Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

[mrsleeve]

[QUOTE=mar1t1me;2069807]I appreciate all the effort at explaining your positions./[quote]
No problem

While I certainly like the ideals being set forth, I am aware that times have significantly changed. The Founding Fathers had no idea what might be headed across the Atlantic with bad intent. There was no other option than to be constantly prepared to defend their homes, farms and towns from unknowable threats.

We may have become more modern and complex but no amount of modernization and complexity will change the fundamental rights of free men. The wisdom of the founders is as true now as it was then, they are too many people that think they are smarter than the founders. They arnen't, the founders knew what happens to govt and free societies, they become complacent and allow the govt to grow and become the very thing they had to fight, bleed and die to separate them selves from. They were not stupid, thats why they left a legacy for all of us (and the world) in to Constitution, and a many not so suttle warnings.

You are aware there was never any intention for there to be a standing army in the minds of the founders. But if actions were needed either the militia would be called into service, or and arm raised. But for small things it was to be settled with soldiers for hire, and the free markets. The founders had a serious distrust of standing armies and the men who wielded them from afar. Their intentions were for the US to never be in such a perceptions position but as you have noted times have changed.

To the point where the need for a strong standing army is necessary, and all the more reason to not start limiting the arms available to we the people.

As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia - James Madison

And while I'm certain there are many people out there like you who possess a reasonably sane view of life, there are an awful lot of paranoid whackos out there running around in their survival gear on the weekends who wait for "someday" when they'll get to use those many thousands of dollars worth of arms. They may be regulated, but they are not "well".

Hey there is nothing wrong with being prepared, Plan for the worst hope for the best. But yes I will agree with you the guys that are out there on the week ends playing army (not paint ball ) and dress in fatigues and shit all the time are a little on the paranoid side. I grew up in southern MI I know a bunch of those guys, they are good people mostly but they are a bit NUTS. You think I am anti Big GOVT Yikes.

I do also understand your observations of armaments available to foot soldiers. I hope you all are aware that foot soldiers are seldom sent into conflict first these days. If the government decides that people with excessive amounts of arms stored in their basements are "possible domestic terrorists", life will get tough for those guys real quick. Not to mention, if the government decides to attack your little compound, well.....remember Waco? The Davidians were pretty well stockpiled, but it's hard to fight the government and an inferno at the same time.

Your right 100% right, thats why the govt's want a 100% registration rate or wants to be able to ask it on the census, that way they know where and how many. Thats one of the reasons to fight a registration, because 1 its out birth rights and we dont need the govts permission, and 2 registration is the 1st step of confiscation. We have made many many compromises on Gun control and licensing of CCW holders as it is already. We need less gun laws if anything, remember a Armed society is a polite society.

Lastly, in my line of work I occasionally get to see some of the government's new toys. I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of any of it, armed or not. The foot soldier will soon be virtually obsolete.

No doubt, but it will always take boots on the ground, to clear and over take an enemy period. You can demoralize them all you want with drones and artillery and armor but you will always have to have boots on the ground.

DO you really think the bulk of the Military would follow such orders ( I assume by your S.N. you are or were a navy man) You swore an Oath to defend the Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Any order to suspend Posse Comitatus act, in order for the US military to openly engage in hostile actions against its own citizenry they have sworn to defend. Would fit the definition of the enemy of the Constitution, there would be those that would blindly follow the orders but most would not.

NOW dont get me wrong here, I m not one of those people that want this kind of thing to happen. I am a plan for the worst hope for the best guy, I do have shit hit the fan bag just in case for both my self and the little woman in case something dose happen we can disappear into the back country for a week or so or go to Gmas for that week depending on the situation. I also have a month or so worth of canned goods and freezer full of meat and 2k+ rounds for every firearm I own (but one) in the basement as dub said its because the prices have gotten so high and to buy with you can afford it. I dont want to see bad things happen to this country, but if they do I will be at least some what provisioned to take care of my self and my family and protect them to the best of my ability.

[retardotyler]

All I know is we should pool together for that HK21 and go blow some shit up.

[THE FEZMAN]

you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead fingers.

[Bimmerman325i]

I'm not worried about the gov't taking over or anything like that... I like my guns to hunt, range practice and home protection. I'm not the guy with the fully automatic rifles and stock piling tens of thousands rounds of ammo in the basement waiting for an apocalypse to happen. Those guys running around in make shift training camps frighten me and are probably a very small minority of the "typical" gun owner in the states.

I think most gun owners are like me.

This.

I don't have a CCW, don't see the point in getting one where I live (no crime around here to speak of, and my penis is big enough as is), nor do I even own a handgun. I have a pair of rifles and shotguns I use for hunting or for going to the range for practice. I'm only a member of the NRA because I have to be to stay a member at the range.

I'm not a loony thinking I need guns to keep away the government. Those people are fucking crazy.

Flame away, fellow crazies.

[mrsleeve]

Yeah I know Old thread

BUT

IL has been bitch slapped by the 7th circuit, IL's out right ban on CCW has been ruled unconstitutional and has 180 days to craft the necessary law.

CHICAGO December 11, 2012, 04:10 pm ET

CHICAGO (AP) — In a major victory for gun rights advocates, a federal appeals court on Tuesday struck down a ban on carrying concealed weapons in Illinois — the only remaining state where carrying concealed weapons is entirely illegal — and gave lawmakers 180 days to write a law that legalizes it.

In overturning a lower court decision, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the ban was unconstitutional and suggested a law legalizing concealed carry is long overdue in a state where gun advocates had vowed to challenge the ban on every front.

"There is no suggestion that some unique characteristic of criminal activity in Illinois justifies the state's taking a different approach from the other 49 states," Judge Richard Posner, who wrote the court's majority opinion. "If the Illinois approach were demonstrably superior, one would expect at least one or two other states to have emulated it."

Gun rights advocates were thrilled by the decision. They have long argued that the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment and what they see as Americans' right to carry guns for self-defense.

"Christmas came early for law-abiding gun owners," said state Rep. Brandon Phelps, a Democratic lawmaker from southern Illinois whose proposed legislation approving concealed carry narrowly lost in the Legislature last year. "It's a mandate."

Gov. Pat Quinn, who favors strict gun control laws, did not immediately comment on the ruling. In a statement, an aide to Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who is responsible for defending the state's laws in court, said Madigan's office would review the ruling before deciding whether to appeal or take other action.

"The court gave 180 days before its decision will be returned to the lower court to be implemented," Maura Possley, a Madigan spokeswoman, said in a statement. "That time period allows our office to review what legal steps can be taken and enables the legislature to consider whether it wants to take action."

Richard Pearson, the executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said there is no reason why lawmakers cannot pass Phelps' bill during a weeklong legislative session in January.

"Now that the court has ruled ... we will work as soon as possible with legislators to craft a concealed carry bill for the state of Illinois," he said.

The court did order its ruling stayed to "allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public," Posner wrote.

Phelps suggested that the court, in its 2-1 ruling, may have encouraged lawmakers to pass a far less restrictive concealed carry law than the one he proposed last year that was rejected.

"I said on the floor, 'A lot of people who voted against this, one of these days you're going to wish you did, because of all the limitations and the safety precautions we put in this bill, because one of these days the court's going to rule and you're not going to like the ruling," he said. "Today's the day."

The appellate panel's majority ruling, which was replete with historical references, argued that Illinois had not made a strong case that a gun ban was vital to public safety. It also was a signal to state lawmakers and gun-ban activists that the time to argue about the Second Amendment has passed.

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home," wrote Posner. "The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside."

But the dissenting judge, Ann Claire Williams, raised questions that could come up in a possible appeal or when lawmakers begin to debate and craft a new law addressing the issue.

After saying that "protecting the safety of its citizens is unquestionably a significant state interest," Williams wrote, "when firearms are carried outside the home, the safety of a broader range of citizens is at issue. The risk of being injured or killed now extends to strangers, law enforcement personnel, and other private citizens who happen to be in the area."

Gun rights advocates had been threatening to make Illinois once again the center of the national gun-control debate over the issue. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court made Chicago's 28-year-old handgun ban unenforceable, ruling that Americans have the right to have guns in their homes for protection. The city responded by approving alternative methods of restricting who can have guns.

Gun control advocates did not immediately respond to the ruling. But as other states passed concealed carry laws, they had argued that Illinois' ban was important for their stance in the national debate over gun control.

The country needs "one state people can look to and see it's still doing the right thing," Mark Walsh, director of the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said last year.

The ruling Monday stems from a lawsuit filed by a former corrections officer, Michael Moore of Champaign, a farmer, Charles Hooks of Percy in southeastern Illinois and the Bellevue, Wash.-based Second Amendment Foundation.

___

John O'Connor was reporting from Springfield.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=166971835

[evandael]

no amount of modernization and complexity will change the fundamental rights of free men.

what about my fundamental right to a life not surrounded by reactionary agressors who are strapped to the gills?

[chadthestampede]

what about my fundamental right to a life not surrounded by reactionary agressors who are strapped to the gills?

I see you're exercising your right to make sweeping generalizations.

[z31maniac]

what about my fundamental right to a life not surrounded by reactionary agressors who are strapped to the gills?

So, can you provide statistics on the number of licensed gun owners who commit violent crimes vs unlicensed criminals?

I suspect you won't return to the thread, or if you do, you will be unable to provide an answer..................at least not one that fits your scared little MSNBC narrative.

[mrsleeve]

^

yup

what about my fundamental right to a life not surrounded by reactionary agressors who are strapped to the gills?

Where does it say anything of the sort in the founding documents??

Next anyone that violates (other than the govt that is) you rights to life, liberty and property is in violation of one of the few directives that govt is supposed to handle. You have the right to go around armed or not its a personal choice. You choosing to not, in no way affects my right to carry a gun. We are not affecting your rights to life, so what gives you the right to infringe on my rights to carry a weapon????

Next when was the last time you were accosted by someone permitted to legally carried concealed weapon and with said weapon??? When you have had your life and limb threatened by someone with a CCW permit and their weapon then you can try and use this argument.


Umm you are aware that only about .3% of all violent crime is perpetrated by CCW holders right. On that baisis alone your argument is like a sieve, it holds no water


BTW you get the yob, and my PM I finally got around to sending you????

[evandael]

So, can you provide statistics on the number of licensed gun owners who commit violent crimes vs unlicensed criminals?

I suspect you won't return to the thread, or if you do, you will be unable to provide an answer..................at least not one that fits your scared little MSNBC narrative.

i can tell you only the subjective: it makes me uncomfortable. also, don't assume things about my character. i enjoy firearms.. as a hobby and for hunting. but you won't catch me with a CC license or a gun in my glovebox.

We are not affecting your rights to life, so what gives you the right to infringe on my rights to carry a weapon????

*snip*

BTW you get the yob, and my PM I finally got around to sending you????

all i'm saying is, throw more kindling on the fire and it's bound to get hotter. more guns =/= a safer environment, for the general public OR for the legal, law abiding gun owner. i don't like the idea of everyone carrying, i respect those who do so responsibly, but i think at the core of the issue is a reactive vs proactive solution to violence and crime. brandishing a firearm is a reactive, and therefore ineffective, solution to stopping destruction. compassion, wits, and communication are better.


also, yes and i did just your PM! thanks for the thoroughness and i apologize for not responding.. busy trying to get out of this semester and actually working. and hell, maybe buying a gun. gotta play the part, right?

[z31maniac]

i can tell you only the subjective: it makes me uncomfortable. also, don't assume things about my character. i enjoy firearms.. as a hobby and for hunting. but you won't catch me with a CC license or a gun in my glovebox.

People's ignorance makes me uncomfortable. Unfortunately, your "feelings" don't get to override the facts.

I'm all for Concealed Carry (although I question the mental state of those who want to Openly carry) and am all for gun rights and owndership.

I don't even own a gun. I haven't even fired a gun in 12 years.