Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 74

Thread: What Sort of Restrictions Should the 2A Have?

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Olivet, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    8

    What Sort of Restrictions Should the 2A Have?

    I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
    I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
    There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
    signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
    As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
    So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
    What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
    I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
    Thanks!

  2. #2
    Regular Member gsx1138's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington, United States
    Posts
    884
    We should be able to carry what firearm we want, where we want, when we want. There should be no such thing as an NFA item. "Well regulated" refers to citizens banding together to form militias for the defense of the country. I could be wrong but I don't think the Constitution is there to give the Federal Government power.

  3. #3
    Regular Member elixin77's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Greenville, NC, ,
    Posts
    591
    take a look at this:

    http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

    I personally follow the "what part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not get?," however, this gives a much deeper meaning around the word "regulate."
    Taurus PT1911 .45 ACP. Carried in condition 1, with a total of 25 rounds.

    Vice President of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, ECU Chapter

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Any restriction which appreciably adds any difficulty in obtaining, owning, or carrying a personal weapon that could also double, in a pinch, as a personal military weapon would be unreasonable. Restrictions that do not impede obtaining, owning, or carrying, but have a societal benefit, would be reasonable.

    To give examples of what I think are reasonable or not: Alabama requires a license to conceal. No license is required to openly carry. I do not see this as unreasonable since, if I choose not to get a license, I can still obtain, own, and carry my firearm. Unfortunately, Alabama requires that license to carry in a car, openly or concealed. Since that regulation add significant difficulty to carrying, I see it as unreasonable.

    [This post was not meant to derail the thread with a discussion of the reasonableness of licensing concealment, just to illustrate my opinion of "reasonable."]

  5. #5
    Regular Member Freedom First's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Kennewick, Wa.
    Posts
    850

    There is a clear difference between OC and Militia in 2A

    "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." Second Amendment, Bill of Rights

    IMO Firearms ownership, transport, and OC/CC are an inferred and a stated Right in the Second Amendment. 2A assumes private ownership of firearms is a normal part of life. When the Bill of Rights was written the States were defended and policed by their own Militias. The Militia, well regulated, is a State's Right to protect itself from lawbreakers, invaders or tyrants. So I would suggest that you look at it in that view.

    OC in 2A is about a Citizen of the US and their home State being able to protect themselves from threats to their safety and security. Should a law abiding, tax paying, rule following Citizen be restricted in his ability to protect himself, his wife, his kids and his property? I say no.

    The real Militia has been subsumed into the National Guard over the last 100+ years and is no longer a functional arm of the State. Should a State be disarmed in the face of impending invasion from either an external force or an internal tyrant? I again say no.

    Look at Arizona and then read the following...

    "No State shall, ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution

    Am I suggesting that Jan Brewer declare war on Mexico? Nope. Just pointing out that a State, led by a Governor who has read and understands the US and State Constitutions is left with the duty to defend his/her State from invasion but today has no tools left to do so.

    Since Wilson nationalized the State Guards as the National Guard, the States have been forced to rely on the Central Government for their defense. If Jan had her Militia, she could place them on the border with Mexico and stop the flow of illegals into her state. While that would force the issue at the international level, at least she would be able to do something to protect her State and it's people. Now she has to beg DC for troops which puts her in a subservient role to the central government which is not the intention of the Constitution.

    Wow, OT again... Just part of the fun of being me I guess.
    Freedom can never be lost, only given away by ignorance, by choice, or at the point of a gun. Here in America we can still choose.

    Freedom First 1775

    "I aim to misbehave..." Malcolm Reynolds

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Chuck I will go with NO RESTRICTIONS for a $ 1000.00

    DING DING DING DING....YOU WIN !
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  7. #7
    Regular Member MamaLiberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    884
    Our absolute right to life, liberty and property - including self defense - predates the constitution by as long as human beings have existed. The BoR did not create any rights, of course - and cannot limit them.

    The only "reasonable" restriction is the obligation not to violate the equal right of any other human being. The law of non-aggression is the key here. We must guard the rights of others as carefully as our own.

    The restrictions must come from self government, self control. The answer to those who refuse that and commit aggression against others is self and mutual defense.
    I will not knowingly initiate force. I am a self owner.

    Let the record show that I did not consent to be governed. I did not consent to any constitution. I did not consent to any president. I did not consent to any law except the natural law of "mala en se." I did not consent to the police. Nor any tax. Nor any prohibition of anything. Nor any regulation or licensing of any kind.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    The "well regulated" part refers to the Militia(i.e. State's protection), not the "right" of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Many anti's wish to bring in the "well regulated" to say the government has the power to place restrictions on the "right" of the individual. They are two different things. The founders basically enumerated that the citizen has the right to keep and bear arms(i.e. self preservation) and from that individual right the state draws a communal protection(and power). In other words if the people who make up a State aren't allowed to protect themselves, they cannot protect the State.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    The "well regulated" part refers to the Militia(i.e. State's protection), not the "right" of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Many anti's wish to bring in the "well regulated" to say the government has the power to place restrictions on the "right" of the individual. They are two different things. The founders basically enumerated that the citizen has the right to keep and bear arms(i.e. self preservation) and from that individual right the state draws a communal protection(and power). In other words if the people who make up a State aren't allowed to protect themselves, they cannot protect the State.
    Back when the words " well Regulated" were penned in to the sacred document....well regulated meant (( Well Supplied )) as in the local Gov should make available Powder & shot for easy access... It did not mean that the Gov should make a bunch of laws restricting it.

    But over time the original meaning & intent of the word - REGULATED - has been lost in translation.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578
    Quote Originally Posted by Glock34 View Post
    Back when the words " well Regulated" were penned in to the sacred document....well regulated meant (( Well Supplied )) as in the local Gov should make available Powder & shot for easy access... It did not mean that the Gov should make a bunch of laws restricting it.

    But over time the original meaning & intent of the word - REGULATED - has been lost in translation.

    So, the Gov should make cheap and plentiful ammo available for me......SWEEEEEET..... when do we get back to that!!!!!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,546
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    So, the Gov should make cheap and plentiful ammo available for me......SWEEEEEET..... when do we get back to that!!!!!!
    You would be required to pay for it.
    "If we were to ever consider citizenship as the least bit matter of merit instead of birthright, imagine who should be selected as deserved representation of our democracy: someone who would risk their daily livelihood to cast an individually statistically insignificant vote, or those who wrap themselves in the flag against slightest slights." - agenthex

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Henderson, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by mag71911 View Post
    I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
    I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
    There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
    signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
    As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
    So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
    What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
    I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.

    Thanks!
    I like this explanation...

  13. #13
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    The idea of "reasonable restrictions" that the Courts have upheld is just a sneaky back-door way to keep unconstitutional gun control laws in place. We see over and over--in cases like Heller and Mcdonald--that even though OUR SIDE wins the case, the victory is meaningless because the courts always let "reasonable restriction" stand. And to the people who want to control YOU, any sort of restriction on firearms is "reasonable"

    Bloomberg, Daley, Helmke, etc... They don't really care about crime, or guns, or violence. They care about CONTROLLING the populace. Taking firearms away frm law-abiding citizens lets them do that.

    When the law-abiding citizens of this nation--on the "left" and the "right" --realize that "gun control" has nothign to do with "guns" and EVERYTHING to do with "control", perhaps we can turn the tide in the favor of Freedom, Liberty and a Rule of Law.

    But as long as we allow the "gun control" argument to be about guns and violence, instead of forcing the hand of the anti's and showing that it's REALLY all about control of the law-abiding, we will be fighting an uphill battle...

    My opinion on "gun control"?

    What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they get?
    It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression—and this is hogwash."
    --Barry Goldwater, 1964

  14. #14
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by mag71911 View Post
    I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
    I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
    There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
    signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
    As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
    So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
    What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
    I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
    Thanks!
    "Well regulated militia" has been held to not be the operant clause in the Amendment. That is settled law. Therefore, "shall not be infringed" answers your question. Just as case law limits the 1st Amendment, "not yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," so will (does) it for the 2nd Amendment as currently with respect to concealed carry, felons, mental incompetents, etc. The Amendments are all intended to apply to the average citizen, not 'all' residents of the US.
    Last edited by Gunslinger; 01-04-2011 at 03:09 PM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855
    Quote Originally Posted by SavageOne View Post
    So, the Gov should make cheap and plentiful ammo available for me......SWEEEEEET..... when do we get back to that!!!!!!
    The Ruskies already are making it for us.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Firstly, the Second Amendment imposes no de facto restrictions at all. It's verbiage is quite clear as is its meaning. What has occurred over the past 220 years has been the introduction of the concept of interpretation. While the instant, or casual, observer/reader might pass this off as so much nonsense, in reality it is anything but. It is the "who and how" interpretation has manifested itself and thereby corrupting our founding documents to the point of having lost much of their original meaning and intent.

    As for the term, "well regulated", it's meaning is not quite what some here have stated (again the concept of interpretation I imagine). Notice there is no hyphen between these words. That is significant. The actual meaning at the time of its writing was, "to keep and make regular" (source: Judge Napolitano). To keep and make regular.
    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!

  17. #17
    Regular Member buster81's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Richmond, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,461
    What Sort of Restrictions Should the 2A Have?

    None.

  18. #18
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    I will accept one restriction and one restriction ONLY....

    That one obtained the WEAPON (as the 2nd amendment does not say "GUN" it says "ARMS") in a legal manner (THE POSSESSOR DID NOT STEAL IT or know that the legal owner has been illegally or unconstitutionally deprived in any way of the weapon!)

    Repeal the 1934 firearms tax law, the 1968 Federal gun regulations, the 1996 anti gun laws AND ANY AND ALL OTHER "INFRINGEMENT" of the PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

    I would encourage one to be proficient and safe in their handling and usage of a weapon BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY LOCAL, STATE, or FEDERAL regulation, rule, or law the would in any way REQUIRE SAME!

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by mag71911 View Post
    I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
    I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
    There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
    signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
    As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
    So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
    What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
    I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
    Thanks!
    Held:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    ...
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,761
    The "well regulated" clause is not binding. It doesn't matter what it means. The "well regulated" clause does not delegate any authority to the government, and the government has no authority that is not delegated to it.

    All government power is delegated to the government from the people. The people still retain the delegated powers. We have delegated to the government to power to own and operate military arms, yet we retain that power. Yes, right up to and including the most destructive weapons man can design.

    It's a simple flow of legal authority.

  21. #21
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Lots of good replies.

    I won't rehash.

    I'll just point out that government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted to protect rights.

    Mankind's political situation has been advancing for millenia, often paying in blood to wrest concessions in the form of rights from enobled, enroyaled, or otherwise empowered criminals (government). Somewhat recent high points: Magna Carta, abolishing the Star Chamber court, 1689 Declaration of Rights, Decl. of Independence, united States' constitutions just prior to the constitution, Bill of Rights, Thos. Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom.

    Think about that for a minute. We're the high point, with a few other countries. There are still billions of people who do not even have close to the legal protections we have. Meaning, mankind still has billions of people to go in spreading rights upward and broader. And, yet some want to actually reverse the progress. Progress paid for in blood and sacrifice.

    Whenever some court or congressgoon justifies an infringement because it will protect someone or save some lives, just recall how many died to get where we are today. The courts will rarely say, for example, that the few lives saved by DWI checkpoints, are far and away outweighed by the lives lost getting the freedom in the first place, and the cost in lives it will take to reaquire again the rights lost.


    Can someone link Heller and McDonald. There is 2A history in there, and in the briefs.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Can someone link Heller and McDonald. There is 2A history in there, and in the briefs.
    DC v Heller

    McDonald v Chicago
    Last edited by wrightme; 01-04-2011 at 10:39 PM.
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

  23. #23
    Regular Member OldCurlyWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    912
    Quote Originally Posted by mag71911 View Post
    I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
    I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
    There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
    signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
    As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
    So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
    What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
    I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
    Thanks!
    I can think of 3 (they are already in force at both state and federal levels)

    1. No felons(very few exceptions)

    2. No mental incompetents ( this includes those who are dangerous and those who do not have the mental capacity to understand.)

    3. No non-resident aliens.


    and NO. 4

    NO politician who has voted for ANY gun control measure ever. Actually most of them belong under Numbers 1 & 2.

    I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.

    Politicians should serve two terms, one in office and one in prison.(borrowed from RioKid)

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OldCurlyWolf View Post
    I can think of 3 (they are already in force at both state and federal levels)

    1. No felons(very few exceptions)

    2. No mental incompetents ( this includes those who are dangerous and those who do not have the mental capacity to understand.)

    3. No non-resident aliens.


    and NO. 4

    NO politician who has voted for ANY gun control measure ever. Actually most of them belong under Numbers 1 & 2.

    Oh, this is good. Very good.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    IMHO, ANY law or regulation that restricts or denies a Constitutionally guarenteed right IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! And therefore null and void! It dos'nt matter what right(s) we're talikng about, ALL rights shall not be infringed in any way, shape, or form!
    "You can teach 'em, but you cant learn 'em."

Page 1 of 3 123 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
  •