Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: Requiring a permit to carry a gun is Unconstitutional

  1. #1
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, how can any government get away with requiring permits?

    A permit is a document basically granting the holder "permission" to carry a gun.We don't need permission.... it's a right protected by the US Constitution, not something we need to beg permission to have.

    I think that every gun owner in this country needs to stand up and say we're not going to take it any more. We need to join together and challenge every single law requiring a permit to own or carry a gun as unconstitutional.

    "shall not be infringed"

    Who would ever put up with having to get a permit to speak our minds or to write a blog or to post in an online forum? I bet if a State began requiring permits to blog and post online and write in newspapers that you'd see every Liberal group in America challenging it and holding mass protests.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, how can any government get away with requiring permits?

    A permit is a document basically granting the holder "permission" to carry a gun.We don't need permission.... it's a right protected by the US Constitution, not something we need to beg permission to have.

    I think that every gun owner in this country needs to stand up and say we're not going to take it any more. We need to join together and challenge every single law requiring a permit to own or carry a gun as unconstitutional.

    "shall not be infringed"

    Who would ever put up with having to get a permit to speak our minds or to write a blog or to post in an online forum? I bet if a State began requiring permits to blog and post online and write in newspapers that you'd see every Liberal group in America challenging it and holding mass protests.
    Couldn't agree more.


    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  3. #3
    Regular Member Alexcabbie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Alexandria, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    2,290

    Post imported post

    How did this state of affairs come about?? Well, it started back after WWII when the Left started infiltrating the schools and filling young kiddie's minds full of crapola about how the Constitution is a "living and breathing doccument"; by which of course they meant that being a living thing it could change its mind and only our wise leaders could consult the Oracle.

    The anti-gun crap started back then, too. I was told in the 3rd grade that the "wild West" was tamed because everybody had to turn in their guns at the city limits. Chicago Mayor Daley recently said (in opposition to a loosening of Chicago's gun laws) "What? Are we going to go back to the old days where everybody said, 'okay you have a gun and I have a gun so let's go out into the street and settle it?'" Unfortunately this kind of rhetoric rings true with the sheeple.

    Then President Kennedy was shot with a mail-order rifle, and Bobby Kennedy was shot by an Islamofascit nutbar using a pistol. Suddenly it was gun-grab-orama. The 1968 Gun Control Act was the first giant step. But fifteen years (more or less) later, the tide began to turn. States began adopting "must issue" CCW laws. Of course the Antis screamed in every State that if this was adopted the streets would run red with blood. And of course this did not happen and quite the opposite.

    We are today engaged in a struggle against the forces of tyranny. The anti-gun movement is an important part of their strategy since, as Mao Tse-Tung said: "political power grows from the barrel of a gun". But there are other fronts. They seek to call the normal condition of being a boy "ADHD" and urge us to use drugs like Ritalin to feminize our young men, the better to weaken us. Bullies are not to be dealt with by a swift kick in the nuts, but by reporting "aggression" to the teacher, and we all need to carry at least enough for a dose of crack cocaine on our persons so the mugger we meet won't get angry with us and kill us. They seek to instill the attitude of mere sheep into us. And the anti-gun campaign is key to their strategy.

    This is what is happening and this is our struggle. As for me, in Virginia I can carry either way; and if I have to go into DC or Maryland armed, then the Constitution is my CCW permit. PERIOD.

    SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    you're right of course, but getting people off their lazy butts is hard to do. They'd rather sit there guzzling beer and watching some pointless crap on tee vee than to stand up for their rights. Heck, it's hard to just get them to send an email to their congressman or senator. That's how it got this way. Apathy.

    Until it gets bad enough to scare them enough to get them off their lazy butts they won't be of any use to those of us working to preserve our rights. By then it may be too late. I hope not, but....

    As for the original point that you made, I concur. We shouldn't have to get a permit to exercise a constitutional right. It doesn't make sense. We need to eventually get all the several states to work it like Vermont and Alaska. No permit needed. The second amendment IS our permit to carry (concealed or open)





  5. #5
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    I think it is odd that I've been a gun owner since I was 20, yet both my parents were HUGE hippies and were extremely anti gun.As forme, I had three of them. I had a 22 pistol, a 22 rifle and a .38 revolver. I got them all in a car trade. They were offered to sweeten the deal of the other person's car. For me, that was weird until I started going target shooting on my friends land. He was a huge gun ownership supporter. He had a conceal carry permit and carried every single day. He also had a gun rack in his truck (before it became illegal) and carried an SKS, a .30-06 Springfield and I think, a 40 caliber Winchester repeater (not sure of the model).

    When I was in my 20s, almost everyone where we lived thought my friend was a bad person because he owned guns. I remember that being a gun owner had a very bad stigma attached to it. I then ended up spending my entire 30s in Asia where gun ownership was prohibited and when I returned two years ago, bought an all new set of weapons as kind of a backlash against having been without a gun for all those years, and because it turns out that instead of just watching my stuff for me, my mom ended up handing my weapons over to the police in a guns for food drive that happened back in the 90s while I was away in Asia.

    Back then, I knew we could own guns, but I didn't really understand the difference between a right and something you need to ask permission to do. I just thought that the status quo was how things always were.

    Now I am older and understand more clearly just how dangerous the left are with their "living and breathing document" arguments and why we all need to become more active in our fight against them. Even the NRA seems tame compared to the type of movement that is really needed.

    I feel what you all are doing here is really at the forefront of the fight for our Constitution and that every opponent of our 2nd Amendment rights is really an opponent of our Constitution and our Republic.

    I know what you mean about the schooling in this country geared towards brainwashing kids about our Constitution. There is also the problem with the notion that we are a Democracy. All of my family thinks that we are a Democracy and I try and explain that we are not a Democracy, but rather, we are a Constitutional Republic that changes representatives every 2 to 6 years using an election process as a tool. To call the USA a Democracy is to obfuscate the truth that Democracy is not our form of government, but only a tool to change representatives every few years. I've also tried to tell them that our representatives are not LEADERS... they are just representatives. To call them a leader gives them a title and position that they do not deserve nor should they have. But this all ties back to why we are losing our rights and our country. Liberal education is teaching freedom and liberty out of our children and it must stop.

    I think I may have the courage to try and stand up to all of these laws once I get my family settled and have some cash in reserves for the legal fight that would ensue.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    "They'd rather sit there guzzling beer and watching some pointless crap on tee vee than to stand up for their rights." -- 6L6GC

    What a coincidence...you just described the average Canadian, too!

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  7. #7
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461

    Post imported post

    cloudcroft wrote:
    "They'd rather sit there guzzling beer and watching some pointless crap on tee vee than to stand up for their rights." -- 6L6GC

    What a coincidence...you just described the average Canadian, too!

    -- John D.
    What have Canadians got to do with it? It might describe your average German as well.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Central, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    343

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, how can any government get away with requiring permits?

    A permit is a document basically granting the holder "permission" to carry a gun.We don't need permission.... it's a right protected by the US Constitution, not something we need to beg permission to have.

    I think that every gun owner in this country needs to stand up and say we're not going to take it any more. We need to join together and challenge every single law requiring a permit to own or carry a gun as unconstitutional.

    "shall not be infringed"

    Who would ever put up with having to get a permit to speak our minds or to write a blog or to post in an online forum? I bet if a State began requiring permits to blog and post online and write in newspapers that you'd see every Liberal group in America challenging it and holding mass protests.
    In reference to the bold text, you are incorrect, sir.

    You have to stop thinking about this in terms of the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does nothing more than relegate the issue to the states, as it should be. Now, back to your bolded text, there are many states that are "shall issue" states in reference to weapon permits, ususally pertaining to concealed carry, but sometimes refering to OC as well.

    Now, a "shall issue" state is doing all it can, in today's times, to get weapons into the hands and homes of those who want to have them, while attempting to keep them out of the hands that don't/shouldn't have them, such as convicted criminals. I don't have any problem with a state requiring that you take a very basic written and physical test to simply make sure you know which end of the gun the fast parts come out of, and to make sure your background dictates that you are not an undersirable type. Now I know that won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, so there's no need to go into that argument...

    If you have a problem with your state requiring a permit to carry, then your problem lies not with the federal government, but with your state. In that case, the 2nd amendment is not the issue, so to keep quoting it, and parroting the same tired catchphrases is pointless. Put that energy into changing things at the state level, and you will be way more productive.

    And also, never, ever forget that the first line of the second amendment reads as follows...

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The word that so many people overlook is regulated.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    "They'd rather sit there guzzling beer and watching some pointless crap on tee vee than to stand up for their rights." -- 6L6GC

    What a coincidence...you just described the average Canadian, too!

    -- John D.
    What have Canadians got to do with it? It might describe your average German as well.
    My God Men... you've uncovered a world wide conspiracy!!!:shock:
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Rockingham, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    861

    Post imported post

    ... Alexcabbie ...

    Thanks , I enjoy your posts . Back in the 70s the school said my adopted son needed to be medicated because he was too hyper . I did take him to the doctor and was given a prescription forhim . My son was other wise healthy .

    My wife wanted to get the drug and give it to him but I drove to the school and we saw the principal instead . I suggested that the teachers were the ones that needed to be medicated or in the wrong career .

    I told my wife that boys are not girls and if that medication shows up in our house I would be gone . This was my first time to voice my opinion .

  11. #11
    Regular Member 40s-and-wfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lake County, Montana, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    Washingtonian_for_Liberty, I just wanted to commend you for your original post and tell you that I couldn't agree with you more!! I started buying my own firearms at a very young age, back in my teens, and I've been raised around them and been around them since I was old enough to hold up my own head!!
    I do have one question though: I attended a meeting of a budding club that I'm hoping to get started in my area, the Flathead Valley Second Amendment Club. We discuss every topic pertaining to the lawful carry of a firearm on one's person. I mentioned how some of the people, myself included, choose to carry openly while others carry concealed. In the opinion of the State of Montana OC is a right, while CC is a privilege. When did this come about? When did we have to start asking permission to cover something up so as not to let others know we have it?
    I cover and conceal my wallet, my credit cards, my drivers license and many other things like that. I don't have to let anyone know that I'm carrying around a large sum of cash or something. Hypothetically speaking, why do I have to let anyone know that I'm carrying a gun instead of just covering it up and not letting anyone at all know it's there? When did I have to start asking permission to protect myself and to protect those around me from bodily harm?
    I think if more people, like you said, actually stood up and told local government that we've had enough of this crap and we don't want it, they'd probably get done away with! Guess we'll never know, there's not enough people willing to put the remote down and actually do something about it!!
    In a crisis you don't rise to the occasion, but rather default to your level of training.

    Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting.
    -John W. Creasy (Man on Fire)

  12. #12
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    A permit is a document basically granting the holder "permission" to carry a gun.We don't need permission.... it's a right protected by the US Constitution, not something we need to beg permission to have.
    In reference to the bold text, you are incorrect, sir.

    You have to stop thinking about this in terms of the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does nothing more than relegate the issue to the states, as it should be.
    Stop thinking in terms of the US Constitution??? Are you serious??? If you are, then you are lost to the antigunners and Statists (read modern Liberal).

    Any right laid out in the Contitution superceeds ANY law a State might make. State's cannot make laws that change or take away rights protected by the US Constitution. Each State is a member of our Republic and therefore are subject to the law of the land which is the Constitution of the United States.

    Now, you have also fallen prey to bad English lessons in school... which I happen to think is purposeful for this very reason.

    The first clause of the 2nd Amendment says this: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

    This has to do with a militia (citizen soldiers vs professional soldiers) is nescessary to a to the security of a free State. If you've read any of the writings of the founding fathers, you'd know they did not want the power to be vested in the State, but rather in the people.

    The second clause of the 2nd Amendment codifies that sentiment by preserving and protecting the right of the people thusly: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The right of the people.... you, me, the other guy.... our rights to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (any weapon an individual can carry and use) shall not be infringed (an act that disregards an agreement or a right).

    The Constitution cannot be overridden by the State nor can it be overridden by the Federal Government except by the amendment process for which the rules are clearly laid out in the Constitution.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    buster81,

    Coincidentally, Canadians are of the same heritage (England) America is (was)...so how they went about selling-out their rights for a beer and TV -- as the rest fo the UK an Australia-- so likewise Americaseems to be following.

    Germans and the rest? Wrong cultures, they're just drunks sitting in front of a TV. Besides, historically speaking, they never had much in the way of gun rights to give up anyway, did they? But the Swiss seem to be getting more restrictive on guns...but are they just drunks, too?

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    If the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, how can any government get away with requiring permits?

    A permit is a document basically granting the holder "permission" to carry a gun.We don't need permission.... it's a right protected by the US Constitution, not something we need to beg permission to have.

    I think that every gun owner in this country needs to stand up and say we're not going to take it any more. We need to join together and challenge every single law requiring a permit to own or carry a gun as unconstitutional.

    "shall not be infringed"

    Who would ever put up with having to get a permit to speak our minds or to write a blog or to post in an online forum? I bet if a State began requiring permits to blog and post online and write in newspapers that you'd see every Liberal group in America challenging it and holding mass protests.
    In reference to the bold text, you are incorrect, sir.

    You have to stop thinking about this in terms of the U.S. Constitution. The 2nd Amendment does nothing more than relegate the issue to the states, as it should be. Now, back to your bolded text, there are many states that are "shall issue" states in reference to weapon permits, ususally pertaining to concealed carry, but sometimes refering to OC as well.

    Now, a "shall issue" state is doing all it can, in today's times, to get weapons into the hands and homes of those who want to have them, while attempting to keep them out of the hands that don't/shouldn't have them, such as convicted criminals. I don't have any problem with a state requiring that you take a very basic written and physical test to simply make sure you know which end of the gun the fast parts come out of, and to make sure your background dictates that you are not an undersirable type. Now I know that won't keep the guns out of the hands of criminals, so there's no need to go into that argument...

    If you have a problem with your state requiring a permit to carry, then your problem lies not with the federal government, but with your state. In that case, the 2nd amendment is not the issue, so to keep quoting it, and parroting the same tired catchphrases is pointless. Put that energy into changing things at the state level, and you will be way more productive.

    And also, never, ever forget that the first line of the second amendment reads as follows...

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The word that so many people overlook is regulated.
    Let's go back to grammar school...


    Using the above, let's explain.

    First thought: A well regulated militia is necessary to keep the people free. The militia is all males 17-45 and by well regulated, they meant they know how to use a rifle to kill tyrants. There was debate at the time of whether all males should be required to be trained and own a rifle, but because some were morally or religiously opposed to military service or killing, this was taken back out.

    Second thought: Because the above is true, the right (not privilege, a natural right that existed before any government) of the people (all people) to keep (own) and bear (carry with) arms shall not be infringed (lessened in any way).

    The first part of the amendment is not law. It is an explanation of the importance of the second part.

    There is still some good debate of whether the second amendment applies to state governments. As originally written, the constitution makes a list of things the federal government can do (all else is illegal) and a short list of things they cannot do, just in case (Bill of Rights). Most states protect the right to keep and bear in their constitutions, with some having an exact copy of the second amendment from the federal constitution.

    This just means that the only legitimate regulation is at the state level, and only if allowed by the state constitution.
    http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/W...tionsTeach.htm

    The second amendment prohibits any federal firearms regulation, period. All federal gun control laws are illegitimate. The Supreme Court has ignored their duty to properly interpret the constitution.

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    I am glad to live in New Mexico, it's not perfect but better than most states:
    “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”

  15. #15
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    DustoneGT wrote:
    There is still some good debate of whether the second amendment applies to state governments. As originally written, the constitution makes a list of things the federal government can do (all else is illegal) and a short list of things they cannot do, just in case (Bill of Rights). Most states protect the right to keep and bear in their constitutions, with some having an exact copy of the second amendment from the federal constitution.

    This just means that the only legitimate regulation is at the state level, and only if allowed by the state constitution.
    http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/W...tionsTeach.htm

    The second amendment prohibits any federal firearms regulation, period. All federal gun control laws are illegitimate. The Supreme Court has ignored their duty to properly interpret the constitution.

    The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

    I am glad to live in New Mexico, it's not perfect but better than most states:
    “No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.”
    I see no exception clause in the Constitution that somehow gives the States the right to override the Constitution. I only see their right to override Federal statutes because the Fed is specifically limited by the Constitution.

    The Constitution does not give States the right to ignore the Bill of Rights in favor of their own laws or interpretations... this is why we have a Constitution that was ratified by the States.... it is a body of rights and responsibilities that must be followed by all that was agreed upon by all. No State may ignore or make laws that abridge or impare your Constitutional rights. For all 9 other Amendments in the original bill of rights, that interpretation would not stand.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  16. #16
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Post imported post

    One argument for secession is a state can write a NEW Constitution/Bill of Rights and in such clear language to avoid the many "alternative" intrepretations causing us so much trouble today.

    -- John D.
    (formerly of Colorado Springs, CO)

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    R a Z o R wrote:
    ... Alexcabbie ...

    Thanks , I enjoy your posts . Back in the 70s the school said my adopted son needed to be medicated because he was too hyper . I did take him to the doctor and was given a prescription forhim . My son was other wise healthy .

    My wife wanted to get the drug and give it to him but I drove to the school and we saw the principal instead . I suggested that the teachers were the ones that needed to be medicated or in the wrong career .

    I told my wife that boys are not girls and if that medication shows up in our house I would be gone . This was my first time to voice my opinion .
    I thinkthey need to handle all these ADHD kids like they did back when I was in school. If they misbehave or sass the teacher bycalling them a b**ch like one did my wife last week send them to the principal. Let the principal tan thier hides a few times. If they still can't sit still on that sore behind then send them home. If they still can't behave then throw them out of school and let the parents send them to private school or put them to work. No sense in letting one child that can't sit still keep the others from learning and is exactly what is happening now days. The person that came up with "No child left behind" should be drawn and quartered after being shot and hanged.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    I see no exception clause in the Constitution that somehow gives the States the right to override the Constitution. I only see their right to override Federal statutes because the Fed is specifically limited by the Constitution.

    The Constitution does not give States the right to ignore the Bill of Rights in favor of their own laws or interpretations... this is why we have a Constitution that was ratified by the States.... it is a body of rights and responsibilities that must be followed by all that was agreed upon by all. No State may ignore or make laws that abridge or impare your Constitutional rights. For all 9 other Amendments in the original bill of rights, that interpretation would not stand.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

    Actually, the Bill of Rights, as originally written, was not meant to apply to the states. Some states had official religions and other things that didn't mesh at the time.

    It wasn't until the late 19th century that some amendments were incorporated, using parts of the 14th amendment to justify applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the states.

    Most of the other amendments have been incorporated, but not all. The Third Amendment hasn't been decided one way or the other, part of the Fifth has not been incorporated, the Seventh Amendment is not incorporated, and part of the Eighth has not been incorporated.

    In D.C. v Heller:
    With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the first amendment did not apply against the states and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
    Since the Heller case, federal cases have been filed demanding incorporation of our Second Amendment right, because the cases mentioned above predate the most modern incorporation criteria.

    So we might soon have incorporated 2A rights, but as of now we don't and there's the chance that they rule that it's not incorporated.

    I don't agree with this, but that's the way it is right now.

    And incorporation might not really help us as much as we think. The Heller case said it's OK to regulate the Second Amendment right with regulations, licensing and registration, among other things, and this was written by 'conservative' judges!

    If you feel like getting pissed off more at the 'conservative' judged, read the rest of my analysis of DC v Heller: http://www.nolanchart.com/article4123.html . For one thing, they think historical tradition outweighs the whole 'shall not be infringed.' part.

    So basically at the federal level, the status of the Second Amendment is as good as it's going to get for the time being. The place to fight for improved rights is at the state level while trying to keep things from getting worse at the federal level.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    The Statists have had a strong hold on this country from day one haven't they? Oh how I wish Jefferson could have been a stronger man who would have held to his convictions.

    This whole garbage of incorporation sounds like excuses made by tyrants still wanting tyranny. Since the beginning of time, we've had certain types of people who have wanted to control everyone else's lives. These are the busybodies and the nannies or tyrants. These are the self appointed elites who think they're better suited than the unwashed masses to make decisions for everyone. The whole idea of State's rights in terms of incorporation of the first 8 in the Bill of Rights was directly due to Slavery. It's a little dis-concerning that since the founding of this country, it has been Democrats who have always championed some form of tyranny over freedom.

    I thought that this was why our Constitution was made. How is the idea of incorporation as an option even justified Constitutionally????

    It seems to me that this old precedent is now being used by the modern day slavers (the left in this country) to give States the right to ignore our rights, and abdicate them back to an ever tyrannical Fed.

    Doesn't anyone (other than you guys here) yearn for Liberty and Freedom? Or are they all just satisfied with tyranny sprinkled with a dose of schadenfreude?
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    492

    Post imported post

    buster81 wrote:
    cloudcroft wrote:
    "They'd rather sit there guzzling beer and watching some pointless crap on tee vee than to stand up for their rights." -- 6L6GC

    What a coincidence...you just described the average Canadian, too!

    -- John D.
    What have Canadians got to do with it? It might describe your average German as well.
    Die Deutsch nicht alles gute?????

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    The Statists have had a strong hold on this country from day one haven't they? Oh how I wish Jefferson could have been a stronger man who would have held to his convictions.

    This whole garbage of incorporation sounds like excuses made by tyrants still wanting tyranny. Since the beginning of time, we've had certain types of people who have wanted to control everyone else's lives. These are the busybodies and the nannies or tyrants. These are the self appointed elites who think they're better suited than the unwashed masses to make decisions for everyone. The whole idea of State's rights in terms of incorporation of the first 8 in the Bill of Rights was directly due to Slavery. It's a little dis-concerning that since the founding of this country, it has been Democrats who have always championed some form of tyranny over freedom.

    I thought that this was why our Constitution was made. How is the idea of incorporation as an option even justified Constitutionally????

    It seems to me that this old precedent is now being used by the modern day slavers (the left in this country) to give States the right to ignore our rights, and abdicate them back to an ever tyrannical Fed.

    Doesn't anyone (other than you guys here) yearn for Liberty and Freedom? Or are they all just satisfied with tyranny sprinkled with a dose of schadenfreude?
    Absolutely! I would like to see the day that we don't have to worry about what some court wants to do with our rights.

    My take: Come and take it!

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    superdemon wrote:
    SNIP And also, never, ever forget that the first line of the second amendment reads as follows...

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The word that so many people overlook is regulated.
    If I may, I would like to broaden a little bit.

    "Regulated" actually meant something a little different in those days. It did not mean only having a variety of rules,restrictions,and regulations. Its concept included "operating properly" or "working correctly".

    Even today, that meaning has carried forward a bit and can still be seen peeking through:

    3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
    4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated

    One can, with a little inspection, discernthe similarities and connections between proper functioning, orderliness, rules, and even laws.

    In terms of a militia, being discussed in the context of rights to arms and preservation against tyranny, it is unlikely the Framers meant a "well-restricted" militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nor"well-burdened-with-regulations".

    My reading has shown me that "well-regulated" as applied to the militia meant drilled and practiced and ready to go when called. Put into and maintained in a condition for proper functioning. Maintained in a degree of readiness beyond just a rifle in the closet. If they were going to drill (marching in formations, deploying in formations, changing formations to respond to circumstances on the battlefield, practicing firing and loadingon command, etc), if they were going to drill, there was going to also have to be some organization and some officers established.

    Thus, I no longer believe well-regulated means having lots of restrictions on guns, nor even the militia.

    Especially when I see the connections between regulated, orderliness, proper functioning, and so forth. There is just no way the huge burden of thevast number of laws and regulations on guns actually promote the proper functioning of anything. They aremeant only to restrict, restrict, restrict.

    If I recall correctly, at one time a regulation for the militia included a specification as to how much shot, powder, and perhaps flints each qualified male was required to keep, or perhaps bring with him to drill. And it was mandated that he had to keep his gun in working order/repair. Thoserules area regulating that promotes proper functioning.

    The breakdown is the government's failure to maintain the militia in its proper condition and functioning. The vast sea of restrictions is just further movement in the opposite direction from what was contemplated by the first part of the 2nd Amendment.

    Now gentle reader, in light of this information, I invite you to compare newly the meanings of the words "restrict" and "shall not be infringed". Makes even more sense now, doesn't it?

    Is there really any conflict between "well-regulated" and "shall not be infringed"?

    Do these two ideas not mesh nicelyin thecontext of theSecond Amendment,in the context of thatstatement about a right, about preserving against tyranny, about the security of not just any old state, but a free state?

    Funny hownot having the correctmeaning of one single word can skew things. Funny how things make a lot more sense once thatmeaning is used.

    One more little point. Inlaw, asI understand it, whenasentence can be read more than one way, it isproper to give it the meaning that gives effect to the rest of the text. Not the meaning that makes other parts of thetext nugatory (of little or no importance, invalid, having no force).

    Does interpreting"well-regulated" as "well restricted" not render "shall not be infringed" nugatory?
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    superdemon wrote:
    SNIP And also, never, ever forget that the first line of the second amendment reads as follows...

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The word that so many people overlook is regulated.
    If I may, I would like to broaden a little bit.

    "Regulated" actually meant something a little different in those days. It did not mean only having a variety of rules,restrictions,and regulations. Its concept included "operating properly" or "working correctly".

    Even today, that meaning has carried forward a bit and can still be seen peeking through:

    3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
    4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regulated

    One can, with a little inspection, discernthe similarities and connections between proper functioning, orderliness, rules, and even laws.

    In terms of a militia, being discussed in the context of rights to arms and preservation against tyranny, it is unlikely the Framers meant a "well-restricted" militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Nor"well-burdened-with-regulations".

    My reading has shown me that "well-regulated" as applied to the militia meant drilled and practiced and ready to go when called. Put into and maintained in a condition for proper functioning. Maintained in a degree of readiness beyond just a rifle in the closet. If they were going to drill (marching in formations, deploying in formations, changing formations to respond to circumstances on the battlefield, practicing firing and loadingon command, etc), if they were going to drill, there was going to also have to be some organization and some officers established.

    Thus, I no longer believe well-regulated means having lots of restrictions on guns, nor even the militia.

    Especially when I see the connections between regulated, orderliness, proper functioning, and so forth. There is just no way the huge burden of thevast number of laws and regulations on guns actually promote the proper functioning of anything. They aremeant only to restrict, restrict, restrict.

    If I recall correctly, at one time a regulation for the militia included a specification as to how much shot, powder, and perhaps flints each qualified male was required to keep, or perhaps bring with him to drill. And it was mandated that he had to keep his gun in working order/repair. Thoserules area regulating that promotes proper functioning.

    The breakdown is the government's failure to maintain the militia in its proper condition and functioning. The vast sea of restrictions is just further movement in the opposite direction from what was contemplated by the first part of the 2nd Amendment.

    Now gentle reader, in light of this information, I invite you to compare newly the meanings of the words "restrict" and "shall not be infringed". Makes even more sense now, doesn't it?

    Is there really any conflict between "well-regulated" and "shall not be infringed"?

    Do these two ideas not mesh nicelyin thecontext of theSecond Amendment,in the context of thatstatement about a right, about preserving against tyranny, about the security of not just any old state, but a free state?

    Funny hownot having the correctmeaning of one single word can skew things. Funny how things make a lot more sense once thatmeaning is used.

    One more little point. Inlaw, asI understand it, whenasentence can be read more than one way, it isproper to give it the meaning that gives effect to the rest of the text. Not the meaning that makes other parts of thetext nugatory (of little or no importance, invalid, having no force).

    Does interpreting"well-regulated" as "well restricted" not render "shall not be infringed" nugatory?
    Bravo +1000

    I could not have argued that better myself.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    The Statists have had a strong hold on this country from day one haven't they? Oh how I wish Jefferson could have been a stronger man who would have held to his convictions.

    This whole garbage of incorporation sounds like excuses made by tyrants still wanting tyranny. Since the beginning of time, we've had certain types of people who have wanted to control everyone else's lives. These are the busybodies and the nannies or tyrants. These are the self appointed elites who think they're better suited than the unwashed masses to make decisions for everyone. The whole idea of State's rights in terms of incorporation of the first 8 in the Bill of Rights was directly due to Slavery. It's a little dis-concerning that since the founding of this country, it has been Democrats who have always championed some form of tyranny over freedom.

    I thought that this was why our Constitution was made. How is the idea of incorporation as an option even justified Constitutionally????

    It seems to me that this old precedent is now being used by the modern day slavers (the left in this country) to give States the right to ignore our rights, and abdicate them back to an ever tyrannical Fed.

    Doesn't anyone (other than you guys here) yearn for Liberty and Freedom? Or are they all just satisfied with tyranny sprinkled with a dose of schadenfreude?
    You seem to mean well, but you BADLY need to learn about constitutional law. The U.S. Constitution is called that for a reason--it is primarily a check on the power of the national government.

    Article I, Section 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . ."

    Article II, Section 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

    Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States. . . ."

    But suppose you are right, and 2A applies to state governments as well. What happens if 2A is amended or repealed? You will find yourself up a creek without a paddle. I, on the other hand, will simply go on relying on the Colorado Constitution, as I do now.

  25. #25
    Regular Member 40s-and-wfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lake County, Montana, USA
    Posts
    490

    Post imported post

    Flyer22 wrote:
    But suppose you are right, and 2A applies to state governments as well. What happens if 2A is amended or repealed? You will find yourself up a creek without a paddle. I, on the other hand, will simply go on relying on the Colorado Constitution, as I do now.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Does this mean the free state of Colorado or the free state of __________, except those mentioned here?!

    I still find it odd that some states consider the right to bear arms a privilege and others consider it a right!! I, for one, interpret the Second Amendment to mean this right pertains to all states in the UNITED STATES. Therefore I feel Mr. Washingtonian has hit the nail on the head!!

    I think he also said it pretty well when he said this: "I see no exception clause in the Constitution that somehow gives the States the right to override the Constitution. I only see their right to override Federal statutes because the Fed is specifically limited by the Constitution."
    In a crisis you don't rise to the occasion, but rather default to your level of training.

    Forgiveness is between them and God. It's my job to arrange the meeting.
    -John W. Creasy (Man on Fire)

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
  •