[Cosmoline]

You have a right to KEEP and BEAR arms unless your right is adjudicated away due to your illegal actions.

You have no constitutional right to DISCHARGE your arms. Thus restrictions limiting when, where and how firearms may be used, and against whom they may be used, are all outside the scope of the Second Amendment. Indeed, these laws have been around for centuries and are quite strict even in pro-gun states.

Regulate misuse, not possession.

[suijurisfreeman]

is this Orwellian double speak or what?!
and your source for these statements is? So let's see now, I have a right to keep and bear arms, but not to discharge them? Do I have a right to draw my weapon? How about do I have a right to have ammunition? If in fact what you're saying is true :confused: - when, where and how firearms may be used and against whom they may be used and that they are all outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment then the natural, inherent and inalienable right of self-defense makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! :neener:

"Regulate misuse, not possession", that's why it's a crime to murder someone without just cause!

Please site me some source for your statements that is superior to my natural, inherent and inalienable RKBA and Bill of Rights or Constitution!
:banghead:

[seeker_two]

You have no constitutional right to DISCHARGE your arms.

The Founding Fathers would laugh you right out of Independence Hall for that... :p

I think what you mean is that, despite your right to possess & use a firearm, you are ultimately responsible for the effects of your usage--especially if that use infringes on another person's rights.

That would make more sense...:D

[Standing Wolf]

You have no constitutional right to DISCHARGE your arms.

Baloney. Keeping and bearing includes use.

[BHPshooter]

...unless your right is adjudicated away due to your illegal actions.

I have a beef with this.

Where in: "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 it say "unless you have served a prison term or committed a class III misdemeanor"?

Answer: nowhere. In the late 1700s, if there was a homocidal psycho out there, no one was stupid enough to let him live. So, if someone was in jail and then released, since they were then freed again, they would have all of their rights again.

If any of you have read Red Dragon, this reminds me of the letter Hannibal Lecter writes to Will Graham saying that any rational society would either put him to a good use or kill him.

Let's call a spade a spade: If it's a right, you can't justly take it away without putting someone in jail or executing them. That's why it's called the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Experimental Privileges.

Okay, carry on.

Wes

[Cosmoline]

Nope. The amendment says NOTHING about using. So unless you want to write it in by fiat, it ain't there. Add to that the fact that there have always been laws prohibiting the discharge of firearms in towns and AT people, either expressly or through the penal code covering assault, murder, attempted murder, etc. Moreover, common law nuisance would certainly prevent or limit the establishment of a private range regardless of zoning or CC&R's. I'm facing that issue right now, in fact.

So you have no Constitutional right to have a place to shoot your firearm. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have one. Just that there is no federal Constitutional right to have one. It isn't a Constitutional issue and isn't mentioned in the Second Amendment. It doesn't say keep, bear and use. It says keep and bear.

Are you seriously arguing that a municipality can't prohibit you from discharging your weapon in its limits? Or that a state can't prohibit shooting across a highway? Of course they can. The Constitution has nothing to do with it.

[Cosmoline]

Also, it was well established at the time of the founding that felons had limited rights. The Bill of Rights did nothing to change this fact. Taking away your RKBA if you're a felon isn't an infringement. It's PUNISHMENT. The government can even take away your life, so it can certainly take away a great many of your rights.

Now whether this should continue after release is another matter.

[suijurisfreeman]

Well that settles that, everything that I've ever studied about 'natural law'and 'natural rights' is just so much :cuss: ! How could I have been so stupid! :banghead: This suijurisfreeman will now go back to being a serf on the lord's manor! NOT!!! :neener:

Somehow I don't think we're even on the same page here Cosmoline! :evil:

I think I've posted this on the forum here, but just in case I didn't, I claim no, that's right none, zero, zip, nada rights under any constitution! My natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable rights are mine because I not only claim to be a free Human Being, but because I actually exercise the rights of a free Human Being! I do this on a daily basis and have for over 10 years now, without harming another Human Being, their rights or property! My rights are not derived nor dependant upon any constitutions, however I do have the reasonable expectation that public officials who have sworn an oath to support said constitutions will not violate my rights! I know my rights, I declare my rights, I exercise my rights, and I damn well will defend my rights!

[Geech]

You have no constitutional right to DISCHARGE your arms.

Only if you totally ignore the Ninth amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

[Cosmoline]

Again, I ask you folks

DO YOU THINK A MUNICIPAL LAW BANNING DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

DO YOU THINK A STATE LAW BANNING DISCHARGE ACROSS A HIGHWAY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It either is or it isn't.

If a state were, for example, to ban all shooting of all types everywhere in the state, that would be unconstitutional because it would constitutute a back-door restriction on the RKBA.

However, the state certainly has a legitimate interest in regulating, even TIGHTLY regulating, when and where we can shoot with only narrow exceptions such as self defense.

Comprende?

[jdege]

Remember this?

The Pennsylvania Dissent (http://www.polsci.wvu.edu/ipa/PS493/PennsylvaniaDissent.htm)


The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents

December 12, 1787

...

7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals;

...


This is where the debate on the RKBA began.

[Cosmoline]

On the flip side, under my interpretation there would be NO regluations of ANY KIND on ownership and carrying of small arms. None whatsoever. Nada. You could own an M-2, an RPG or whatever. There might be some restrictions on high explosive warheads, I suppose. But as far as ownership of small arms there would be no more laws. You would have the RKBA unless YOU did something to lose it, such as murder or mayhem.

The logic behind this is twofold.

First of all, that's exactly what the Second Amendment says

Secondly, the existence of firearms poses no threat to anyone, except perhaps as clubs. They are chunks of steel, as we all know. It's only when they are discharged that they pose a threat to life and property. Thus, the interests of the state only come into being when they are discharged, and third parties and their property must be protected against bullets.

Thus, it would be permissible for the state to outlaw shooting live ammunition into the air. Or to outlaw shooting near built-up areas. Or to regulate the shape and location of ranges.

See how it works?

[suijurisfreeman]

>On the flip side, under my interpretation there would be NO regulations of ANY KIND on ownership and carrying of small arms.<

I think the key phrase here is , under my interpretation! Does your interpretation over ride the people's natural, inherent and inalienable rights? How about the Bill of Rights? Constitution? I think I've asked before how about what Section 26 of Kentucky's Bill of Rights states? Does your interpretation make that null and void also?

Georgia's Bill of Rights, Article I, Section 35 states, "that the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression." I think that this 'interpretation' is alitttle closer to what the 'founding fathers' had in mind!

[BHPshooter]

Nope. The amendment says NOTHING about using. So unless you want to write it in by fiat, it ain't there.

I refer you once again to the Second Amendment:
"A Well-Regulated Militia,..."

How can we be a well-regulated militia if we can't practice shooting? Your interpretation of having no right to shoot your guns goes against this. Well-regulated, as we should all know, means we should get together and practice [get to be proficient with] our shooting, our stalking tactics, etc., with our own privately-owned arms.

So, please, if you know something I don't, please let me know. How are we supposed to be well-regulated and well disciplined if we have no right to shoot?

Wes

[Justin]

Again, I ask you folks

DO YOU THINK A MUNICIPAL LAW BANNING DISCHARGE OF A FIREARM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

DO YOU THINK A STATE LAW BANNING DISCHARGE ACROSS A HIGHWAY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?

It either is or it isn't. Nope, seems to me the answer is an unequivocable maybe. For instance, discharging a firearm willy-nilly within city limits is obviously irresponsible and stupid.

But what if you are within city limits and fire a weapon in self-defense? Are you then going to throw someone in the slammer for defending themselves by discharging a firearm in a city?

Also, bear in mind that banning the discharge on weapons on private property shouldn't be allowed, not if we have a fairly strict view of either the Constitution or private property rights.

[JPM70535]

As far as I can see, we are trying to mix apples and oranges. RKBA entails not only the carying of weapons, but the discharge of same in defense of life ( mine or someone elses ). It does not guarantee that the same legally carried weapons may be discharged for practice any place at any time. Common sense dictates that the discharge of said weapons on a crowded schoolyard is a definite negative. And although common sense should be enough to negate this practice, because there are always individuals who lack that quality, a LAW forbidding this practice is not out of order. Likewise, RKBA, while being applicable to most Americans, certainly can not be extended to certain individuals. One example might be a felon, convicted previously of Armed Robbery. Again common sense dictates that this individual not have the RKBA, but in order to insure that those individuals for whom common sense is absent, comply, a LAW expressly forbidding this practice is not out of order.

Do I resent the restrictions these laws impose on me personally, sometimes yes. I resent not being able to set up a range on my acre of land and practice as I please. I am astute enough to realize that although I know this could be safely accomplished, I can understand how my neighbors might take exception to this activity as a violation of their right to pursue life. liberty, and happiness. For this reason, I accept that this is just another common sense exception to my RKBA and refrain from shooting in my back yard.

JMOgb

[ChandlerM]

You have no constitutional right to DISCHARGE your arms.....

I thought that the Constitution says that anything that is not specificially listed as being illegal is to be considered as legal (unless it infringes on somebody elses rights).

[seeker_two]

I thought that the Constitution says that anything that is not specificially listed as being illegal is to be considered as legal (unless it infringes on somebody elses rights).

As I said on my previous post... :D

Cosmoline: If my discharge of a firearm affects the rights of others (shooting a person, shooting their property, etc.), then I'm responsible for that act & should be punished. The gov't has a responsibility to take action then to prevent others' rights from being affected by my actions.

However, if my discharge of a firearm DOESN'T affect the rights of others (building & using my own range, teaching others safe gun-handling, etc.), then the gov't has no cause to infringe on MY RIGHT.

And there's the crux of RKBA...

[Cosmoline]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have no constitutional right to DISCHARGE your arms.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I thought that the Constitution says that anything that is not specificially listed as being illegal is to be considered as legal (unless it infringes on somebody elses rights).
---------------

No. The Constitution indicates that the enumeration of some rights does not mean all other rights are eliminated by implication. It's addressing an old maxim of statutory interpretation which holds that the listing of precise items implies that things not on the list were deliberately excluded. However, you will look in vain to find any reference ANYWHERE to a constitutional or natural right to discharge firearms.

Nor does the Constitution deal with what is "legal" or "illegal" in a penal code sense. The Bill of Rights in particular deals with things the state may not do. It does not address what is legal or illegal for a private person to do.

This is a key part of understanding my point. When I say there is no Constitutional right to shoot, I am simply saying that government has a right to regulate where and how we shoot small arms. On the other hand, government has no right to keep us from possessing small arms.

[Cosmoline]

And I ask again, where in the Second Amendment or in any supporting documents does it say you have a right do DISCHARGE firearms?

If it ain't on the page IT AIN'T ON THE STAGE.

[Cosmoline]

"Nope, seems to me the answer is an unequivocable maybe. For instance, discharging a firearm willy-nilly within city limits is obviously irresponsible and stupid."

Does a municipality have the ability under the Constitution to pass a law banning the discharge of firearms within the city limits?

You answered, apparently, that the city would not have the ability to prohibit discharge of firearms unless such discharge was "Obviously irresponsible and stupid." What if the city decides that firing a firearm anywhere in the limits would be irresponsible and stupid, and makes exception only for self defense?

My point is, there is nothing Unconstitutional about that choice.

Now as to whether the state can prevent a person from ever discharging a firearm, even in self defense, such a law would not infringe on the Second Amendment. The Second does not address a right to self defense except by very broad implication. In fact, no part of the Constitution does. So yes, the state could ban self defense shootings and make them a crime without running afoul of the Constitution.

[Cosmoline]

Also, the discharge of a firearm will almost always impact others. It's noisy. Thus, even with no zoning or CC&R's, if you move to a lot within earshot of neighbors and start a private shooting range, they can sue you under centuries-old principles of nuisance law to make you stop.

You see, every owner has the right to the QUIET use and enjoyment of his land. Thus it's not correct to say that you can do whatever you want on your own land. It's not a Constitutional issue, it's a matter of clashing property rights. If my noise is repeatedly interefering with your use and enjoyment of your land, you have the right to sue me for nuisance. Unless, of course, there's a zoning code which preempts nuisance law and I have permission to run the range.

The only way you could do it with absolute security is to either get permission from local authorities or set up a range out of anyone's earshot. That's the way the world operates today, and I don't see anything Unconstitutional about it.

[Molon Labe]

This thread is ridiculous.

So the 2nd Amendment doesn’t say I have a right to discharge a firearm.

So what? Who cares?

Are we to infer from your argument that, unless the Bill of Rights explicitly states a right, that we do not have that right?

[suijurisfreeman]

The Human Being known as Winston Ward Johnson claims no, that's right none, zero, zip, nada rights under any constitution! My natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable rights are mine because I not only claim to be a free Human Being, but because I actually exercise the rights of a free Human Being! :banghead: I do this on a daily basis and have do so for over 10 years now, without harming another Human Being, their rights or property! My rights are not derived nor dependant upon any constitutions, however I do have the reasonable expectation that public officials who have sworn an oath to support said constitutions will not violate my rights! I know my rights, I declare my rights, I exercise my rights, and damn well will defend my rights! :banghead:

[Cosmoline]

Today's Supreme Court has little problem inferring all sorts of things from the Constitution. It also has little problem ignoring the Second Amendment and refusing to take cases which address it. You take the bad with the good. A Court allowed to read a "right to privacy" into the Constitution is also a Court which can read the Second Amendment into oblivion.

I suggest that a fairly strict reading of the document is essential in order to avoid placing our mos sacred rights in the hands of nine old lawyers.

And I would also suggest that a strict reading of the Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about a right to shoot.

[BHPshooter]

And I ask again, where in the Second Amendment or in any supporting documents does it say you have a right do DISCHARGE firearms?

Okay, as I tried to state in my last post, the 2nd Amendment states that we have a right to keep and bear arms, and the security of a free state depends on that.

Once again: A well-regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Look at the first phrase: A well-regulated militia...

What does that mean? Does it mean Gov't regulated? No. It means well-trained, proficient, and experienced.

How do we get well-trained, proficient, and experienced with firearms? WE PRACTICE. How do we practice? WE SHOOT.

So, if you mean that it isn't really spelled out in the 2nd Amendment, you're right. But it IS in there.

Wes

[Cosmoline]

The problem is, the emphasis on a "well regulated militia" as LINKED to the RKBA is the same argument used by antis to read the Second out of the Constitution. Thus, if the point of the RKBA is solely to arm the regulated militia, then that's already covered by the National Guard and their training. Obviously, the RKBA cannot be linked solely with the regulated militia.

So if it is to be read as an individual right, you've got a tough time showing that there's also a CONSTITUTIONAL right to shoot linked with it. There are sound policy reasons for allowing shooting at ranges and so on, but it seems extremely obvious to me that the act of shooting a firearm has long been subject to extensive restriction. Thus, it cannot be a RIGHT because it is infringed all the time! Moreover, there are many very good reasons to restrict it.

[OF]

Thus, it cannot be a RIGHT because it is infringed all the time! Moreover, there are many very good reasons to restrict it.This is just silly. If your rights are being infringed they do not cease to be rights, you are simply being oppressed. I find it a little disturbing that you would define what is and is not a right based on the level of infringement that right receives from the state. If you define your rights by what you are allowed to do, how would you define oppression? Seriously, Cos, define oppression for me.

The Bill of Rights does not list your rights. It is a final safeguard against a gov't that would seek to do exactly what you are suggesting: limit the rights of free men to only those listed on a piece of paper somewhere. Draw up a new piece of paper and BINGO! rights you had yesterday you no longer have. The Bill of Rights provides a final stopgap that leaves the people, who at this point are under serious oppression, a list of those things most vital to them retaining some ability to regain control of the gov't.

I think there is some confusion in this thread about what a 'right' even is. I most certainly have a right to discharge my firearm anywhere I damn well please - unless my actions infringe on someone elses rights. Like their property rights for instance, or their right to life.

- Gabe

[Molon Labe]

a strict reading of the Second Amendment says nothing whatsoever about a right to shoot.

A strict reading of the Second Amendment also says nothing whatsoever about a right to:

- purchase arms
- sell arms
- repair arms
- fondle arms
- paint arms blazing orange and hot pink
- twirl arms like a baton
- balance arms on nose while standing on one foot

I assume you also believe I do not have the right to do any of the above? :rolleyes:

[Cosmoline]

Gabe--are you seriously saying that unless you actually hit someone you have a Constitutional right to cap off rounds whenever and wherever you please?!

[Cosmoline]

- purchase arms
- sell arms
- repair arms
- fondle arms
- paint arms blazing orange and hot pink
- twirl arms like a baton
- balance arms on nose while standing on one foot
------

In order to keep and bear arms you must be able to purchase them and keep them in repair. Twirling, balancing painting are all part of keeping. You don't have to have the constitutional right to cap off rounds whenever you see fit. You have no such right.

[tyme]

Not only can the militia not be well regulated if it has no place to practice shooting, but the fact is you are guaranteed to have legitimate targets to shoot at...

"You have the right to remain helpless. Should you choose to waive this right, anything you do may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an assailant. If you cannot find one for yourself, the court will release one for you." --Steve Munden (from Cooper's Commentaries)

The goal of a militia member seeking to practice with a firearm is merely to find his or her designated assailant or get one released by a court. :evil:

[QKRTHNU]

Whatever.

Possession is all that really matters.

Molon Labe. I dare you. :D

[Cosmoline]

Possession IS all that really matters--that's the key. Let them regulate where they have always regulated--shooting. If it hits the fan none of those laws will make any difference anyway.

There are two militias, organized and unorganized. The organized militia has been transformed into the National Guard. I'm not worried about their RKBA. It's the right of the UNorganized militia that I'm worried about.

[Jeff]

What is the exact wording in the Bill of Rights that says, No right to Discharge?

[Molon Labe]

Originally posted by Cosmoline: So if it is to be read as an individual right, you've got a tough time showing that there's also a CONSTITUTIONAL right to shoot linked with it.
There’s no such thing as a “constitutional right.” Our Federal Constitution is not the origin of our rights. (If you believe our Federal Constitution is the origin of our rights, then you must also believe Americans did not have rights before 1791.)

Originally posted by Cosmoline: In order to keep and bear arms you must be able to purchase them and keep them in repair.
Not according to an “ultra-strict reading” of the Constitution, as you seem to advocate. What does keeping and bearing have to do with repairing?

Originally posted by Cosmoline: The amendment says NOTHING about using. So unless you want to write it in by fiat, it ain't there.
Cosmoline, you seem to be of the opinion that a U.S. citizen doesn’t have a right unless it is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. This is not the case! We have many rights that are not listed in the Bill of Rights. Examples include:

- The right to self defense
- The right to own property (assuming you have the means to purchase it)
- The right to travel freely
- The right to marry and have a family
- The right to start a business and make money
- the right to defend property

If you’re still unconvinced, read Amendment IX. What doe you think Amendment IX means?!

In a nut shell, the Bill of Rights is not a listing of our rights. In fact, it was never meant to be a listing of our rights, as our Founding Fathers knew it would be impossible to make such a list. (Even if it were possible to make an unabridged listing of our rights, it would be very unadvisable, since “listed” rights invariably become targets by the liberty-haters.) The Bill of Rights is simply a list of things the government can’t do. It does not limit the people; it only limits the government.

[suijurisfreeman]

Molo Labe,

I couldn't have said it better myself! My rights are natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable, I am a free Human Being! :banghead:

[Molon Labe]

Originally posted by suijurisfreeman:Molo Labe,

I couldn't have said it better myself! My rights are natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable, I am a free Human Being!
You are indeed a sovereign being.

My rights do not come from the Bill of Rights; it doesn’t have the authority. My rights do not come from the government; it doesn’t have the authority. My rights do not come from The People; they don’t have the authority. My rights do not come from our Founding Fathers; they didn't have the authority.

As a gift from God, I was born with these rights. And few things are more precious to me than my inalienable, God-given, natural rights.

Come and get 'em...