Jump to content

I respectfully request


Taz

Recommended Posts

  • Moderators

 

 

states can ban other firearms?

 

Pretty much.  I haven't been able to find a legal shoulder fired stinger missile yet, but we freely give them to other people around the world.

 

 

California has many restrictions on named firearms.  Several of which I own and sometimes carry.  PIA when I forget that Calif does not allow the firearm I'm carrying and I get close to the border and have to turn around.  Don't go there much anymore.

 

Do the restricted guns listed fall within certain catagories?  Semi-auto pistols?  High capacity semi-autos?  "Assault" rifles?  I remember hearing my brother say he was picking up some stuff before the laws went into effect there, but I cannot remember what it was.  It seemed that  it centered around what the gun was able to hold in the magizine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I hope it never comes to it but the people may need to form a militia to fight the government one day. It has happened in the past with many countries that did not have a 2nd amendment protecting it citizens right to bear arms. Lawyers and politicians pick this amendment to death to make it fit their agenda. What will happen when the government picks the right to free speech like this. It could happen, all they need to do is say is that it is for national security the we are going to censor the press and the right to free speech for a certain time much as federal tax was to be a temporary measure. After dictators take the citizens weapons the right to free speech and censorship of the press is next. All you have to do is look back in history.

 

I think history is the key, and it should be right up there with math and science.

 

The United States has a long history of infiringing upon the right of free speech during times of war, even some of the founding fathers were guility of this as well.  The most well known example is the Alien and Sedition Acts, part of which is still on the  books and used to prosecute speech during WWI and WWII.

 

http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp

 

In light of Heller and McDonald I don't see any realistic possibility that the government is going to be taking away any guns, at least for the forseeable future, and probably not in our lifetimes.  They may put more restrictions on them, or regulate them more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your spare tire wasn't designed to kill people.

 

I have a semi-automatic pistol sitting on my nightstand. I've never used it to kill people but I know it's there if I should ever need it.

 

Keith

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia. So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the "well-regulated" right.

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller.

They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks.

States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable.

Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army). wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right.

am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns? states can ban other firearms?

Steve

I don't really take a position on the Heller decision. Scalia, in his opinion goes through a very extensive history of the right to bear arms. I haven't read it in a very long time, but I seem to recall he agreed with your interpretation, so he started to discuss the history of the right to self defense. He concluded that the 2nd Amendment must have been drafted with this long established defense in mind.

It is one of the opinions everyone should read, regardlesd of where they sit on the issue, because the final authority on the subject of what the 2nd Amendment means (the Court) doesn't agree with what either side say it means.

I need to go back and read it again, it has been a long time.

Dwi, would you be able to post a link to the scalla opinion, I would like to read that :emotion-21:
Here is a link to the SCOTUS blog on Heller which has forum discussions on legal issues relating to Heller, links to all the briefs filed on both sides, and a link at the top to the Scalia opinion. I will post a seperate link to the opinion so it is easy to find.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-

files/cases/dc-v-heller/

Edited by dwilawyer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia.  So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"  

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the  "well-regulated" right.

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller.

They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks.

States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable.

Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army).  wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right.

am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns?  states can ban other firearms?

Steve

Here is the current definition of Militia:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, the 2nd amendment speaks of a "well-regulated" militia.  So, the question is now, what is "well-regulated?"  

I would imagine by now, the SCOTUS has set a precedent. I suppose the government has the leeway to decide which weapons and how many of them can be restricted without infringing on the  "well-regulated" right.

They have, and it is recent. D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago which both held that you cannot ban hand guns from the home.https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

That is a link to the oral arguments, briefs and everything else in Heller.

They just declined to review a case from San Francisco where the City passed an ordinance that required handguns in the home must have trigger locks.

States and cities can place reasonable restrictions on hand guns. The question is what is reasonable. Requiring gun locks while inside the home is apparently reasonable.

Thanks Travis…i’m certainly no expert; but, seems to me that the intent of the right to bear arms was in case a militia was needed (at that time, a militia as opposed to an official government army).  wouldn’t then that “right” be applicable only for serving in a militia? history has clearly shown me to be wrong on this matter--i guess i’m saying that it seems more of a individual right only because individuals would make up the militia. i don’t know why it is viewed now as strictly an individual right.

am i correct that the court’s decisions seem to involve only handguns?  states can ban other firearms?

Steve

The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Their rulings were in regards to handguns as they are the most commonly used firearms carried for self defense. I suspect that you may see future litigation regarding what constitutes firearms commonly used for self defense.

This was already addressed in U.S. v Miller 1939. The phrase in that opinion is "[Militia] when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Very interesting sentence that gets no attention today.

Read Miller, very interesting case beyond it establishing what weapons are allowed to the militia.

Edited by Bella
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to add that it is no doubt in my mind that the citizens of the United States are going to lose this right in the future. That is what governments do, take the right for citizens to bear arms.

Respectfully, your premise is incorrect in that you seem to think government gave us the right to defend ourselves and thus they can take it away. This isn't so. The Right is inherent in every Man to defend himself. Government can no more take it from you than they can demand you cut off your arm.

The 2nd Amendment will never go away, as long as our current form of government exists. And that is the key: AS LONG AS OUR CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT EXISTS. The 2nd amendment is part of the fabric of the nation - part of the building block. Remove the block and we are no longer the same nation. If they assume the authority to rob you of your ability to defend yourself then why couldn't they just assume ALL power over you. And really, by extension, wouldn't that be what they are doing? This is what I believe the founders were writing about. They were telling the government that they do not have ultimate authority over us.

The assumption is that in order to eliminate the 2nd amendment is would require another amendment. Think that's going to happen? Not likely. But I would argue even then, how can it be that an entity CREATED BY MAN (government) can then have the ultimate authority over man and tell them YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND YOURSELF? It cannot. It fly's in the face of the very basic maxims of law.

Can you contract away your Rights? Hmm. Therein lies a very interesting rabbit hole. Give up/let them take that right, and you might as well invite a dictatorship that controls every facet of your life. In my humble opinion.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Right is inherent in every Man to defend himself.

 

Where is that one written?

 

Dave

There are vague references in the Magna Carta and even more direct references in the English Bill of Rights. But does it need to be written? And would it matter who had written it?

Would anyone argue that even a caveman, being attacked by a saber-toothed tiger, would not be allowed to defend himself without the consent of a government had one existed? Dare I say none of us would be here had he not? And I doubt a stone tablet existed to instruct him of his Right.

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

states can ban other firearms?

 

Pretty much.  I haven't been able to find a legal shoulder fired stinger missile yet, but we freely give them to other people around the world.

 

 

California has many restrictions on named firearms.  Several of which I own and sometimes carry.  PIA when I forget that Calif does not allow the firearm I'm carrying and I get close to the border and have to turn around.  Don't go there much anymore.

 

Do the restricted guns listed fall within certain catagories?  Semi-auto pistols?  High capacity semi-autos?  "Assault" rifles?  I remember hearing my brother say he was picking up some stuff before the laws went into effect there, but I cannot remember what it was.  It seemed that  it centered around what the gun was able to hold in the magizine. 

 

Certain semi auto pistols, rifles, and shotguns were banned by name.  Magazines that hold more then 10 rounds.  Center fire rifles that hold more then 10 rounds internally.  Pretty much anything they consider an assault rifle.  50 cal BMG rifles, even single shots.  My shotgun that has a pistol grip.  I believe any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip or other undesirable features.

 

I know Brookings Or. seemed to have a lot of Calif. rejects as it is just north of the Calif. border.

 

 

 

oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguid...

 

 

 

 

The Right is inherent in every Man to defend himself.

 

Where is that one written?

 

Dave

 

 

Dave.  For the sake of discussion.  If I were to come at you with a baseball bat with intent to do you bodily harm, do you believe you need written permission to defend yourself?

 

Let me be perfectly clear that this is only for the sake of giving you something to think about.  No intent on my part.

 

john

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I just want to add that it is no doubt in my mind that the citizens of the United States are going to lose this right in the future. That is what governments do, take the right for citizens to bear arms.

Respectfully, your premise is incorrect in that you seem to think government gave us the right to defend ourselves and thus they can take it away. This isn't so. The Right is inherent in every Man to defend himself. Government can no more take it from you than they can demand you cut off your arm.

The 2nd Amendment will never go away, as long as our current form of government exists. And that is the key: AS LONG AS OUR CURRENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT EXISTS. The 2nd amendment is part of the fabric of the nation - part of the building block. Remove the block and we are no longer the same nation. If they assume the authority to rob you of your ability to defend yourself then why couldn't they just assume ALL power over you. And really, by extension, wouldn't that be what they are doing? This is what I believe the founders were writing about. They were telling the government that they do not have ultimate authority over us.

The assumption is that in order to eliminate the 2nd amendment is would require another amendment. Think that's going to happen? Not likely. But I would argue even then, how can it be that an entity CREATED BY MAN (government) can then have the ultimate authority over man and tell them YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEFEND YOURSELF? It cannot. It fly's in the face of the very basic maxims of law.

Can you contract away your Rights? Hmm. Therein lies a very interesting rabbit hole. Give up/let them take that right, and you might as well invite a dictatorship that controls every facet of your life. In my humble opinion.

I agree with you that the right to defend one's self is a right that preixsted the Bill of Rights.

I don't agree that if you remove a provision of the Constitution, or one of the amendments, that it necessarily changes the country into something else. Many provisions of the constitution have changed, been amended, or completely new.

The VP is completely different, the electiob of senators is entirely different. The South was convinced that sky would fall if slavery was eliminated, it didn't. They were convinced it would fall again if segragation ended, it didn't. People were utterly convinced the country was headed for ruin if women got the vote. Well I guess the jury is still out on that one.

You don't have to repeal the 2nd amendment to have common sense gun cintrol. I'm not advocating for that, just stating was is clearly allowable under Heller and McDonald.

The right to self defense, regardless of where it originated from doesn't mysteriously disappear with handgun regulation.,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...