The "Permission" to Keep and Bear Arms
- Thread starter NIGHTWATCH
- Start date
- Status
SmershAgent
Member
I shouldn't have to "make the effort" in order to exercise Constitutionally guaranteed rights. It's no longer an issue of rights if you're forced to travel the country until you find a place that will "allow" you to own the small arms of your choice. It's that simple.
I have no criminal record, but where I live I am prohibited from owning:
any automatic weapon
any short barelled rifle or shotgun
any destructive device
any silencer
Additionally, I must submit an application to the state police and pay a fee, upon which I will be mailed an ID card that I must display before I can do so much as pick up a box of ammo at the store to read the price tag.
That sounds like infringement to me. I've read this whole thread, and I suspect you will continue to disagree, but to each his own. I think most rational people would agree with my assesment of the situation.
SmershAgent
Member
I should not have to make the choice between living where I want and exercising a Constitutional right. Therein lies the problem.
SmershAgent
Member
I don't understand the point/analogy/rebuttal.
SmershAgent
Member
The Constitution (and thus the 2A) are the supreme laws of the land. They supercede everything else. All of these restrictions at the state level are infringements on my right to keep and bear arms. To that extent, the Second Amendment has everything to do with my state's gun laws.
ctdonath
Member
Me.
I just moved to Georgia.
I can't carry a handgun concealed because GA paperwork hasn't gone thru its 3 month processing time and I pay for the priviledge.
I can't carry a handgun openly because GA environmental law (!) forbids it.
I can't bring my Class III item to GA until the BATFE grants permission to do so, weeks of paperwork.
I can't carry anything most places because most destinations/trips include GA-defined "public gatherings" where mere possession is prohibited - unloaded locked in trunk in parking lot included, so the entire trip (I travel >100 miles per day) must legally be disarmed.
I can't carry in NY anymore because, despite having had a fully legal CCW permit, moving out-of-state invalidates that paperwork - disarming my monthly 2000-mile round-trips, as possession at the destination is now illegal.
I can't possess a standard military weapon (M16/M4) because post-'86 ones are illegal and pre-'86 ones have been priced into oblivion and are wearing out.
I can't fire guns on my own property, no matter how safely. Simply forbidden within city limits.
Now with all that in place, you will respond...
"Well, just wait a bit and you'll have paperwork & permission in place." Too late: my family suffered a dog attack two days ago - thanks to bureaucratic delays, I was legally disarmed. Dogs & thugs don't care that your paperwork hasn't gone through yet. Odds are that you won't need it during that "reasonable delay" - but statistics mean nothing when it happens to you ... or me last Monday.
"You can still own handguns." Fat lot of good they do me locked up in the safe, waiting for state permission to take them out.
"You can carry a long gun." Technically legal - explain it to the judge. Police & community won't be putting up very long with some guy strolling thru malls, grocery stores, gas stations, etc. with an M1 slung over his shoulder. In Buffalo NY a guy trying this was nailed for "disturbing the peace" and jailed accordingly. Social aversion to openly heavily armed folks is so great that you WILL get caged for violating some of a myriad of hazily-worded laws.
"You can buy a machinegun (aka: standard modern military arms)." The norm in this nation is the M16 - which runs for more than 10 times its natural price, IF you can find one for sale, and even then it's well-used, and that upon months of paperwork and hundreds of dollars. Yes, it's conceivable to obtain what the Founding Fathers intended citizens own - but being limited to >20-year-old tools at 10x their natural price is defacto prohibition. That something is conceivably possible under extraordinary efforts does not justify the theory - we're talking practical exercise of RKBA, not nuanced semantics.
"So move already, say to Vermont." Since when does the USA Constitution apply to varying degrees depending on state? How does "shall not be infringed" - especially when incorporated to the states by the 14th (?) Amendment - mean I lose my right to CCW just because I switched states and some paperwork is delayed? Does "equal protection" not apply? Does "full faith and credit" not apply?
"Well, you DO own guns, right? So there." I can only own what the state and feds allow me to. I can't own a new M4 - despite it being the standard infantry weapon. I can't carry anything without permission and according to strict guidelines (no pistol merely shoved in pocket, GA only allows carry in belt or shoulder holsters - with proper paperwork approved, of course). By this precedent, there isn't much stopping the feds/state from declaring the only arms allowed are muskets, broken down and stored at the police station - that's keeping regulated arms, right?
"If you want to practice shooting, go somewhere it's allowed." 'scuze me? We're talking safely on private property. Noise won't be a problem once I get a suppressor. Safety won't be a problem given a proper backstop (or ventilated basement). No, I'd have to go pay someone to let me shoot on their property. State/federal parks/forests? Not in Georgia - verboten.
And all that is in one of the more permissive states.
The Founding Fathers had "minutemen" in mind when the penned the 2nd Amendment: citizens armed with standard military weapons, deployable in 1 minute flat. That goal has certainly been "infringed", when one must beg the state's permission to do so (for simple carry of a mere pistol), and instead of modern military arms (a new M4 for ~$800) the whole nation of 300,000,000 citizens must haggle over a few thousand >20-year-old M16s at outrageously inflated (as natural consequence of infringing law) prices.
I have submitted to multiple background checks, fingerprinting, paperwork, fees, reviewed by states, counties, and national bureacracies, spent countless hours studying the laws, have no criminal history - and I can't carry a legal handgun just because of MORE paperwork.
I have a problem with that. Do you?
The US Constitution takes precedence over all local, state and national laws. That means that if a city, state, or the nation passes a law that violates the Constitution, then that law is illegal. What that means is that no one can take away the civil liberties outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. No person can decide that they can remove certain rights for others. It is as though the rights laid out in the Constitution are rights we are born with, like our eyes or our hands, and cannot be legally taken away.
GhostRider66
Member
Are you serious??? Really? Wow...just wow. Local, county, state and federal laws are all subject to Constitutional scrutiny and are regularly challenged on this basis up to the Supreme Court. And what about the pesky Constitution here:
Article VI
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
I mean I really have to question the rationale of your agruments throughout here.
peacefuljeffrey
member
I don't have to wonder why you conveniently ignore the fact that the Lautenberg act strips the right to own guns from people who pleaded guilty in their own best interests to misdemeanor domestic violence in order to avoid thousands of dollars of legal fees they couldn't afford, even thirty years ago.
Obviously, pointing out that fact destroys your claim that the Lautenberg atrocity is a good thing.
Your attitude is evidently one of "zero tolerance / zero thinking": You refuse to look beyond the surface issue of "it's a domestic violence thing," and realize that far from every case fits neatly into the category of, "Damn skippy, that evil wife-beater should lose his gun rights!" Many are just ridiculous cases that never should have been classifed as "domestic violence."
And people who made pleas in the past should NEVER be given ex post facto punishment repercussions that were not in place when their case was tried or when their crime was committed. There are people -- COPS, even -- who can't own guns now (Lautenberg didn't exempt cops, if I'm not mistaken) because back in the '80s they pleaded no contest to a trumped-up misdemeanor DV charge just to get rid of it -- when there was no gun prohibition attached to such a plea.
Now in 2005, the BTK serial murderer comes out and confesses to 10 murders that took place when the death penalty was not in force in his state. So the death penalty does not apply to a serial killer because it was not in place when he did his murders -- but a gun ban should apply to a guy who got arrested because he may or may not have slapped his wife after she kicked him in the balls, and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor to make the whole thing go away?!
Your logic is astoundingly bad. It's chilling to think that there may be truth to you being an officer of the law. There should be laws against people like you being so.
(Oh, wait, there is: you aren't upholding your oath to defend the Constitution!)
-Jeffrey
SmershAgent
Member
So the document is just a set of suggestions that state governments are free to ignore if they choose?
peacefuljeffrey
member
So as long as we live in a country where we are allowed to own single shot .22 rifles, we aren't being denied our Second Amendment rights?
Where, during the span of '94-'04, in the U.S.A., could I have purchased a newly manufactured AR-15 with bayonet lug and flash suppressor?
Could I have "moved to a state that would have allowed me to"?
As long as there is one state we can uproot our entire lives and the lives of our families to move to, we are not being denied our rights?
How about we ban free speech in all states but Idaho. Then we can all move there to exercise our rights, and no harm done, right?
-Jeffrey
peacefuljeffrey
member
An answer like that definitely proves you are a troll.
It's just unequivocal now.
-Jeffrey
"So as long as we live in a country where we are allowed to own single shot .22 rifles, we aren't being denied our Second Amendment rights?"
Correct - you are keeping and bearing an arm. If you are going to interpret it literally, there is your literal result. <More extraneous material removed by Art>
Correct - you are keeping and bearing an arm. If you are going to interpret it literally, there is your literal result. <More extraneous material removed by Art>
Last edited by a moderator:
The Real Hawkeye
member
I don't personally believe that Centac and The Rabbi actually believe anything they are saying. Like most leftists, they cannot actually tell you what they believe, because that would discredit them entirely (they still hope to persuade a few of us), so they create disingenuous arguments supporting the status quo that even they don't believe. I'd love to know what their real agenda is, but leftists only talk about that among themselves.
So we interpret the 2nd literally and concretely, with no room for evaluation, except for the kind of gun, the location of the gun, where we carry it, who we give it to, all those we can interpret as we see fit? So is it an organic document that changes and is subject to interpretation, no wait, we have to treat it concretely, but it doesnt say I can have a GAU8, but I know thats what it means, but then people could interpret it differently....
No wonder they call your types "reactionaries"
No wonder they call your types "reactionaries"
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
centac, reactionaries are liberal, pinko commies 
Government legislation, regulations, and bureaucratic whimsy that turn a firearm that has an actual value of around $800 and is plentiful in the warehouses of Europe into a scarce firearm with a value of $20,000 is not infringement in your view. And you believe that's the free market at work. I'd purely hate to see your idea of a centrally controlled economy. You have torturous logic, my friend. I've been told that you are an academic. It seems to be true.
Government legislation, regulations, and bureaucratic whimsy that turn a firearm that has an actual value of around $800 and is plentiful in the warehouses of Europe into a scarce firearm with a value of $20,000 is not infringement in your view. And you believe that's the free market at work. I'd purely hate to see your idea of a centrally controlled economy. You have torturous logic, my friend. I've been told that you are an academic. It seems to be true.
The Real Hawkeye
member
The Federal Government only has that authority which the states (as representing the will of their citizens) have granted to it. That's the idea of a government of limited powers. Remember, it was the states that were supposed to deal with safety and police concerns, not the Fed. In order for the Federal Government to place any regulations at all on the kinds of firearms we may own and carry, that authority has to be granted to it. It is up to you to prove that the authority is granted by the Constitution, or one of its amendments. It is not up to us to prove that the Constitution authorizes us to own this or that firearm. You have it backwards.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Deleted
The Real Hawkeye
member
I must have missed something. Who advocated a liberal (I assume you mean leftist) interpretation?
- Status
