would prefer us dead.

    It is an absolute shame the way the Democrats, and the Media, have blocked, demeaned, derided , and obstructed just about everything Bush has attempted, aside from his stance on the Immigration issue, which I personally do not agree with, He has done a pretty good job in keeping us safe and prosperous, but the stance on the immigration situation, andthe attempt to make such a broad approach to the conditions as are currently manifesting themselves, the simple fact remains the Government needs to, and must enforce existing laws to control the Illegal Immigration problem before any attempt to make provisions for any worker programs, or any other types of programs are to be contemplated, with respect to the immigration problem, the fact remains that there is an unsecured border, and people here in this Country that do not have the right or the proper documentation to be here.



  7. #7
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    CPerdue wrote:
    I was surprised to learn recently that the states are not bound by the entire bill of rights in the federal constitution. There is a technical, legal term for this which I forget . dngreer could get that magic ruling we all want from SCOTUS, and the states can still say that guns are totally illegal, period (NY, MD, not far off IMHO).
    There may be some lawyer explination to seemingly alter the meaning of the Bill of Rights, but if the Language is adheared to by the Courts, acording to the meaning of the language, of the times in which it was written, then the Bill of Rights is a Protection of the People, from the Government. And I do not believe te States can alter or overide them, they are ment to protect the people from the heavy hand of the Government.

    This provision was added in order to get the Constitution Ratified in the first place, as We the People, frankly did not, nor do We, trust the Government.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    147

    Post imported post

    CPerdue wrote:
    I was surprised to learn recently that the states are not bound by the entire bill of rights in the federal constitution. There is a technical, legal term for this which I forget . dngreer could get that magic ruling we all want from SCOTUS, and the states can still say that guns are totally illegal, period (NY, MD, not far off IMHO).
    (sorry, i do not have sources redally avaliable to support this, however hopefully someone else might)

    so origionally they were intended to apply to the states as well, infact they were modeled after many of the state's own constitutions. This is evidenced by the founders origional writings, the 9th admendment and the 10th admendement. unfortunatally an early supreme court ruling stated that the BoR is only applicable to the federal government. As such, later the 14th admentment was added and now the BoR applies to the states through the dual citizenship dealio.

    The only admendment i could see not being applicable to the states would be the first, because it states congress shal make no law.....

    in any case, many if not all states incorperate the bill of rights into their own consitution.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    daniel.call, Sir with all due respect, aside from the mental incapacity of an individual, what you point out is not a prohibition against guns, but the result of the violation of the use of them,
    I disagree here. If a person were to violently kill someone with a baseball bat they never misused a firearm. Yet we still bar them. If people are discharged dishonorably from the military they lose the right to process firearms. White collar felons lose the right to process firearms. No correlation with guns. My stance is that those who put themselves above and outside of our laws should not be allowed to enjoy all the privileges and rights we have. In order to bar someone from the ownership of a gun you have to pass a gun law. The right of the people to keep and bear arms in the most broad interpretation has been infringed. It is still a gun law any way you look at it for the reasons you articulated.
    There might be circumstances that an individual may be barred from Gun Possetion but again that would be as the result of that persons own actions not the Constitutional provisions of the 2nd.
    Any denial of the right to process a firearm has to be done within the confines of the second amendment. If the amendment does not allow for any gun laws then felons cannot and should not be barred.
    You mentioned the resulting Bigotry of days gone by regarding Slaves and, Indians which have been addressed in the now corrected laws, as are true of the Felons, but I still hold true to the fact that these things do not change the 2nd, in any way shape or form. They havemearly been cleared up as to correct a wrong.
    I used this example to illustrate the way the individuals of the time interpreted the amendment. It wasn't absolute. Nothing has changed. Certain groups who are truly dangerous to society my be barred from weapons possession. I agree that bigotry is not the way to determine these groups.
    As to the Militia Issue we still do observe the premise of the Militia as was referenced in the 2nd, but due to the fact that we do now have a Standing Army (Under Civilian Control) we are not faced with the necessity of providing arms in the defense of our Country.
    What are you saying here? We still avoid standing armies and observe the premise of the Militia but we use a standing army so we don't need the Militia now. That is what I got out of it. An unorganized Militia does not equal a well regulated Militia. Not the same thing and not the same system. Still if we were required to own certain guns that would make one more example of a gun law that is operating correctly within the guidance of the second amendment.
    and start to accept the fact that we are faced with a clear and present danger, to our freedom, our way of life, and our ability to worship in the manner of our faith, threatened by a radical group that would prefer us dead.
    This is the same as it was in 1776. The situation really hasn't changed much at all. This country is always threatened by radical groups who want to take those precious things from us. Some groups are foreign but most are domestic.
    It is an absolute shame the way the Democrats, and the Media, have blocked, demeaned, derided , and obstructed just about everything Bush has attempted, aside from his stance on the Immigration issue, which I personally do not agree with, He has done a pretty good job in keeping us safe and prosperous,
    This statement is disputable. I don't buy the argument that President Bush is so virtuous while others are so evil and selfish. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act or warrentless wiretapping or anything else. It is amazing how willing humans are to trade freedom for safety. In the end you trade your freedom but never receive that safety you wanted.
    the fact remains that there is an unsecured border, and people here in this Country that do not have the right or the proper documentation to be here.
    Another group I think gun laws should strictly ban from weapons possession.Yet this requires another gun law. In the end we need to make good gun laws. They need to allow citizens to exercise their rights while sensibly controlling dangerous segments of the population. This wholethread got started becausedngreer asked if "all these gun laws restricting our freedoms are illegal." I stand by my answer that there are legitimate gun laws that not only are legal but necessary to properlyenjoy the rights of the second ammendment.


  10. #10
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    daniel.call wrote:
    Kelly J wrote:
    daniel.call, Sir with all due respect, aside from the mental incapacity of an individual, what you point out is not a prohibition against guns, but the result of the violation of the use of them,
    I disagree here. If a person were to violently kill someone with a baseball bat they never misused a firearm. Yet we still bar them. If people are discharged dishonorably from the military they lose the right to process firearms. White collar felons lose the right to process firearms. No correlation with guns. My stance is that those who put themselves above and outside of our laws should not be allowed to enjoy all the privileges and rights we have. In order to bar someone from the ownership of a gun you have to pass a gun law. The right of the people to keep and bear arms in the most broad interpretation has been infringed. It is still a gun law any way you look at it for the reasons you articulated.
    There might be circumstances that an individual may be barred from Gun Possetion but again that would be as the result of that persons own actions not the Constitutional provisions of the 2nd.
    Any denial of the right to process a firearm has to be done within the confines of the second amendment. If the amendment does not allow for any gun laws then felons cannot and should not be barred.
    You mentioned the resulting Bigotry of days gone by regarding Slaves and, Indians which have been addressed in the now corrected laws, as are true of the Felons, but I still hold true to the fact that these things do not change the 2nd, in any way shape or form. They havemearly been cleared up as to correct a wrong.
    I used this example to illustrate the way the individuals of the time interpreted the amendment. It wasn't absolute. Nothing has changed. Certain groups who are truly dangerous to society my be barred from weapons possession. I agree that bigotry is not the way to determine these groups.
    As to the Militia Issue we still do observe the premise of the Militia as was referenced in the 2nd, but due to the fact that we do now have a Standing Army (Under Civilian Control) we are not faced with the necessity of providing arms in the defense of our Country.
    What are you saying here? We still avoid standing armies and observe the premise of the Militia but we use a standing army so we don't need the Militia now. That is what I got out of it. An unorganized Militia does not equal a well regulated Militia. Not the same thing and not the same system. Still if we were required to own certain guns that would make one more example of a gun law that is operating correctly within the guidance of the second amendment.
    and start to accept the fact that we are faced with a clear and present danger, to our freedom, our way of life, and our ability to worship in the manner of our faith, threatened by a radical group that would prefer us dead.
    This is the same as it was in 1776. The situation really hasn't changed much at all. This country is always threatened by radical groups who want to take those precious things from us. Some groups are foreign but most are domestic.
    It is an absolute shame the way the Democrats, and the Media, have blocked, demeaned, derided , and obstructed just about everything Bush has attempted, aside from his stance on the Immigration issue, which I personally do not agree with, He has done a pretty good job in keeping us safe and prosperous,
    This statement is disputable. I don't buy the argument that President Bush is so virtuous while others are so evil and selfish. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act or warrentless wiretapping or anything else. It is amazing how willing humans are to trade freedom for safety. In the end you trade your freedom but never receive that safety you wanted.
    the fact remains that there is an unsecured border, and people here in this Country that do not have the right or the proper documentation to be here.
    Another group I think gun laws should strictly ban from weapons possession.Yet this requires another gun law. In the end we need to make good gun laws. They need to allow citizens to exercise their rights while sensibly controlling dangerous segments of the population. This wholethread got started becausedngreer asked if "all these gun laws restricting our freedoms are illegal." I stand by my answer that there are legitimate gun laws that not only are legal but necessary to properlyenjoy the rights of the second ammendment.


    I don't wish to go in circles here but the fact that someone looses the right to own, posses, or carry a gun after Committing a crime, that constitutes the loss of this right is the result of a violated law not a Constitutional Right protected by the Bill of Rights, because committing the violation, the individual forfeits the Right by being Stupid.

    So the 2nd still stands as written, but if anyone chooses to commit a crime that results in the Forfeiture of their second amendment rights then they are guilty of being stupid, and deserve the loss of the 2nd. amendment protections.

    It is sort of like the old TV show Beretta "if you can't do the time don't do the crime".

    I really don't have the language skills nor the Legal skills to properly explain the difference between violating and loosing a right ,yet the right still exist even though some one else has violated it.

    If this isn't clear to you perhaps a scholarly person could point out the differences.




  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Kelly J wrote:
    I will go out on a limb here, and state that, any law that restricts, denies, undully regulates, or openly abolishes, the right to Keep and Bear Arms is Unconstitutional,
    If these are your true feelings on the second amendment that does not leave any room to deny anyone the right to keep an bear arms, not even felons. I think we pretty much agree on what gun laws should be. I shouldn't need a permit to carry concealed. I shouldn't have to ask for permission from anybody to buy and carry weapons. Those are bad gun laws that are unconstitutional in my opinion. I can think of hundreds of good gun laws. Here are a few examples that would not meet your stated criteria.

    A law that makes it a crime for me to carry my weapon on another person's private property after they had informed me weapons are not welcome. (restricts)

    A law that bans felons from owning weapons. (denies/restricts)

    A law that bans illegal aliens from owning weapons. (denies/restricts)

    A law that makes the enriched uranium unattainable by individuals. (restricts, denies, abolishes)

    None of these cases changes the meaning of the second amendment. It still states that the American people should take responsibility for the common defense and avoid professional armies. To help accomplish this every American that fits the criteria of not being a danger to society will be able to own, carry, and use personal weapons for recreation, personal defense and the defense of the state. Like you said, good gun laws don't change the meaning of the amendment, but they absolutely are laws that deny and restrict.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    daniel.call wrote:
    Kelly J wrote:
    I will go out on a limb here, and state that, any law that restricts, denies, undully regulates, or openly abolishes, the right to Keep and Bear Arms is Unconstitutional,
    If these are your true feelings on the second amendment that does not leave any room to deny anyone the right to keep an bear arms, not even felons. I think we pretty much agree on what gun laws should be. I shouldn't need a permit to carry concealed. I shouldn't have to ask for permission from anybody to buy and carry weapons. Those are bad gun laws that are unconstitutional in my opinion. I can think of hundreds of good gun laws. Here are a few examples that would not meet your stated criteria.

    A law that makes it a crime for me to carry my weapon on another person's private property after they had informed me weapons are not welcome. (restricts)

    A law that bans felons from owning weapons. (denies/restricts)

    A law that bans illegal aliens from owning weapons. (denies/restricts)

    A law that makes the enriched uranium unattainable by individuals. (restricts, denies, abolishes)

    None of these cases changes the meaning of the second amendment. It still states that the American people should take responsibility for the common defense and avoid professional armies. To help accomplish this every American that fits the criteria of not being a danger to society will be able to own, carry, and use personal weapons for recreation, personal defense and the defense of the state. Like you said, good gun laws don't change the meaning of the amendment, but they absolutely are laws that deny and restrict.
    As I stated before I am not going to keep going in circles on this subject, You see things your way, and I see them my way, neigther are going to agree, and I lack the language and legal skills to articulate the differences of our views, so I will conceed that we differ in our opinions and drop the subject, and consider it a draw, and simply agree to disagree.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    dngreer wrote:
    ...
    When I read the second amendment, I understand it to prove that all these gun laws restricting our freedoms are illegal. I defined a couple of key words in the second amendment, and it makes it even more clear to me.
    ...
    I understand that to mean I am promised the right to carry how, when, where, and what I want.
    ...and am I interpreting our constitution incorrectly? I am curious to see how this line of reasoning would hold up in a court of law.
    You have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and this right pre-existed the 2nd Amendment, which offered explicit enumeration and further protection for the existing right -- making it clear that this is a fundamental and necessary individual right for the people of any free state (i.e., free country.)

    However, restrictions on a right are permissible under the Constitution in certain very limited cases, mostly after DUE PROCESS when such serve as punishment (which is not cruel or unusual). Convicted felon may legitimately lose property (fines and forfeiture), freedom (be incarcerated), other rights (voting and RKBA), or even life for the most serious crimes (murder, treason, etc.)

    All other infringements, i.e., those not involving due process for actual bad behavior. applied to citizens in general must pass "Strict Scrutiny"*.

    One of the rules of constitutional law is that any law (whether a statute, regulation or town ordinance) impacting a fundamental right is subject to strict scrutiny. Under strict scrutiny, a judge must presume that the law in question is invalid, and a court will uphold the law only if it is found it be narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. Laws that are subject to strict scrutiny frequently are struck down as unconstitutional.

    None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor DoJ was able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME, SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner.**

    Therefore since no current "gun control" (including Brady/NICS) has been (or can be) shown to serve a compelling state interest (nor have any positive effect in fact) these laws cannot pass scrict scrutiny and are unconstitutional.

    Surprising even to many RKBA activists is the that even asking for ID under Brady/NICS*** background check are an egregious violation of the Constitution no matter how much this SEEMS like "common sense." The Brady/NICS law has not been shown to prevent any of murder, violent crime, suicide, nor accidents and is in fact not even enforced on felons.

    The lack of compelling state interest is also demonstrated clearly by the simple fact that less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are because the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy or RICO charge.

    This doesn't mean you will win in a particular court but it does show clearly that all current gun laws are in fact egregious violations of the Constitution. And most states Constitutions would agree, since some 44 State Constitutions explicitly protect the RKBA (more than protect freedom of religion explictly) and 40 states offer essentially "Shall Issue" Concealed carry.

    But notice that most state laws on Concealed Carry (except Alaska and Vermont) are also unconstituniol in requiring a license to exercise a right, especially and specifically without that process being able to pass Strict Scrutiny.

    These laws also cannot pass strict strutiny on the grounds that there are other methods available which are less intrusive and less pervasive in affecting a fundamental right.

    Were the desired effects of such laws such as NICS/Brady to be made constitutional might be possible if the burden was shifted to convicted felons -- by removing 4th Amendment rights from ONLY those who after due process had also lost their RKBA (2nd Amendment guaranteed) rights.

    That is, by allowing the police to search the person and property of a convicted felon without warrant or even additional propable cause -- as much as this sounds like a violation of rights it is certainly no more egregious than incarceration or the continued loss of the RKBA and shifts the burden to those who have been afforded due process for their own actions.


    *For there to be a compelling state interest, there must be:

    1. A major problem;

    2. Clear and direct proof the proposed restriction would significantly reduce
    that problem; AND

    3. any restriction must be NARROWLY tailored, in general this means the
    smallest possible restriction of rights and that the restriction must not
    apply to the law-abiding due to bad behavior of others, i.e., without due
    process; AND

    4. clear evidence that no other method is available and that no restriction
    that was less burdensome on the populace would be effective.

    More here: http://www.answers.com/topic/strict-scrutiny


    **Don B. Kates and Gary A. Mauser, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" (June 6, 2006). ExpressO Preprint Series. Working Paper 1413.
    http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/1413
    http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewconte...ntext=expresso
    <<In this connection two recent studies are pertinent. In 2004 the U.S. National Academy of
    Sciences released its evaluation from an review of 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government
    publications and some empirical research of its own. It could not identify any gun control that had
    reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.(15) The same conclusion was reached in a 2003
    study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s review of then-extant studies"(16)

    (15) Charles F. Wellford, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie (eds.),
    FIREARMS AND VIOLENCE: A CRITICAL REVIEW
    (National Academy of Sciences, 2004). It is perhaps not amiss to note that the review panel,
    which was set up during the Clinton Administration, was almost entirely composed of scholars who, to the extent
    their views were publicly known before their appointments, favored gun control.
    (16) “First Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws” (CDC,
    2003) <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...5214a2.htm>
    >>

    *** Review of the ATF’s Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
    Office of Inspector General's (OIG) Draft Report: Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Enforcement of Brady Act Violations Identified through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. A-2004-001
    http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/final.pdf

    <<
    A June 28, 2001, memorandum from the Attorney General directed
    the U.S. Attorneys to “make it a priority to enforce the law against those
    persons who attempt to subvert the legitimate crime prevention objectives of
    the Brady Act and to incorporate this new focus into [their] comprehensive
    prosecutive efforts.” During CYs 2002 and 2003, approximately 120,000
    cases were referred by the FBI to the Brady Operations Branch. Of these
    cases, the ATF formally referred only 230 to the USAOs, and the USAOs
    accepted 185, or 80 percent for prosecution.3 Of these cases, 154 were
    prosecuted.

    We believe that the number of referrals and prosecutions is low
    because of the difficulty in obtaining convictions in NICS cases. These cases
    lack “jury appeal” for various reasons. The factors prohibiting someone
    from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many
    years ago. The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a
    dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military). It is also difficult to prove
    that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally
    lied to the FFL. We were also told that in parts of the United States where
    hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are
    reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle.
    >>

    Why the ATF says the recommendations won't work, blah blah blah
    http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/app4.htm

    ****What State Constitutions Teach About the Second Amendment by David B. Kopel
    "44 State Constitutions explicitly protect the Right to Keep and Bears Arms
    as an individual one. (And has been so held by all but one of them in the
    Courts)"
    http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/W...tionsTeach.htm

    "It is well-settled that state constitutions can serve as an aid to interpreting the
    federal Bill of Rights. ....
    The rights of free exercise of religion and of freedom from religious discrimination are
    protected by only 34 state constitutions. See Jennifer Friesen,
    State Constitutional Law: Litigating Individual Rights"

    State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions
    Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *
    http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm


    Even New Jersey courts for goodness sakes.
    http://www.washingtonceasefire.com/content/view/52/35/
    New Jersey Court Recognizes 2nd Amendment and Holds that it Trumps Gun Forfeiture Law Belvidere, N.J, March 19, 2007 — In a landmark written opinion filed February 27, a New Jersey Superior Court recognized the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and held that a citizen’s Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms cannot be involuntarily waived under a New Jersey firearms forfeiture law.

    http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm



  14. #14
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    Thank You!

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,350

    Post imported post

    So with what HerbM has just outlined for us, why can't this be used to help the cause?

  16. #16
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    DreQo wrote:
    So with what HerbM has just outlined for us, why can't this be used to help the cause?
    I am not absolutely sure but I think it has something to do with Lawyers, and Lobbyist.

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    It seems to me that lacking in this discussion, is mention of the applicability of the US Constitution. It was written to define and shape the scope of the FEDERAL government. While it certainly has effect on individuals and states, it is basically a definition of the scope of the Federal sovereign.

    At the time of ratification the states already had constitutions, and the focus was on limits and activities of the Federal government. It was designed to handle issues beyond the scope of any one state, and define the relationship between states and individuals, and the federal system.

    Most of the issues brought out in this thread are the result of tortuous distortions of the Interstate Commerce clause (ICC). Franklin Roosevelt is the culprit in this. In order to push his social agenda, he vastly broadened the scope and applicability of the ICC.

    At first the Supreme Court objected. So he threatened to "pack" the court with Judges favorable to his cause if the "sitting" court failed to "go along" with his plans. He claimed he could do this by expanding the size of the court such that the sitting judges would be in the minority. As a result the Court went along. Ever since that time, the ICC has been used to justify every possible unconstitutional regulatory act from Alcohol to Zoological parks.

    The guarantees in the constitution were originally "agreed to" by the states, and were a condition of membership in the United States. The Amendments were put there at the insistence of the state representatives, because they feared exactly what has happened. They did not want to cast off one out of control tyrant and replace it with another. Each representative was loyal to his state and worked to protect that state from the new federal government.

    To bring this home a bit. On what grounds would the Federal Government regulate in any way, firearms (or any other product) manufactured in a particular state, if those guns were only sold within that state? There are NO grounds except the ICC, and only then because someone might own one of these arms, and transport it across a state line, IE engage in Interstate commerce.

    But that is NOT Interstate commerce as originally envisioned by the founding fathers. It is a twisted interpretation. The ICC was written to prevent the states from enacting protectionist regulations against each other and assure a free economy. Remember, the United States was envisioned as a confederation of sovereigns, who MIGHT argue with each other.

    But while the states recognize and in some cases incorporate second amendment provisions, the second amendment is in fact only a limitation on what the Federal Government can do, and only in a very limited sense to what a state may do.

    In the 1700s each state maintained its own army, everyone owned guns, it was assumed that this was the natural condition for the citizens and the states. The state governments were established with this in mind. As they established the Federal government they wanted assurances that the new Congress would also recognize that fact, and so the actual target of the 2nd amendment was the federal government not the states. Moreover, the 2nd amendment, as with the others, only RECOGNIZED a set of PREEXISTING conditions that could not be tampered with, it did NOT grant anything.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    Hawkflyer wrote:
    It seems to me that lacking in this discussion, is mention of the applicability of the US Constitution. It was written to define and shape the scope of the FEDERAL government. While it certainly has effect on individuals and states, it is basically a definition of the scope of the Federal sovereign.

    At the time of ratification the states already had constitutions, and the focus was on limits and activities of the Federal government. It was designed to handle issues beyond the scope of any one state, and define the relationship between states and individuals, and the federal system.

    Most of the issues brought out in this thread are the result of tortuous distortions of the Interstate Commerce clause (ICC). Franklin Roosevelt is the culprit in this. In order to push his social agenda, he vastly broadened the scope and applicability of the ICC.

    At first the Supreme Court objected. So he threatened to "pack" the court with Judges favorable to his cause if the "sitting" court failed to "go along" with his plans. He claimed he could do this by expanding the size of the court such that the sitting judges would be in the minority. As a result the Court went along. Ever since that time, the ICC has been used to justify every possible unconstitutional regulatory act from Alcohol to Zoological parks.

    The guarantees in the constitution were originally "agreed to" by the states, and were a condition of membership in the United States. The Amendments were put there at the insistence of the state representatives, because they feared exactly what has happened. They did not want to cast off one out of control tyrant and replace it with another. Each representative was loyal to his state and worked to protect that state from the new federal government.

    To bring this home a bit. On what grounds would the Federal Government regulate in any way, firearms (or any other product) manufactured in a particular state, if those guns were only sold within that state? There are NO grounds except the ICC, and only then because someone might own one of these arms, and transport it across a state line, IE engage in Interstate commerce.

    But that is NOT Interstate commerce as originally envisioned by the founding fathers. It is a twisted interpretation. The ICC was written to prevent the states from enacting protectionist regulations against each other and assure a free economy. Remember, the United States was envisioned as a confederation of sovereigns, who MIGHT argue with each other.

    But while the states recognize and in some cases incorporate second amendment provisions, the second amendment is in fact only a limitation on what the Federal Government can do, and only in a very limited sense to what a state may do.

    In the 1700s each state maintained its own army, everyone owned guns, it was assumed that this was the natural condition for the citizens and the states. The state governments were established with this in mind. As they established the Federal government they wanted assurances that the new Congress would also recognize that fact, and so the actual target of the 2nd amendment was the federal government not the states.

    Moreover, the 2nd amendment, as with the others, only RECOGNIZED a set of PREEXISTING conditions that could not be tampered with, it did NOT grant anything....
    The above is largely correct in so far as the Federal government has not power to abridge rights, neither existing rights nor rights recognized and protected by the several states.

    The Federal government does however have both the power AND responsibility to prevent any state from abusing the rights guaranteed by the Constitution (but explicitly enumerated and perhaps implicitly recognized by the 9th Amendment).

    It is a common mistake of those favoring the "states' rights" model to believe that the Federal government has no power in the Constitution to demand that states protect and respect the rights of citizens.

    This was explicitly clarified and or corrected by the 14th Amendment which few people have actually read.

    Section 1 of the 14th Amendment using language specifically designed to (re) activate the long dormant (even at that time) Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 "Privileges and Immunities" clause.

    14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    This is the basis of so called "Incoporation" which should NEVER have been necessary due to that long ignored Article IV, Section 2, Paragraph 1 which was intended to offer the absolutely unsurprising protection that a citizen never lose a fundamental right by merely crossing a state line.

    Even those that disagree with the original intent of the "Privileges and Immunities" clause are faced with the clear legislative record of the 14th Amendment which clearly intended to EITHER affirm this protection, or if necesasry to correct this mistake.


    The remainder is a LONG QUOTE on the intent of the 14th Amendment and how it was clearly intended to activate protection for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms by all Americans in all States and Territories of the United States:
    14th http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Am...enth_amend.htm

    <<
    The proposal that became section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was submitted by Congressman Bingham and agreed to by the Committee on April 28, 1866.

    Representative Stevens, speaking for the Committee, introduced the proposed amendment in the House of Representatives on May 8, 1866:

    "I can hardly believe that any person can be found who will not admit that every one of these provisions is just. They are all asserted, in some form or other, in our Declaration [of Independence] or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This amendment supplies the defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States..."

    On May 23, 1866, Senator Howard of Michigan introduced the proposal in the Senate. In a 1994 Duke Law Journal article, William Van Alstyne and his associates wrote the following concerning Senator Howard’s remarks:

    So, in reporting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction in 1866, Senator Jacob Meritt Howard of Michigan began by detailing the ‘first section’ of that amendment, i.e., the section that ‘relates the privileges and immunities of citizens.’ He explained that the first clause of the amendment (the ‘first section’), once approved and ratified, would ‘restrain the power of the States’ even as Congress was already restrained (by the Bill of Rights) from abridging?

    "...the personal rights quarantined and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and bear arms... [etc., through the Eighth Amendment]." [Emphasis added]

    Senator Howard referred to the right enumerated in the Second Amendment as a personal right of the people, not a collective right of the States. He concluded his remarks by stating:

    [T]here is no power given in the Constitution to enforce and to carry out any of these guarantees. They are not powers granted by the Constitution to Congress... they stand simply as a bill of rights in the Constitution, without power on the part of Congress give them full effect; while at the same time the States are not restrained from violating the principles embraced in them… The great object of this first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.

    If the Second Amendment pertained to a “collective right” of the States, as opposed to an individual right of the people, then his statement that the “great object of this first section of this amendment is...to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees” would be an absurdity. Fundamental guarantees pertain to the natural rights of the people, not so-called “collective rights” of the States. It should also be noted that there was no descent from Senator Howard’s description of this part of the Amendment.

    In 1871, a bill was before the House of Representatives that contemplated enforcement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mr. Garfield, who had participated in the debates on the Amendment in 1866, stated these debates would be historic because they would settle the meaning of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

    "I ask the attention of the House to the first section of that amendment, as to its scope and meaning. I hope gentlemen will bear in mind that this debate, in which so many have taken part, will become historical, as the earliest legislative construction given to this clause of the amendment. Not only the words which we put into the law, but what shall be said here in the way of defining and interpreting the meaning of the clause, may go far to settle its interpretation and its value to the country hereafter."

    A few days earlier, in a debate on the same bill, Representative Bingham, still a member of House, gave a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the Amendment as he had originally conceived it:

    Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Gentlemen from Illinois [Mr. Farnsworth] did me unwittingly, great service, when he ventured to ask me why I changed the form of the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment from the form in which I reported it to the House of February, 1866, from the Committee on Reconstruction. …I had the honor to frame the amendment as reported in February, 1866, and the first section, as it now stands, letter for letter syllable for syllable, in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, save the introductory clause defining citizens.

    He continued his remarks by stating that the first eight Amendments “never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment.”

    It is a cardinal principle of statutory construction that the intent of the lawmaker constitutes the law. This principle also applies to constitutional law. In this case, we have a direct quote from the individual who framed the wording of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment ? “letter for letter syllable for syllable.” The intent of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, as stated by its author, was to make the limitations enumerated in the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States. Thus, from a constitutional standpoint, adoption of Fourteenth Amendment made the restraint contained in the Second Amendment, concerning the individual right to keep and bear arms, enforceable against every State in the Union.

    The intent of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment also disproves the “collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Brady Campaign contends the Second Amendment was adopted “to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias.”

    The U.S. Constitution established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government. With the memory of King George III’s troops fresh in their minds, many of the ‘anti-federalists’ feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming the state militias.

    If this was an accurate statement, then Congressman Bingham could not have included a “collective right” Second Amendment in the limitations of section 1. He would have had to omit it because this provision prevents the States from infringing the rights of the people. It has nothing to do with the so-called “collective rights” of the States. Thus, section 1 could have only made 7 of the first 8 Amendments applicable to the States.

    This section, as stated above, did indeed extend the limitations enumerated in the first 8 amendments to the individual State governments. If the Second Amendment was adopted “to prevent the federal government from disarming the State militias,” as the Brady Campaign asserts, then section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment extended this prohibition to the individual States. In other words, this provision would bring into play the limitations of the Second Amendment and prevent the States from disarming themselves. The absurdity of this can be seen in the following example. If a State like Nevada attempted to disarm its militia, this section would give Nevada standing to go to federal court and sue Nevada to prevent Nevada from disarming itself. Let’s see the Brady Campaign spin this one!


    >>

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Hawkflyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,315

    Post imported post

    HerbM,

    I agree largely with your assessment. But I would offer that the Federal sovereign only limits the states from things that it has the power to do for itself, and has therefore taken primary responsibility in doing. Along with this are those things which fall outside of the responsibilities of individual states, such as declarations of war on foreign sovereigns.

    While the 14th amendment, makes it clear that a state may not interfere with federal limitations, it does not overrule the 10th amendment. When originally drafted, the constitution prohibited the federal government from interfering with firearms, but it did not prohibit the states from doing so. That is a more modern interpretation, which I believe is part of your point and justification for the 14th amendment.

    But the 14th in no way prevents the states from "regulating" firearms, so long as they do not outright prohibit them. Even that distinction is not clear, as the SCOTUS have yet to actually rule on this specific point. The closest thing we have to date would be the recent ruling in the first circuit.

    If the all encompassing interpretation you offer were indeed the case, a state could not prohibit a resident of another state from obtaining a CHP in that state, Clearly many states do not have provision for out of state permits. There are a broad range of similar disparities. The broad interpretation you offer would in effect act as a preemption clause, and to date this has not been the actual effect, beyond slavery, Jim Crow and similar issues.

    Don't get me wrong, I wish it were so. Properly used the 14th amendment would go a long way toward reversing much of this countries move away from the intent of the constitution.

    Regards
    "Research has shown that a 230 grain lead pellet placed just behind the ear at 850 FPS results in a permanent cure for violent criminal behavior."
    "If you are not getting Flak, you are not over the target"
    "186,000 Miles per second! ... Not just a good idea ... It's the law!"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    In a political science class I had, my professor made the point that one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd am. was a furthering of the system of checks and balances. That to say this; The founding fathers wanted the citizens to have the ability to violently overthrow the government if and when it ran amok. (I do not personally advocate this action.) Therefore why would the people we are supposed to use the guns against (theoretically) be able to regulate how we are to use them?

    I hope I dont sound crazy, I just found the disscusion interesting, and thought that y'all might too.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Why would they regulate it? To prevent that very action, of course! Then they can continue to run unchecked. Once upon a time government was never referred to as "they" or "them". It used to be "our government", now it's "the government".



  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    dms wrote:
    In a political science class I had, my professor made the point that one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd am. was a furthering of the system of checks and balances. That to say this; The founding fathers wanted the citizens to have the ability to violently overthrow the government if and when it ran amok. (I do not personally advocate this action.) Therefore why would the people we are supposed to use the guns against (theoretically) be able to regulate how we are to use them?

    I hope I dont sound crazy, I just found the disscusion interesting, and thought that y'all might too.
    No. the states also may not regulate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms if those regulations cannot pass the Strict Scrutiny test, if those regulation are to remain Constitutional.

    This was actually contained in the Privilegees and Immunities class but since that was ignored by the Court the 14th Amendment was specifically worded to rectify this problem.

    This is the same test (Strict Scrutiny) that prevents a state from "regulating" other fundamental rights such as by enacting 'poll taxes' or 'reading tests' or any other method that is used to effectively prevent SOME citizens from exercising those rights.

    Scrict scrutiny is a test that NO gun control law can pass. First the laws cannot be shown to be effective, second they cannot be shown provide any compelling state interest, nor can they be shown to be the least intrusive method of accomplishing any presumed benefit.

    A simple and less intrusive method than NICS/Brady would be to suspend (or abrogate) the 4th Amendment rights of felons (and other prohibited persons) along with the abrogacation of their 2nd Amendent protections for the RKBA.

    At least this would put the burden on those who have been afforded Due Process and found guilty or irresponsible -- and would give the police a very useful tool to use against documented drug/alcohol abusers, documented spouse abusers, documented gang members, and truly dangerous mental patients.

    Over 90% of all adult murders are prior felons and /or documented drug/alcohol abusers, documented spouse abusers, or documented gang members.

    The myth of the "law-abiding murderer" is just that: almost totally a myth.

    See "Armed" by Kleck and Kates or the two following long quotes:


    Do Guns Cause Crime? By Don B. Kates
    http://hnn.us/articles/871.html
    <<
    This theory's attribution of murders to ordinary people flies in the face of 100+ years of homicide studies. These show that, far from being ordinary people, "the vast majority of persons involved in life-threatening violence have a long criminal record with many prior contacts with the justice system."4

    Though only 15% of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have adult records, with an average career of six or more adult years, including four major felonies. Juvenile crime records are generally unavailable, but to the extent they are, juvenile killers have crime careers as extensive or more than do adult killers -- and so do their victims. Typical findings of 19th and 20th Century homicide studies: "the great majority of both perpetrators and victims of [1970s Harlem] assaults and murders had previous [adult] arrests, probably over 80% or more" as also did Savannah murderers and victims in both the 1890s and the 1990s; exclusive of all other crimes they had committed, 80% of 1997 Atlanta murder arrestees had at least one prior drug offense with 70% having 3 or more prior drug offenses;5 1960s-'70s Philadelphia "victims as well as offenders, finally, tended to be people with prior police records, usually for violent crimes such as assault, and both had typically been drinking at the time of the fatal encounter."6

    Research beyond police records further documents the aberrance of murderers. Thus: in psychological studies 80-100% of juveniles who kill are psychotic or have psychotic symptoms7; though only 75% of Massachusetts domestic murderers in 1991-95 "had a prior [adult] criminal history," 23.6% "were under an active restraining order at the time of the homicide. Forty percent of perpetrators had a history of having been under a restraining order at some time prior to the homicide, taken out by the victim or some other person."8

    Typical of "acquaintance homicides" in general are: drug dealers killed by competitors or customers; gang members killed by members of the same or rival gangs; and women killed by brutal, predatory men. Studies analyzing "family homicides" demonstrate that these are not ordinary families; e.g., "intrafamily homicide is typically just one episode in a long standing syndrome of violence." -- "The overriding theme to emerge from these cases was that [domestic] partner homicide is most often the final outcome of chronic women battering."9

    In sum, it cannot be true that possession of firearms causes ordinary people to murder -- for murderers are virtually never ordinary, but rather are extreme aberrants with life histories of crime, psychopathology and/or substance abuse.
    >>



    Reason Magazine: Beyond Fear and Loathing
    Abigail A. Kohn
    http://www.reason.com/contrib/show/285.xml
    <<
    When the Department
    of Justice issues a public statement that the Second Amendment protects an
    individual right to own a gun, when 35 states pass nondiscretionary carry
    permit laws, when New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof declares
    that "gun control is dead," you know the gun debate is over.

    ...

    Access to juvenile records would almost certainly show that the criminal careers of
    murderers stretch back into their adolescence. In Murder in America (1994), the
    criminologists Ronald W. Holmes and Stephen T. Holmes report that murderers generally
    "have histories of committing personal violence in childhood, against other children,
    siblings, and small animals." Murderers who don't have criminal records usually have
    histories of psychiatric treatment or domestic violence that did not lead to arrest.

    Contrary to the impression fostered by Rosenberg and other opponents of gun ownership,
    the term "acquaintance homicide" does not mean killings that stem from ordinary family or
    neighborhood arguments. Typical acquaintance homicides include: an abusive man
    eventually killing a woman he has repeatedly assaulted; a drug user killing a dealer (or vice
    versa) in a robbery attempt; and gang members, drug dealers, and other criminals killing
    each other for reasons of economic rivalry or personal pique. According to a 1993 article in
    the Journal of Trauma, 80 percent of murders in Washington, D.C., are related to the drug
    trade, while "84% of [Philadelphia murder] victims in 1990 had antemortem drug use or
    criminal history." A 1994 article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported that 71
    percent of Los Angeles children and adolescents injured in drive-by shootings "were
    documented members of violent street gangs." And University of North Carolina-Charlotte
    criminal justice scholars Richard Lumb and Paul C. Friday report that 71 percent of adult
    gunshot wound victims in Charlotte have criminal records.

    As the English gun control analyst Colin Greenwood has noted, in any society there are
    always enough guns available, legally or illegally, to arm the violent. The true determinant
    of violence is the number of violent people, not the availability of a particular weapon.
    Guns contribute to murder in the trivial sense that they help violent people kill. But owning
    guns does not turn responsible, law-abiding people into killers. If the general availability of
    guns were as important a factor in violence as the CDC implies, the vast increase in firearm
    ownership during the past two decades should have led to a vast increase in homicide. The
    CDC suggested just that in a 1989 report to Congress, where it asserted that "[s]ince the
    early 1970s the year-to-year fluctuations in firearm availability has [sic] paralleled the
    numbers of homicides."

    But this correlation was a fabrication: While the number of handguns rose 69 percent from
    1974 to 1988, handgun murders actually dropped by 27 percent. Moreover, as U.S.
    handgun ownership more than doubled from the early 1970s through the 1990s, homicides
    held constant or declined for every major population group except young urban black men.
    The CDC can blame the homicide surge in this group on guns only by ignoring a crucial
    point: Gun ownership is far less common among urban blacks than among whites or rural
    blacks.
    >>



  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Turtle Creek (outside of Pittsburgh), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    84

    Post imported post

    Very informative!! :celebrate

  24. #24
    Regular Member Kelly J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Blue Springs, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    511

    Post imported post

    dms wrote:
    In a political science class I had, my professor made the point that one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd am. was a furthering of the system of checks and balances. That to say this; The founding fathers wanted the citizens to have the ability to violently overthrow the government if and when it ran amok. (I do not personally advocate this action.) Therefore why would the people we are supposed to use the guns against (theoretically) be able to regulate how we are to use them?

    I hope I dont sound crazy, I just found the disscusion interesting, and thought that y'all might too.




    Part of the reasoning for and behind this, was the habit of the Kings of the old days, would arm the commoners to help him fight his enemies, then once victorious the King would again disarm the people keeping them in subjection to the Crown, and enforced by the Standing Army loyal to the King, not wanting to have this ever to happen here in this Country, these provisions were established so as to prevent it from repeating, and if the Government thought to take control by force, the People could defend themselves by force of arms against the attempted over through, and if need be the people, could through the Government out if they became oppressive, and make the changes necessary to restore proper order.(" A force from without or Within"). I believe these words are stated within the writings of the Constitution and related to this very subject.

    There is a very interesting book published by Palladium Press, in 1996 authored by Les Adams titled "THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRIMER", it was put into my hands by an NRA Supporter that had two and said I might enjoy it, which I have, It tells an awful lot about the reason behind the Second Amendment, and how and why it was included into the Bill of Rights. And the meanings of the right from the days of old.

    Palladium Press

    P.O. Box 530065

    Birmingham, Alabama 35235

    I believe it was commisioned by the NRA, as a supporting arguement in support of the Rightof the People, back when this was a heated debate in the Congress, as to a State or a People Right.


    I have seen this book offered on eBay!




  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    64

    Post imported post

    dms wrote:
    In a political science class I had, my professor made the point that one of the fundamental principles of the 2nd am. was a furthering of the system of checks and balances. That to say this; The founding fathers wanted the citizens to have the ability to violently overthrow the government if and when it ran amok. (I do not personally advocate this action.) Therefore why would the people we are supposed to use the guns against (theoretically) be able to regulate how we are to use them?

    I hope I dont sound crazy, I just found the disscusion interesting, and thought that y'all might too.
    This is absolutely true -- and to "agree with it" does not require that you advocate it NOW, but only to recognize this is the ultimate doomsday provision of the Constitution, designed so that the people may oppose ALL enemies of the free state (i.e., nation, country) both foreign and domestic.

    Domestic enemies include would be tyrants -- this provision of the Bill of Rights is however designed in the hope that its mere presence, and the armed people it guarantees, will prevent it from being needed.

    To talk about this in the wrong place, or to fail to set the context correct, will expose you to sounding crazy or revolutionary. The Framers were in fact revolutionaries; having just revolted successfully against tryanny.

    Some gun ban advocates falsely try to claim that the 2nd Amendent represents some "collective right" -- there are in fact NO such 'collective' rights listed anywhere in the Constitution.

    Even the Right to Peacable Assembly is not a collective right but is based on the individual right of each person to assemble -- no club membership nor political party membership is required.

    Just as no membership in the organized militia* is required for exercising the Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- every person was expect to APPEAR with their OWN arms, aleady knowing how to use those arms from daily life.

    I only know of one collective right -- no gun ban advocate has every suggested this however. The right to revolt is such a right. If you attempt to use this right alone or with insufficient support you will be killed or jailed as for your crimes. It only works when a large percentage of citizens are agree AND are willing to stake their lives upon it because the alternative tyranny is so egregious as to make them echo, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death."

    The Founding Fathers were revolutionaries, both literally and figuratively, but they hoped that armed conflict could be avoided by protecting the right of the people to always be armed -- no would be tyrant would ever believe he could succeed.



    *"Public Law No: 109-92 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005)
    (a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

    (1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the
    right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    (2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the
    rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or
    engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms."



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
  •