New York State Ban - We need your help as well as other states

[Tom from WNY]

To thost posting on the High Road who wish to help New York Firearms owners:

This is a letter I have been sending to manufacturer's of AR-15's and handguns that can accept a magazine of 10+ rounds. Feel free to modify and send as appropriate.

I am a law abiding New York State firearms owner and taxpayer. I do not appreciate that the Government of my State is making me a criminal; especially to serve the venial, pernicious ego of some of our politicians.

In the SAFE act, there were no provisions for transfer of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" or possession of same by Law Enforcement. After April 15, 2013, it will be illegal to sell a magazine holding more than 7 rounds in NYS.

As a law abiding gun owner in New York State, I cannot, in good consciousness, support purchasing any product from any manufacturer who:

A) Does not immediately cease to ship to New York State any magazine of greater than 10 round capacity. Cease shipment of magazines of 7-10 rounds after April 15. Standing contracts signed prior to January 14, 2013, for magazines holding more than 10 rounds for law enforcement firearms should be filled in accordance with contract terms; as well as exempting sales to Federal Agencies. This applies across the board; civilian and law enforcement sales.

B) Continues to ship handguns for any reason, including law enforcement sales, to New York State capable of accepting a magazine holding more than 7 rounds. Again, exempt current standing contracts in force prior to January 14, 2013 and Federal sales.

C) Does not immediately cease shipment of any rifle or carbine that meets the NY definition of an assault rifle to New York State for any reason, including law enforcement sales. Again, exempt standing contracts in force prior to January 14, 2013.

When the laws are changed to allow us, law abiding New York citizen firearms owners, to retain our pre-9/13/1994 (Federal AWB) magazines without criminal penalty and have new 10 round or 10+ round magazines that we can load and carry, then, by all means, please ship full capacity magazines and handguns, with proper restrictions and legal disclaimers.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. While this may seem like an odd request, we, in New York appreciate the support of those in industry who see our situation.

Trust me when I tell you, this gets effect if you send it to the corporate officers. You get phone calls.

This has been sent and is being used by members of my Gun Club; the club is in WNY. If we, as a NATIONAL 2A community stand together, we can beat all legislaiton.

[1stmarine]

Originally Posted by Tom from WNY

To thost posting on the High Road who wish to help New York Firearms owners:

This is a letter I have been sending to manufacturer's of AR-15's and handguns that can accept a magazine of 10+ rounds. Feel free to modify and send as appropriate.

I am a law abiding New York State firearms owner and taxpayer. I do not appreciate that the Government of my State is making me a criminal; especially to serve the venial, pernicious ego of some of our politicians.

In the SAFE act, there were no provisions for transfer of "large capacity ammunition feeding devices" or possession of same by Law Enforcement. After April 15, 2013, it will be illegal to sell a magazine holding more than 7 rounds in NYS.

As a law abiding gun owner in New York State, I cannot, in good consciousness, support purchasing any product from any manufacturer who:

A) Does not immediately cease to ship to New York State any magazine of greater than 10 round capacity. Cease shipment of magazines of 7-10 rounds after April 15. Standing contracts signed prior to January 14, 2013, for magazines holding more than 10 rounds for law enforcement firearms should be filled in accordance with contract terms; as well as exempting sales to Federal Agencies. This applies across the board; civilian and law enforcement sales.

B) Continues to ship handguns for any reason, including law enforcement sales, to New York State capable of accepting a magazine holding more than 7 rounds. Again, exempt current standing contracts in force prior to January 14, 2013 and Federal sales.

C) Does not immediately cease shipment of any rifle or carbine that meets the NY definition of an assault rifle to New York State for any reason, including law enforcement sales. Again, exempt standing contracts in force prior to January 14, 2013.

When the laws are changed to allow us, law abiding New York citizen firearms owners, to retain our pre-9/13/1994 (Federal AWB) magazines without criminal penalty and have new 10 round or 10+ round magazines that we can load and carry, then, by all means, please ship full capacity magazines and handguns, with proper restrictions and legal disclaimers.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. While this may seem like an odd request, we, in New York appreciate the support of those in industry who see our situation.

Trust me when I tell you, this gets effect if you send it to the corporate officers. You get phone calls.

This has been sent and is being used by members of my Gun Club; the club is in WNY. If we, as a NATIONAL 2A community stand together, we can beat all legislaiton.

That is very good. Thanks for sharing guys. All Sheriffs are with us and most LE agencies as well. This nonsense law is an illegal law, even judges have been outspoken about these facts and that is why they are going to loose but we have to keep pushing hard.

[1stmarine]

Something that impacts all states....

Reps. Stockman & Broun circulate letter to KILL ALL GUN CONTROL

We also deserved a vote, Mr. Obama, but we didn't get it from Harry Reid!
Stockman, Broun answer the call to KILL ALL GUN CONTROL in the House

Note to Barack Obama: Spare us the snide sarcasm and the dripping contempt. Obama's condescending state of the union speech shows, once again, why gun owners don't trust him.
"They deserve a vote," hollered Obama, pointing to drooling anti-gun activists in the galleries.

Well, so did we.

Veterans deserved a vote on whether they would receive due process from a court of law before having their constitutional gun rights taken away. But, when Senator Chuck Schumer threatened to filibuster the DoD authorization bill in order to block that amendment, it didn't happen.

Gun owners deserved a vote on Sen. John Thune's reciprocity legislation -- allowing concealed carry holders to carry their firearms from one state into another. But Democratic Leader Harry Reid made sure each controversial bill coming before the Senate was filled with the maximum number of allowable amendments, so Thune's amendment couldn't be offered.

Gun owners deserved a vote on appropriations language to block 16,000 IRS agents from imprisoning those who refused to comply with the anti-gun ObamaCare law. But Reid carefully manipulated the Senate rules to insure the ObamaCare-related votes were kept to a minimum.

From responsible budgeting to gun rights, Reid's office became the graveyard for votes on issues of interest to conservatives.
Reps. Stockman & Broun circulate letter to KILL ALL GUN CONTROL
So what can gun owners do? We can create a groundswell of support for what Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) is doing in the House.
Rep. Stockman has just told GOA that he and Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) will be circulating a letter asking the House leadership to refuse to bring up anti-gun legislation that is NOT supported by a majority of the Republican members of the House of Representatives.
Stockman’s effort could potentially kill ALL GUN CONTROL in the House.
We know, we know. We believe that gun control should die if only one constitutionalist-representative opposes it -- or even if none do. But, as a practical matter, if 117 congressmen sign a letter demanding that Boehner not bring up a gun control bill opposed by those 117 congressmen, gun control will die. Without that letter, Democrats will join with anti-gun Republicans, and gun control will pass.
ACTION: Contact your Representative and urge him or her to cosign the Stockman-Broun letter. Please note that there are two different action responses for you to send, and the system will automatically send that response, depending upon whether your congressman is a Republican or Democrat.
Sign it ,spam it, pass it on

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=62408466

[1stmarine]

State Supreme Court wants NYS to show good cause that gun law is constitutional!


If you are having trouble viewing this message, go here: http://t.congressweb.com/w/?QGUAYALPGE
Beginning in January we started calling, emailing, faxing and writing.

We have called written and emailed at every turn. The SAFE Act still passed.

The Governor sent out the State Police to sell the SAFE Act with little advance warning.
We mobilized and attened these Spin Sessions with Standing Room Only!

We mobilized for County Meetings and the resolutions began passing in county after county.A map of the counties passing resolutions is a deafening statement of how we feel about our friends in Albany and their actions.

Time and time again we mobilized and rallied but we were constantly ignored or dismissed as what the Media calls the "vocal minority"

It has been 6 weeks of chaos culminating with a huge rally tomorrow.

Well there are two breaking stories that offer some good news for all of our efforts.

1.) Listen to Assembly Representative David DiPeitro on the radio with Tom Bauerle in Buffalo today.

http://audio.wben.com/a/71558139/bau...d-dipietro.htm (http://audio.wben.com/a/71558139/bau...d-dipietro.htm)

Cuomo will now be hindered by Sheldon Silver,but the courts may give them both a way out.


2.) New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.

State Supreme Court wants NYS to show good cause that gun law is constitutional

By NEWSChannel 2 Staff (http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State...193664911.html)

Story Created: Feb 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM EST (http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State...193664911.html)

Story Updated: Feb 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM EST(http://www.wktv.com/news/local/State...193664911.html)

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WKTV) - The Buffalo-based attorney who is spear-heading a lawsuit against Governor Andrew Cuomo's recent gun laws said that Wednesday was "monumental," as a State Supreme Court Justice issued an order requiring New York State to show good cause that the law is constitutional.


New York State has until April 29 to respond or else an injunction will be issued.

On Thursday, thousands are expected in Albany to rally against the Governor's gun laws. Many are looking to preserve local jobs at places such as Remington Arms, while others say they are just citizens who feel that their Second Amendments are being infringed upon.

See you all in Albany tomorrow!

This is not a victory yet but it is some good news for all of us and we really need some good news.

Forward to a Friend:
http://t.congressweb.com/f/?QGUAYALPGE
Unsubscribe:
http://t.congressweb.com/u/?QGUAYALPGE

Privacy Policy:
http://t.congressweb.com/p/

Update Profile:
http://t.congressweb.com/e/?QGUAYALPGE

P.O. Box 602 Tonawanda, NY. 14151-0602

[1stmarine]

We need you help to stop the president's attempts to destabilize the check and balances introducing the most anti-2A judicial nominee in history.

Please sign up and share...

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/a...ertid=62467136

[C0untZer0]

I can identify with it being chaotic

It's because its a fight.

It's like Mike Tyson said"

Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth

[1stmarine]

Happy St.Patricks Day New York!!!!

[ThorinNNY]

Looking better (greener) all the time.

[Tom from WNY]

I'm beginning to think the time has come for the United States to become 51. For sure, I'd support it.

[1stmarine]

Mr. Tresmond needs some likes. Lets give him some likes. Please share all over.


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Tresmo...49433465214770


IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ALL GUN OWNERS AND AMERICANS CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! LET'S GET 100,000 LIKES FOR SOLIDARITY BEHIND THE SECOND AMENDMENT!


Tresmond Law is New York State’s premiere law firm for defending the right of citizens to possess firearms. Lead by attorney James D. Tresmond, Esq,, the legal team at Tresmond Law has commenced litigation against the New York S.A.F.E. Act. We see a bright future for the preservation of Americans’ Constitutional rights; not just Second Amendment rights, but each and every individual bequeathed to the people of this great nation, and we are confident that our experience, strategy and skill will bring a swift end to any attempts by governments to assail our fundamental Constitutional rights.


We will be releasing groundbreaking news in the coming days and weeks. Please “Like” this page and recommend it to your friends and family. You will always be able to receive press releases and breaking news here on this page. Be sure check back frequently as Mr. Tresmond will personally updating this page as developments occur.


Tresmond Law will soon open the National Center for Firearms Litigation here in Western New York, expanding our efforts to a nationwide scale to preserve the basic right of all Americans to
defend themselves. Again, please recommend this page to your friends. You do not have to be a resident of New York to follow our progress; we are expanding our efforts to a national level
beginning today. Expect to see our presence in Colorado within the next few days. As always, we will continue to be on the vanguard of Constitutional law and the protection of those rights and freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution and necessary to a scheme of ordered liberty. We will never apologize or back down for defending the right of all innocent Americans to keep and bear
arms.


Sincerely,
The Legal Team at Tresmond Law

[1stmarine]

NYSRPA Suit has been filed!!

I read the entire suit and it is a solid piece like Mr. Tresmond's one. Even if you are not in NYS I suggest you read it because it provides some very interesting information that can be used in other states
where the constitution is also being raped as we speak. Feinstein talks about "assault things" and "weapons of war" and all that sensationalist baloney but they are the true criminals using NAZI
party strategies against honest Americans.

Like the Tresmond's suit I am not expecting this to stop at the NY State supreme court. Here they all sleep in the same bed but as this moves up there are a few counts that are going to render this law unconstitutional and will be taken down in a federal judgement. So some battles will be lost and it is expected only to win the important ones.

http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NYS...FE-Lawsuit.pdf

Lets pray to God for justice for all.

[HKGuns]

I don't do facebook but I'll give him a virtual like here.

[1stmarine]

PBS - Second Amendment Scholar says Assault Weapons Ban Won't pass constitutional muster


Watch in youtube....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=TyXcY7NJHFg

[1stmarine]

Judicial Watch looking into Bloomberg's illegal activities...

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulleti...yor-bloomberg/

[Tom from WNY]

With the recent issue of the NYSP requesting an Erie County Pistol Permit holder have his permit rescinded and surrender his handguns for the crime of being prescribed anti-anxiety medication by a qualified medical professional; this letter to the members of the Senate and Assembly is appropriate. Since the only legal way to possess a handgun in NY is to have a valid Part 400 license, this pretty much represents a confiscation of private property without due process as well as a blatant attempt to violate a Citizen's civil rights under the color of law.

Dear
I urge you to introduce a measure to repeal the NY SAFE Act and reopen the discussion regarding restricting criminal access to firearms, with a goal of designing meaningful laws. Prior to that, there were enough laws to adequately address the issue of illegal firearms usage.

Recent events regarding the “mistake” made by the New York State Police regarding rescinding a Erie County resident’s Pistol License have only served to convince me and other New York residents that this legislation, conceived in secrecy and voted on without proper debate and commentary by subject matter experts, is so deeply flawed that only a repeal will fix this issue. It is full of technical errors regarding categorizing firearms. It has created expenditures that the State can ill afford to fund, duplicating regulations and systems that are already in place. It usurps the authority of the Courts to determine the issue of Part 400 licenses as required by that legislation. It also imposes penalties that are disproportional to the actual “crime” committed.

And, now we have seen that one of the cornerstone principles of this act, the Mental Health provisions, is severely flawed and subject to abuse by unqualified persons. If the chain of events regarding the recent attempt to rescind the pistol license of an Erie County resident is true; the actions of the New York State Police amount to effort to deny the civil rights of a law-abiding citizen, who was under treatment by a qualified medical professional, under the color of law. The aftermath appears to be a blaming exercise that is worthy of a group of pre-school age children, yet the accused is still required to expend financial resources to pay an attorney, take time off from his job, and suffer public contempt. Is this what the Government of New York intends for it’s vetted law-abiding Citizens to be exposed to for exercising their Second Amendment rights?

Most importantly, the SAFE Act has stripped law abiding New York citizen firearms owners of their property rights and criminalized the possession of previously legally owned property. The fact that all but 2 Upstate New York County Legislatures and multiple Towns and Villages have adopted resolutions condemning both the process and the language of the law, along with the New York State Sheriff’s Association, the New York State County Clerk’s Association and the New York State Association of Counties should be evidence that this is bad law and must be repealed.

Government only is legitimate when it has the respect and trust of the governed Citizens. The SAFE Act, along with recent legislative actions, has eroded this trust and respect to the degree whereby a majority of Citizens of this State no longer believe we are living under a legitimate rule of law made by reasonable persons. Furthermore, the recent actions of the New York State Police have also embarrassed this once premier agency; causing a loss of confidence by the Citizens in it to be a fair and professional Law Enforcement agency. It now appears that the New York State Police have become a political tool of the Governor’s Office.

We, the Citizens of New York State want our Government to govern with respect for our rights, in a responsible manner, with respect for law and the procedures of a Constitutional Republic. We expect no less of our elected representatives. While I realize you initially voted against the SAFE Act, the work of governance requires continued efforts to represent us. Restoration of that respect would entail introducing measures to repeal the SAFE Act and thoroughly investigate the actions of the State Police with a goal of preventing such abuses from occurring again.

I only support those elected representatives who support my interests.

[1stmarine]

Very nice letter.
We need to keep sending them and faxes and calls non-stop.
I am into frying faxing machines and lines from calling every chance I get.

[Tom from WNY]

And from information presented from credible sources on Tom Baurele's program on WBEN this morning, it was more than a blatant attempt.

More like conspiracy to deprive. Hour 1 of the program:

http://www.wben.com/topic/play_windo...udioId=6326245

Hour 2 is positively chilling; I am positively enraged:

http://www.wben.com/topic/play_windo...audioId=632626

This is not the United States of America my predecessors defended in WWII. If one Uncle were alive today (and Uncle was an American who believed in right and wrong), well, just what would you think a soldier who served in the 82nd Airborne during the Battle of the Bulge would do?

[Still Shooting]

So, I go to the link for "Audio 2" and it tells me the "audio is unavailable" ??

[morcey2]

Originally Posted by Still Shooting

So, I go to the link for "Audio 2" and it tells me the "audio is unavailable" ??

That part of the program was done in a combination of Braille and sign language.

[1stmarine]

Tom,
Many people including myself want this repealed ASAP but IMO the longer this non-sense stays in place the better because the law is so absurd, irrational and arbitrary that severe mistakes will continue to be made like this one.
This is providing amazing amount of legal ammunition to take this down in the important legal battles.
So Cuomo is not feeling the heat big time. On on side the political corruption downstate (where the NY hemorrhoids reside) and then this crime against the civil liberties, the state and federal law and the constitution.
Cuomo and his gang are under investigation now from several ends.
more to come.

[1stmarine]

Senators Ball's Press Release regarding some of the illegal activities the NYS Governor and his gang have been doing...

http://www.nysenate.gov/press-releas...scation-begins

[ratt_finkel]

Just finished reading all of this 1stmarine. It really is a shame what law makers are rolling out. I have not been able to follow all of these changes as intensly as I would like. But I salute you and the other NYS gun owners taking a stand. Wish you guys the best!

PS there is plenty of room here in TX

[Ash]

You know it was low and underhanded based solely on the speed in which it was passed. The antis had their bill ready (they always have it ready) and they rammed it through before anyone really had a chance to talk about it.

As for the guy who was wrongly confiscated...I wonder how long before he gets hist stuff back? Due process?

[1stmarine]

Aside from other leaked news here the finally released documents after the NYS fiasco and clear proof of their illegal activities.
The only way they could know that (read below) at the time was by tapping into the medical records that are protected by federal law. That law that they violated by the Governor and the Police Superintendent.
Now they subpoenaed medical records which IMO is not technically legal still as there is no evidence so IMO all they are trying to do is to see if this move will cover their tukuses that they
are going to get hammered in court by the upcoming civil rights suits. Actually the person referred is a man who was on a mild antidepressant and never had any issues with the law and is a honest
hardworking citizen. His doctor was petrified they actually considered him a threat of any kind. Now everyone is saying this was a big mistake after exposing his personal information, confiscating his
firearms legally owned, cancelling his pistol permit and making him suffer the consequences of this illegal laws and media circus. Now the County doesn't want to be sued and for a good reason because they
are going to loose. Please pass along. We need to put this governor and his gang in jail.

http://www.wben.com/pages/9623354.ph...044&pid=313528


http://imgsrv.wben.com/image/wben2/U...nDocuments.pdf

[1stmarine]

I thought this was appropriate here....

Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Posted 2013-04-25 22:51
by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment

Why We Can't Have A "Reasonable Discussion" On 2A


The other night I got into a twitter-flamefest with Dylan Ratigan on, you guessed it, guns.

He tweeted something about The Senate and "reasonable" gun control and I went after him. He responded and the game was on. You can back through my timeline (as Tickerguy) and have a look if you want.

The conversation quickly degenerated when he started with the "So you're for private ownership of nukes, right?" crap and "The Second Amendment was written in a time of muskets, so that's what it covers" nonsense.

I retorted with "So the First Amendment is about movable type, paper and ink -- hand-driven -- right?"

Ah, no answer.

Didn't think I'd get one, by the way, so rather than keep hammering that I instead pointed this out the following (and it took three tweets to do it @ 140 characters each):

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution (no government can give what it does not have)

2A recognizes the fundamental human right to self-defense, irrespective of the attacker's identity.

The Bill of Rights PROTECTS Rights, it does not GRANT them as government NEVER HAD THEM TO GRANT.

This is why we can't have a "reasonable" debate on this point with people on the other side of the debate.

They refuse to recognize these essential facts:

The Government never possessed a single right, therefore it cannot grant them. Instead, we the people granted a limited set of privileges to Government. That's what a Constitutional Republic is.

The Second Amendment is formal recognition of your, my, and everyone else's Right to Life. Since the police cannot be everywhere nor do they have a duty to prevent or stop a crime in process (and they cannot be held legally accountable if they fail to do so, never mind that even if they could dead is still dead) you have the right to self-defense which flows from your right to life.
Dylan was looking for a place to insert a wedge because he refused to debate from principle. He wanted to look for a way to play the typical media "gotcha" game but I'm too smart for that as I've been at this for 20+ years as has he. He should know, having dealt with me on the bankster issues, that he wasn't going to get away with that crap but he tried anyway -- and failed.

If you look at principle -- that is, what's embodied in the Declaration of Independence -- then there is nothing difficult in figuring out where the lines are at all. Not here, not on the First Amendment, not on the Fourth or Fifth. All are simple.

And more importantly, all lead to inescapable conclusions for virtually every case, leaving only a few uncommon circumstances to be briefed and argued in a courtroom or legislative chamber.

The First Amendment most-certainly applies to all types of speech, because speech is a component of Liberty. Government didn't give you that right (they never had it to give away), you have it because you are human. You therefore have the right to speak, but not the right to force someone to listen or to pay to amplify your speech for you. This right extends to words printed on paper using movable type, it extends to skywriting, it extends to the Internet and it extends to other forms and means of effecting speech that we have not thought of yet but will in the future. Note that this doesn't mean that you can't face consequences for your speech after the fact -- if you skywrite "Joe Schmoe is a pedophile!" and it's false Joe can sue you to beyond the orbit of Mars.

The Fourth Amendment applies in Boston to the searches of homes and what was done there is blatantly unconstitutional and as a consequence is a crime under 18 USC 242 (and is civilly actionable under 42 USC 1983.) The so-called "law enforcement" people who committed those searches and seizures under duress without a warrant violated the law. Period. This is true irrespective of the means by which such is done because The Fourth Amendment does not grant you the right to be secure in your papers and effects, you have that right because it is an essential element of liberty; the freedom to possess privately-obtained property through the fruits of your labor without it being rifled through or stolen by anyone, including government agents, except under due process of law where probable cause exists to believe you have personally committed a crime. Again, there are logical exceptions -- if a police officer personally sees a fleeing felon he is chasing enter your residence he can follow him onto your property without a warrant. But what he can't do is guess.

The Fifth Amendment likewise attaches to the actions in Boston and also gives rise to criminal liability under 18 USC 242 to the extent that anything was seized, no matter how momentarily, without a warrant. Again, The Fifth Amendment is not a grant from government it is recognition of your fundamental liberty interests that vested in you at birth.

And finally, The Second Amendment protects your right to exercise self-defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that could reasonably be expected to attempt to unlawfully deprive you of your life. It is again not a grant from government either of a right or a privilege because government never had this to give.

The Declaration called forth where your right to life came from -- your creator. In other words, you have that right because you're human just like you have the right to liberty and pursuit of (but not guarantee of attainment of) happiness.

All the answers to "where is the line?" come easily and logically when you debate from principle instead of playing games. The Second Amendment therefore protects your right to keep and bear any arms that might be reasonably used in the present time for the purpose of defense of yourself or those in your charge, voluntarily or otherwise, against any reasonable threat of death or serious bodily harm by any reasonably-foreseeable malefactor who would take your life or liberty unlawfully from you.

It is therefore quite clear that you may keep and bear any gun which you are able to carry and deploy as a single individual because murderous marauders sometimes attack in packs, sometimes are jacked up on drugs and often are capable of physically overpowering you. Attackers also often keep coming even when hit in places that ultimately will be fatal; that the assailant will die from acute lead poisoning is of no value to you if he kills you first. Yes, this means you may keep and bear, under The Declaration's statement of your rights, a machine gun. Yes, this includes a gun with a "silencer" (which really doesn't make it silent.) Yes, it includes a gun with a 10, 20, 30 or 100 round magazine -- or ten of them. Yes, it includes a concealed pistol. Yes, 2 guns. Yes, if I (or someone else) invent one, a Star Trek Phasor. Yes, 100 guns and as much ammunition as you care to buy and store should you so choose; although you can only shoot two at a time (unless you're from Mars and have six hands) there may be others in your care, custody or association that could use them in the event of a need of defense when they are in your company.

Now let's look at the "nuke" argument that the left loves to trot out.

Is there a reasonable argument to be made that a person possessing a nuclear device would have reason to use it under any rationally-foreseeable circumstance that would be deemed, in full totality of the circumstance in hindsight, self-defense?

I can't come up with the circumstances under which that would apply, despite putting a fair bit of mental effort into it.

We answered the question with logic, didn't we?

So where's the line?

Let's apply logic and your right to life as the guideposts.

If there are no MS-13 gangs coming into the country with armored vehicles, then I don't need an anti-tank rocket. If there is no permanent Army with tanks on American soil, then I don't need one for the eventuality that our government may go rogue and try to blast me with one. If there are no drones based in, located in, or flying over American cities then I don't need defensive devices that can shoot them down, disable their weapons or jam their communications. And before you say "but the government would never do that" please go ask the question of the 6+ million dead Jews who would beg to differ with you, or if you prefer you may pick on the dead Armenians, Soviets, Chinese, Guatemalans, Ugandans, Cambodians or Rwandans -- and that's just in the last 100 years or thereabouts, totaling something like 80 million people or several times as many as were killed in all the wars of the 20th Century combined.

By the way -- The Constitution prohibits standing Armies -- it prohibits an appropriation spanning more than two years for the purpose of raising an army. On the other hand the Constitution explicitly permits forming and funding a standing Navy.

Guess why? Because that ties in directly to the people's right to life; a Navy is used to protect vessels at sea and the coastline and has by its nature rather limited inland reach.

That our government has wantonly and illegally violated its own founding documents doesn't change a thing. But it does change what's covered by the Second Amendment if you debate from the principles that founded this nation and are embodied in The Declaration, and the items covered by the Second Amendment are directly linked to our government's own voluntarily-taken actions.

All of the other so-called "tough questions" are likewise answered by looking to principle, and at the same time we solve, to a large degree, our crime problems.

Like, for example, this question that left loves to run:

Does a felon have a right to life? Yes, under The Declaration. During the time he or she is incarcerated The State takes responsibility for that life and is duty-bound to protect it. During the time he or she remains under supervision that duty and responsibility remains with The State. However, upon satisfaction of that person's "debt to society" they still have a right to life, which means that no law impairing their ability to defend themselves, post-discharge, is Constitutional!

But what about the bad guys, you ask?

That's simple, but we don't want to talk about it. In particular the liberals don't want to talk about it, because they're largely responsible for the dangerous animals prowling our streets.

If you are dangerous to others, as determined under due process of law, whether by reason of criminal activity or mental defect, the proper place for you is in an institution where your right to life remains but the duty to protect it is transferred to the state. At the same time since you have demonstrated (under due process of law) that you're dangerous to others you must be removed from having the ability to do that harm to others because their right to life trumps your asserted but non-existent right to murder,******or rob.

We could have prevented the shooting in upstate NY of several firefighters if we had not let the shooter out of prison after he killed his grandmother with a hammer. Likewise, most of the other murders are committed by people with violent criminal pasts. Yes, there is the exception, but it's exactly that -- an exception.

In fact, that's the history of "crime reporting" in this nation. The gang-bangers who shoot up people in Chicago literally every day rarely make the news, but the occasional nut is front-page news for weeks, despite the fact that the 20 people the nut kills are surpassed in less than a day by the thugs. Our media doesn't talk about the thugs because if we do we must face that we keep letting them out of prison with full knowledge that they are dangerous predators. Neither the media or politicians want to deal with this fact and so we bury it on page 15 -- if it gets mentioned at all.

How about private property? If I own property I may ban the keeping and bearing of arms upon it. I therefore may post signs demanding that you not bring guns into my store, theater or other place of business. I may also prohibit them in my home. The choice is mine, not yours. But on public property, where the people all have an equal right to be, they also have no obligation to give up their right to defend their life in order to be there. Therefore any peaceable person who wishes to have a firearm with them in a public park, on a beach, in their car on the road or in a public parking lot may do so. If and only if that person commits a crime by threatening others (or worse) is there cause to remove them from the people they are threatening, and the way we do that is by arresting them and charging them with the crime. If this threat is deemed (again, under due process) to be material and ongoing then we imprison them until that is no longer the case.

It's not hard folks. We don't need a National Firearms Act, we don't need a Gun Control Act of 1968 and we don't need a Brady Law. We don't need any of the 20,000+ gun laws now on the books, none of which have stopped gun violence because the definition of a criminal is a person who ignores the law. We can (and should) keep laws that enhance punishment for a crime committed with a firearm, and perhaps even strengthen those laws as they punish conduct, not possession of a device.

I remind everyone that with some 300,000,000 guns in America and about 11,000 homicides a year 0.004% of them are used in a murder annually. In other words 99.996% of the firearms owned are not used to murder someone in a given year.

None of the firearm laws will ever be effective and all of them are direct violations of your rights no matter what a liberal, conservative, cop, mayor, governor, or a man or woman in a black robe says.

They are violations of your rights because The Constitution does not grant rights -- it is incapable of doing so because Government never had any rights to begin with and thus cannot delegate what it never possessed.

There is only one solution to violent people, whether their violence manifests due to malevolence or insanity, and that is to isolate them from society until they either rehabilitate, are no longer insane, or die. That too is a fact and no amount of arguing over this can change reality. Gun prohibition has never and will never stop someone from committing a violent felony because the problem isn't a device, it's the criminal mind.

A person who intends to do harm will find a way; you can murder with a knife, an axe, a hammer, a gallon of gasoline or a Suburban. There are more people killed with hammers, baseball bats and fists than rifles of any sort, including so-called "assault rifles", each and every year. And let us not forget that the Boston Bombers appear to have chosen to use ordinary pressure cookers and fireworks to make their bombs.

Men and women with evil in their hearts are not deterred by laws. They are only deterred by being physically restrained -- that is, locked up.

If people on the other side of this position wish to have a principled debate where one must lay foundations for their positions and questions, tracing them to fundamental rights, then I'm all for it. Bring it on and I'm willing to engage. Contact me. I'm game. Let's do it, in public view.

But if all you've got is the common media game of "gotcha" you're wasting your time among those of us who understand where our rights come from, what limited government is, and what The Constitution actually does -- and doesn't do.

That's the bottom line.