The Right To Bear Arms & The Spirit of Law (Registration is Counter to the Purpose of the Right)!?!

reply to post by syrinx high priest


Youre right. So where is the push to amend it?

Rather than play politics with all these half-measures and questionable regulations why not amend the Constitution?

reply to post by syrinx high priest

Do not forget the foundling fathers "wanted and knew the constitution needed to change?".

It is called an amendment. That is how to change the constitution.

You want it changed by personal or political whim and fancy, changed by interpretation.

So, they said "Shall not be infringed" what did they mean by that?
Can you personally interpret that for me?

The foundling fathers said what they meant, meant what they said
and avoided ponderous phraseology.

Your posts are full of ponderous phraseology.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Can you explain another method? Isn't that how they keep criminals from getting a gun. Mentally ill, like criminals are not responsible enough for that right. "With freedom comes great responsibility."

reply to post by MOMof3


The mental institutions were emptied by the creation
of community mental health centers and
Thorazine in the 1950's.

Mentally ill people should not have firearms.

However Clinton, Bill allowed the computers to interface between the DOD and BATF.
as a result of that
Any veteran who ever received a % of disability for counseling,
psychotherapy, depression etc for even a short period of time
is denied the right to keep and bear arms.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I knew y'all wouldn't like it

It's not a matter of not liking it. What your proposing is simply not legally possible, proper or viable under the U.S. system and laws of the land. Liking it or considering it a good or bad idea is irrelevant. It's like debating open gun access and shooting sports being allowed in England with gun stores as common as they are here. It's not a possible outcome by any definition.

don't forget the founding fathers intended the constitution to change with the times, they were smart enough to realize that what worked for them would not necessarily work in 300 years

Yes, they absolutely did. It is part of why the Supreme Court was established as the 3rd and fully equal branch of government to the other 2. They are charged with interpreting and then defining what is and what is not Constitutional in line with the intent of the document and the founders themselves. In this case, the 2009 DC V. Heller case virtually ended the whole premise of this thread in it's infancy and until another Super Court takes up the matter again some day. Historically speaking? That could be a long long time unless others try and openly violate the findings of the 2009 decision. Then they'll take cases long enough to overturn them one after another. That is established as something the Supers do often enough on many matters.

last time I checked, you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy by the color of their 10 gallon hat, and there is no reasonable reason to have military style assualt rifles, so the less of them out there the better

Perhaps some Americans can see absolutely no reason to own an AR-15 or an AK-47. Personally I consider those weapons more enjoyable to target shoot than a bolt action or lever action rifle. They don't require reloading every couple minutes (Which no shooter enjoys) and they give more options for challenging ways to use them on the range OR..things like Hog hunting than other rifles do. The law says others, on the federal level, do not get to make that choice for me. Thank goodness.

you are living in a doom porn fantasy world if you feel you need assualt rifles and 3,000 rounds to sleep at night because obama is coming for you

(I know that's not to me directly, still, a little bit of a hard edge isn't it?)

You know, I'll actually agree that the people with 30 rifles and damn near the same type and function really need counseling about obsessive disorders. They chose guns...others hoard a variety of other things in life and none of it shows a real stable or sane mind. Outside of the extremes? Who is anyone to say WHAT I can or cannot own? I still have over 5,000 rounds of .308 reload in several big green military ammo boxes. I don't even own a .308 anymore. It's a problem for me to work out and I may buy another some day but under your idea, I could be an actual criminal or suspected just for owning those boxes of reloaded cartridges.

reply to post by syrinx high priest

you are living in a doom porn fantasy world if you feel you need assualt rifles and 3,000 rounds to sleep at night because obama is coming for you

You are absolutely right, an assault rifle and 3000 rounds is totally inadequate. I also need a good riot shotgun, high powered hand gun, as well as several thousand rounds for each of them and a couple of good defensive knives for close quarters combat. Then I can sleep good at night providing I have a couple of good watchdogs and a security system. Because the way things are going, if we the people don't rein them in, Obummer and his goons WILL BE COMING for us to take away our guns so they can take away the rest of our rights without getting shot at.

reply to post by slugger9787


Reagan cut the budget NIMH in 1981. I remember driving down Hwy 12 (at the time a lonely hwy in Idaho that follows the Clearwater River). I saw like 10 people, straggling along the highway, with no coats, and asked my husband what in the world. He said they had been turned out of the Orofino Mental Instistute because of the cuts.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


So then if the states are the only real regulators of the right to bear arms. Would those regulations be unconstitutional. Can state laws be (sued?) in a federal court to determine their constitutionality??
If so...
What states have had their gun regulations challenged at the federal level as being unconstitutional?

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by happykat39


With that said, I do believe that if we are going to require driver education and passing a test to drive a car we should also require gun safety training to buy a gun. But I also believe that once you have that training, and a certificate to prove it, that is the end of it. All you should have to do is show it to your gun dealer and he sells you the gun with no other registration of your certificate of training or the purchase of the gun.

This prerequisite to gun ownership is simply another intrusion on the right as it is writen.

Then maybe we could just have everybody take gun safety classes in school just like taking driver ed. It wouldn't even have to use real guns as there would be no need to teach marksmanship, just how to safely handle, carry and store a weapon. The rationale behind doing that would be that even if you or your family will never be gun owners you never know when someone will come across one in a friends or relatives house.

Then when you buy a weapon at least you would have had some kind of training to keep you from being a complete idiot - oops, correct that; some people will be complete idiots no matter how they have been trained. But at least responsible people would know how to safely handle a weapon.

edit on 16-11-2012 by happykat39 because: clarified a point

The points are taken but have nothing to do with the amendment itself. Maybe you should open a thread on gun safety.

NOTED:
I did overplay the point somewhat but most of it was in response to others remarks too. However, I don't think a gun safety thread would go anywhere unless we run into a spate of idiots shooting their couches, with their 5 year old kid sitting on it, or blowing off their toes etc, etc, etc ad infinitum ad nauseum. Then there might be enough interest in gun safety to carry a thread past the first page.

Well I could add several posts. It may fly if posters see it as a thread to tell of thier own run in with bad weapon safety. Most tragic gun safety stories are told by those that used guns for years without a hitch.

By the way what sort of folks do you hang out with? Drinking and guns dont mix.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I knew y'all wouldn't like it

don't forget the founding fathers intended the constitution to change with the times, they were smart enough to realize that what worked for them would not necessarily work in 300 years

last time I checked, you can't tell a good guy from a bad guy by the color of their 10 gallon hat, and there is no reasonable reason to have military style assualt rifles, so the less of them out there the better

I've heard it ruins the venison anyway

you are living in a doom porn fantasy world if you feel you need assualt rifles and 3,000 rounds to sleep at night because obama is coming for you

Whats wrong man? Did you stay awake all nite in the 3rd grade waiting for Santa to show up?

Originally posted by NJoyZ
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

So then if the states are the only real regulators of the right to bear arms. Would those regulations be unconstitutional.

States set the regulations below the ones set at the Federal Level. It's not that the Feds can't set more, it's that they don't. DC. V. Heller did find that regulation is proper and that left a big question mark going into the future. More cases will have to come to test that and set the boundaries all over again, to be real about it. The Feds do have laws.
Federal Statutes relating to Firearms

They just aren't nearly as numerous or as micromanaging. For instance, contrary to popular myth, I can buy myself a full automatic heavy machine gun if I had the money for the insane price tag......a bit of time to either apply for the Class III permit or set up a Firearms Trust and then pay the tax stamp for it. Silencers too. Heck, my local gun store has silencers now since Missouri dropped the prohibition. They also require the ATF Class III permit. State laws are what make those an impossible dream in many states, not federal.

Can state laws be (sued?) in a federal court to determine their constitutionality??

The laws can be challenged and appealed up to Federal level and DC V. Heller, the landmark case was the District of Columbia vs. a private citizen.

What states have had their gun regulations challenged at the federal level as being unconstitutional?

Aside from DC v. Heller there is this Maryland Case, Chicago Case and a general catch-all listing of all kinds of litigation both past and pending.

It'll make things interesting to see how that permissible regulation part plays out and it may actually allow for something up to an assault weapons ban similar to the Clinton version. Those stand in states now although they're not without challenge, so as usual the Super Court opens a new can of worms as they seal the lid on another.

The question I'd have on something like that though....whats the point?? I've since sold it, but I bought my AR-15 back in late 2009 after the shortage eased up and you could get them for $500 a pop with no troubles at gun shows. They sold by the millions for a couple years straight with shortages sufficient to put back orders on most major manufacturers. Everyone who wants one has one or 3 or a half dozen. lol.. Some people I know around here got silly about it. The point is, a ban on even that legal level is chasing a horse that's so far out of the barn it's gone through the glue factory by now.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I dont see how the super court can get around the very clear right to keep and bear. They are there to protect the rights safe from intrusion. The people would clearly not have the power to do so any more, keep and bear, if there was an assult weapons ban. They, the people, would be reduced to pitchforks and farm tools which is exactly what the amendment was added to prevent.

Some have been working for years to get the peoples minds off the purpose of the right and turn it into a hunting, recreation and personal protecting amendment. This is only part of our would be overloards plan to make a perfect government in the image of perfect government and not in the people. You guys dont need those tactical weapons....look how nice we are and how well we look after your needs. Just the idea of yous having all those assult weapons.....well it just causes bad blood between the sheep and the shepards. The 2nd just reeks of bygone days when governments were mean and controling. We have come so far now.....just give us those weapon and there will be peace. Look at how kind and strong your government is today...with your best in mind.

To much violence to much pain.....just walk away.

reply to post by Logarock

Honestly? I don't understand that either. I'm not sure how the Super Court can affirm the right as an absolute individual right....and then say reasonable regulation is permissible while not even vaguely suggesting what "reasonable" means. ..or as you point out, how "reasonable regulation" fits into this at all. I don't hear "reasonable regulation" applied to the 1st amendment with Press or Speech and I can't see where one is different enough from the other as written to justify it. Odd isn't it??

I suppose I'm just accepting because it isn't optional. I mean the Super Court IS the definition of law in the U.S. and there is nothing beyond those 9 people to appeal to or alter beyond their word on the matter. I suppose we're fortunate that this court usually seems to go the right way? Although...some recent decisions make it one heck of a mixed bag eh? Imminent Domain sure comes to mind as a major let down.

reply to post by NJoyZ

Registration absolutely violates both the law AND the spirit of the law.

Its just another mechanism for control and government expansion.

Gun owners laugh at the NRA. Theyre viewed as traitorous.

Check out GOA.

Youll notice the endorsement from a certain Congressman in the upper right hand corner. Yah, theyre legit.

reply to post by NJoyZ


Why is weapons registration "contrary" to the spirit of the law?
Because if you are meant to have weapons to protect yourself from bad governance... than the government requiring everyone to tell them who has guns, how many, and what kind -- is like telling the enemy what strategy they need to formulate an attack on any group or person they choose. Right?

thats the whole point!! in the end you can have the most strict laws in the universe regarding gun anything, it still wont matter, CRIMINALS DONT REGISTER GUNS lol simple freakin fact, so why care who what where when why about a persons weapons and amounts? oh sure there are mentally unstable people, but you can kill just as many unsuspecting people running down a street and stabbing slicing peoples throats with a knife or machete. the register was meant to help protect the "government" not the people. our protection was to come from personal guns but now they know exactly who to kill should there ever need a reason be?

When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.

Originally posted by Mike215
When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.

Considering how they treated the American Aboriginals (the right term for what most call Indians) back in those days if they had AK47's there wouldn't have been any of the natives left to worry about.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Logarock

 

Honestly? I don't understand that either. I'm not sure how the Super Court can affirm the right as an absolute individual right....and then say reasonable regulation is permissible while not even vaguely suggesting what "reasonable" means. ..or as you point out, how "reasonable regulation" fits into this at all. I don't hear "reasonable regulation" applied to the 1st amendment with Press or Speech and I can't see where one is different enough from the other as written to justify it. Odd isn't it??

I suppose I'm just accepting because it isn't optional. I mean the Super Court IS the definition of law in the U.S. and there is nothing beyond those 9 people to appeal to or alter beyond their word on the matter. I suppose we're fortunate that this court usually seems to go the right way? Although...some recent decisions make it one heck of a mixed bag eh? Imminent Domain sure comes to mind as a major let down.

It seem that the court has become an organ of the state. The only time they are not, it would seem, is where they can judge and look like the advocate of the people and their rights without any great challange to the states position.

Originally posted by Mike215
When the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment, firearms were very primitive and most of the time did not work. If the AK47 assault rifle was around at that time, I doubt that they would been so generous with that amendment. I would think that their biggest fear is that the Indians would get them and such a nightmare would have made an amendment where getting and holding arms would be more difficult.

Two things to remember here. First the 2nd wasnt looking at the weapon but the right of groups of men to bear them under certain conditions and thus "to keep" unto thier own persons was then concomitant.

Also apparent is the reality, as far as the tactical value of the weapons called "arms",that they were certainly talking about current firearm technology. Demanding that the people cannot keep assult arms is the same as demanding they fight with weapons made for hunting game, much of which show little advance since 1776. Taking away a tactical equivalency in personal arms from the people is a clear degree of subjugation considering what it would mean if the people in the modern era had to present themselves on the field with shotguns and modern muzzel loaders. A court that was "jealous for the right of the people" would never allow an assult weapons ban. But a court seeking to define the state position as paramount would.

Originally posted by MOMof3
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

Can you explain another method? Isn't that how they keep criminals from getting a gun. Mentally ill, like criminals are not responsible enough for that right. "With freedom comes great responsibility."

Sorry, it doesnt work that way. You cant make the claim that registration will just magically accomplish the stated goal. You have to show how the goal will be accomplished or there is no point. Which would make your support of a registration to accomplish goals you cannot explain how it would accomplish a pile of crap.

Explain it. Show me you understand what you're talking about. Otherwise you may as well be railing against shoulder things that go up.