California Enacts New Handgun Ban, Christie Set To Sign Gun Bills

Originally posted by BubbaJoe

Originally posted by Krakatoa

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by TorqueyThePig
Do you think this decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court?

nope..States rights. totally within their jurisdiction.

reply to FortAnthem

they'll just exempt the LEO's and they'll go to Nevada an buy whatever they want.

States rights CANNOT overturn the U.S. Constitution. And this action clearly is in violation of the 2nd Amendment by "infringing" on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Make no mistake, it is an infringement, and encroachment upon that constitutional right.

Definition of INFRINGEMENT 1 : the act of infringing : violation 2 : an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege

Definition of Infringment

While you are defining the constitution, please define organized militia.

Since you are going there, please look at the militia act and the US Code and learn about the unorganized militia.

As Madidon said, "Who are the militia? Why we ALL are the militia."

Everyone conveniently ignores this part of the 2nd amendment: "well regulated militia"

Notice the word 'regulated'

I don't think I need to define it....

reply to post by Blarneystoner


You brought up "well regulated militia"
as an indispensible portion of the 2A.

well regulated means "highly trained"
well regulated means "well disciplined"

and for purposes of merely "internal consistency"
within the 2A it makes no intelligent sense
to place a contradiction of "shall not be infringed"
and "well regulated " in the same sentence.

you are using the word regulated to mean control
of the "keeping and bearing of arms,"
when the word regulated applies to
how the people that comprise the militia
are self disciplined and self controlled.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

You brought up "well regulated militia"
as an indispensible portion of the 2A.

well regulated means "highly trained"
well regulated means "well disciplined"

and for purposes of merely "internal consistency"
within the 2A it makes no intelligent sense
to place a contradiction of "shall not be infringed"
and "well regulated " in the same sentence.

you are using the word regulated to mean control
of the "keeping and bearing of arms,"
when the word regulated applies to
how the people that comprise the militia
are self disciplined and self controlled.

Apparently I do need to define the word "regulated"..

According to Random House College dictionary there are 4 definitions for the word regulated, all of which were in use during the Colonial period:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

Also, A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Use of the term needs to be applied to the time that the law/amendment was written.

Better go back and check your facts.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
Shame on me for not assuming a NavyDoc was a man. Based upon 'it's' avatar I assumed whatever...

Maybe check your assumptions.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

So... I have to assume... lol... that you're talking about the 17th amendment to the Constitution that you so vehemently defend.

Who and what group came up with the idea of income tax.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...or do you only defend the parts you agree with?

What parts?
I stated who created the idea and enacted the law. YOU went off on tangent about Reagan in some attempt to pin me down, because of another failed assumption that I am a republican.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...it's funny how you and others seem to think that attacking me personally is appropriate. It's like water off of a ducks back and really doesn't lend any credence to your arguments.

Back to this again? Got anything new to add?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
...And hey!

You never answered my question... how would you feel about it if someone was selling weapons on the corner across the street from your daughter's school? And try to answer honestly this time.

Hey!!!! I don't need to worry about my daughter doing this, because even if the laws were to follow the Constitution, I am a parent and I pay attention to what MY children do. I don't depend on the Govt to nanny MY kids or ME. I guess that you need Govt to hold your hand and protect you from all that is scary in the world. I do not.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
..see you're not thinking it through. There has to be and always will be restrictions and regulations on the sale of firearms.

I all ready thought it through. The law, as written does not leave it open for regulation. That is the Progressive wet dream that has become a real nightmare.
If you and all the other scared peoples want to do it the correct way, then the Constitution needs to be amended. Doing it through policy and regulation is about as cowardly and spineless as it gets.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe


This is a STATE applying guidelines, you gun rights supporters want more state control, what is the problem. California doesn't want guns, Mississippi doesn't want dildos or abortions, states rights all the way.

Yeah, except when the state law attempts to go around, void, undermine or violate what is defined in the Constitution.

You Anti-Gun Rights people will parrot anything heard from the Brady Camp, or the other mind-shared groups.

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Blarneystoner

 

Use of the term needs to be applied to the time that the law/amendment was written.

Better go back and check your facts.

The use of which term; 'regulated' or 'militia'?

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Regulated.

en.wikipedia.org...

Meaning of "well regulated militia" The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[131] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[132]

I have stated this before.
It looks like the Govt has failed the people again, as it is supposed to be training us, the people.

Originally posted by macman
I all ready thought it through. The law, as written does not leave it open for regulation. That is the Progressive wet dream that has become a real nightmare.
If you and all the other scared peoples want to do it the correct way, then the Constitution needs to be amended. Doing it through policy and regulation is about as cowardly and spineless as it gets.

Look... first off.. I haven't been discussing gun control as an issue. I've only been discussing the right of the state to self govern.

2nd... you don't know a god damned thing about me. Stop pretending you do.

3rd... The 'law' as written isn't a law. It's an amendment and as such is open for interpretation by the Supreme court of the US. That SC has said that it IS open for regulation. End of story.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Look... first off.. I haven't been discussing gun control as an issue. I've only been discussing the right of the state to self govern.

Self Governing is all fine and dandy, except when the laws violate the Amendments.
Nice try though.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

2nd... you don't know a god damned thing about me. Stop pretending you do.

Touchy touchy. Did I strike a nerve? A correct nerve??
Well, by all means, do correct me then.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
3rd... The 'law' as written isn't a law. It's an amendment and as such is open for interpretation by the Supreme court of the US. That SC has said that it IS open for regulation. End of story.

The law of the land. You really think that an Amendment is not a law??? Geez, then if that is the case, it can't be enforced, like the tax law.

And just because a Court that legislated from the bench doesn't make it correct or right. Anyone with a 3th grade reading skill set can read what I posted and see it as a defined law that does not allow restrictions. The only reason why it has happened, is due to Progressives and their infection into the Govt.

reply to post by macman


You sound like a child with your playground taunts. I don't think you would be so bold if we were discussing this face to face.

You can choose to believe what you want but the fact is that the SC has and will continue to rule on, and interpret on the 2A.

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

...notice that it says "no other effect than to restrict the powers of National Government" yet makes no mention of State and or Local authority. Do you not understand that the SC has, in effect left regulation to the discretion of State and Local?

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

For the purposes of my argument; that State and Local authorities have the right to self regulate both firearms and ammunition, those two rulings by the supreme court are a slam dunk.

I'm done trying to reason with you buddy... your opinions don't mean a damn thing to me and that's all you bring to the table here.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

You sound like a child with your playground taunts. I don't think you would be so bold if we were discussing this face to face.

Tell you what tough guy. For the next little bit, I will be in Salt Lake City. Drop me a PM and I have no problem meeting up. Face to face, over a keyboard, doesn't matter to me.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
You can choose to believe what you want but the fact is that the SC has and will continue to rule on, and interpret on the 2A.

In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

...notice that it says "no other effect than to restrict the powers of National Government" yet makes no mention of State and or Local authority. Do you not understand that the SC has, in effect left regulation to the discretion of State and Local?

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "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"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose".

For the purposes of my argument; that State and Local authorities have the right to self regulate both firearms and ammunition, those two rulings by the supreme court are a slam dunk.

So, since they basically took a squat on the 2nd Amendment, you see that as a good thing.
Guess that the State is able to restrict freedom of the press and speech as well.

Your logic and the logic of the Court is of the Progressive infection. Plain and simple.

My offer still stands, I have no problem meeting face to face.

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
I'm done trying to reason with you buddy... your opinions don't mean a damn thing to me and that's all you bring to the table here.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass as you leave.

howmuch4another
reply to post by Krakatoa

 

actually a microstamp is not an infringement of the 2nd. nobody is saying you cannot have a gun or buy a gun in Cali. This is for the manufacturer and you are not entitled to force a manufacturer to comply.They can just leave the State.


eta..what Hope said.

faster than me.

edit on 5/22/2013 by howmuch4another because: (no reason given)

Well It has happened. S&W have decided to discontinue business in California. They are standing against the legislation but will not comply during the court cases as it creates a registry. Our elected officials here continue the march toward total control.
Link

Microstamping is a requirement that each firearm be fitted with a special firing pin that leaves a fingerprint on a bullet casing which differs from the fingerprint of every other firearm. In other words--every one of the wildly popular Smith & Wesson M&P .45 semi-automatic handguns would have to be manufactured in such a way so that no two of them left the same mark on a shell casing.
The cost of doing this would be incredibly high to manufacturers, and would be a cost they would have to pass on to consumers in higher prices.
Moreover, the result of doing this would be yet another gun registry--every gun sold that met microstamping requirements would have be to registered so that the government knew who owned the gun that left that fingerprint.

So any criminal can go to a gun range pocket a bunch of spent brass go out murder someone with a revolver and then sprinkle the pocket used brass all over the crime scene after they leave and frame innocent people while at the same time slowing down the forensic morons long enough to get away free.

GOOD JOB IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by BASSPLYR


you can't make this stuff up. so eager to push the agenda that the unintended consequences will bite us all in the a**.

AnonymousCitizen
How will this possibly be enforced?

It's already being "enforced" as Ruger and Smith & Wesson, among others, have already stated they are pulling out if the market in California. All that means, of course, is that no NEW gun sales in CA for these firms.

reply to post by Blarneystoner


Hey blarney looks like your supplied definitions 2, 3 and 4 All work in favor of sluggers argument not yours. Sure you wanna keep trying to put your spin on what the forefathers meant by regulated.

reply to post by howmuch4another


I'm with you man. This is like the movie idiocracy. Have we as a country become this immature and stupid?

Ruger also is pulling out of California too. I hope they stick it to em too like Barrett did.

reply to post by schuyler


Barrett survived just fine with out kalifornia. S&w and ruger will too. Man my buddy has a few rugers wonder how much they'll be worth for sale in 2 years.

So let me get this straight only the criminals will be allowed access to semi auto hand guns?

GOOD JOB IDIOTS!!!!!!! Bet the a holes that conceived this bill all have semi's of their own like that lier and extreme hypocrite fienstein.